Hirelings: Making the Players Care

When I started my TS&R Jade campaign, I made a list of 20 randomly armed men-at-arms for the home town. When players wanted to hire some, I'd check their Charisma scores to see how many turned up, and have the players roll d20 however many times to determine who they got to hire that session. And of course, my sons helped me come up with funny names for many of them, like Yuseok (a Korean name that sounds like 'you suck') or Geun Hae (the name of the disgraced former president). Not all the names are Korean, and most are not jokey. But a good number of them are. 

It didn't take long for repeat hires to appear. Players remembered the names, and this made them feel a little more attached.

It also didn't take long for the group to start losing men-at-arms in combat. If a repeat hire was slain, there was a bit more emotion behind it.

At first, I was replacing them. I'd erase the line with that character in my notebook, and come up with another one. I made a random table to roll for their weapons and armor (mostly not very good). 

Early this year, after a particularly rough adventure for the men-at-arms, I told the players that this was it. I was replacing these guys, and that was it. The town of Pine Bridge was running out of young men and women willing to risk death for a bit of coin as hired guards/soldiers. 

Nate had had his PC collect weapons and armor from some bandits they defeated, and he had been loaning these out to any hired men-at-arms to help with their AC and damage potential. But once I made it clear there would be no more replacements (at least not in Pinebridge Town), and men-at-arms continued to die, players hiring them started shelling out for better armors than the brigandine Saro (Nate's PC) was providing them. It helped that at 3rd to 5th level, they've got plenty of cash saved up. 

Even that is not always enough. This past session, one of the men-at-arms was killed, despite wearing plate armor. The monsters got a good attack roll, and he only had 1hp, so he was gone. The players were a little bit upset that they had lost a man. Not terribly so, but there was a lot stronger reaction than there were in the earlier sessions when they thought there would always be a Hau En Wai to replace Nobuo, or a Nguyen to replace Jin Ping.

The men-at-arms are a useful resource, and making them memorable (even without personalities) then limiting their number has greatly increased their value in the players' eyes.

Conundrum: Motivators of Play for Cathartic Games

As I continue to work on modifying the Open d6 System for a Wuxia/Tianxia* style game as a revision of Flying Swordsmen, I'm struck by a few thoughts that make me hesitate.

One, which I know I've discussed before in relationship to my Asian-inspired fantasy games, is that of authenticity or at least getting the tone and feel right. Yeah, I'm a White dude, born and raised in the Midwest, but who has lived more than half of my life in East Asia, learning the languages, the cultures, the ways of thinking. Obviously, I don't get it as deeply as someone born and raised here. But I think I do understand it well enough to get a passable game setting. But I still have those nagging thoughts that I'm just making another version of "D&D in Funny Hats" (which was what I was blatantly doing with TS&R Jade). 

The second, which is related, is how to properly set up game systems that will motivate play for this sort of game? While there is an aspect of monster-slaying and treasure-hunting in Tianxia fiction, and a bit of that in Wuxia fiction, the typical D&D trope of slay the monsters and take their stuff, XP points accumulate just doesn't work as well for the sort of game I want to run. Flying Swordsmen has always started out great, but the games peter out pretty quickly because players flounder without simple goals like "go get the treasure." 

The action may be what draws people to the source material (especially the films/TV shows), but it's the character drama that really makes Wuxia interesting.

There's a part of me that thinks the authenticity part is not so important anyway. It's a game. Games are meant to be fun. Catharsis is fulfilling, but it's not always fun. Escapism is nearly always fun. So should I just not worry about it, and make another escapist game with Asian tropes? I could, but I've already done that (and done it well, I think). 

This time, I want to get a game that actually rewards playing not just a cool martial arts mystical warrior, but playing up the rivalries with other students or sects, difficulties with dealing with your sifu who is really good at kung fu but a shit person otherwise, or having to be torn between your duty to society (or family, or the king, or religion, etc.) and your desires for how you want to live your life.

For people equally well-acquainted (or better acquainted) with the Confucian Heritage Cultures (CHCs, as they are sometimes referred to in academics), this won't be a problem. I can present the rules, they will understand the tropes, and be able to work them in easily as they wish. For people not well-acquainted, I'm either going to have to write a cultural treatise on the subject, or else simply find a game mechanic system that will encourage this sort of thing within the rules.

I don't think I am up for the whole treatise thing. It's not my real area of academic endeavor, and it would take a long time and a lot of the people who need it would probably just ignore it, or misinterpret it anyway. So it feels to me, as I sit here today, like it will be a wasted effort. Those who wish to learn this stuff can find all sorts of resources online with just a simple Google search anyway. 

That leaves me with game mechanics. 

What I've got so far, is copying games like White Wolf or PbtA where they have a series of questions for each player to answer at the end of a game session. How did you do this? Can you provide an example of that? Show how you avoided doing this? For each question the players can give that plays to the tropes of the genre or leverages these Confucian relationships, they will get a Character Point. For each example where they break the tropes or go against the social expectations that Wuxia fiction demands.

Of course, then we get into discussions of railroading, metaplots, quantum ogres, and all that sort of thing. I'm not going to get into that right now, but I will say that from my experiences with Star Wars d6, if the players know they are in it for the immersive emulation experience (they want to experience what it's like to be a character in the SW universe), they will put up with more manipulation by the referee than they might otherwise with a more sandboxy D&D game. 

Until I can think of a better mechanic to try to encourage play that is more than just "beat up that guy, take his stuff" in a subtle fashion, I think this is the way to  go.

*Wuxia is very human-focused, Tianxia is more fantastical

Escapist Play vs Cathartic Play in RPGs

On Sunday, I've been invited to take part in a play test session for a local guy (I've never met him before) who is working on his own game. Of course I said yes. 

He sent us a message a week or so ago with a few options for a setting for the play test. 

• American Western
• Late Middle Ages
• Modern Day
• Warhammer 40k
• Near-Future Sci-fi
• Viking Age

Viking Age ended up the winner, which is good. It was my #1 choice out of those (WH40K being bottom of the barrel for me).

I don't know much about the system yet (I was told "Bring 4d6 and a pen, not a pencil"), but from a few clues, and from a message he sent yesterday with some of his expectations for the game (not just vikings, but 8th Century horror set in Northern Europe at the dawn of the Viking Age), it was pretty obvious to me that he's working on a Forge style Story Game, rather than an old school or new school style Adventure Game. 

I'm not the biggest fan of the story games side of the hobby. I haven't had the best experience with them, because I find that either the mechanics support a GAME, in which case it takes a lot of force to make the right sort of story emerge, or else the mechanics support a STORY, in which case there's not really a lot of relevant game play to keep things interesting. 

I'll post my thoughts on the session, his game system, and everything next week, of course. For now, though, preparing for this game has got me thinking about that dichotomy. 

JB at BX Blackrazor has started calling his games Fantasy Adventure Games (FAGs... yeah, he knows) rather than RPGs. I think he may be on to something. Whether it's OD&D, Gamma World, 5E D&D, Traveller, any of the myriad of Palladium system games, various licensed property games like any edition of a Star Wars RPG, they all have one thing in common. They're primarily escapist. 

You get to create a character and go on adventures. Maybe you become a great hero or villain, maybe you get slain by a kobold or shot by the first stormtrooper to cross your path. It's exciting, it's fun, it's a way to get away from all the stress of your daily life. 

It's like going to see the latest MCU movie in the theater. A fun afternoon. Or it's supposed to be, anyway.

Sometimes, that silly popcorn movie of a game impacts you deeply in some way. And when it does, it makes us love the game all the more. But we're not expecting the game to change us in a deep way every session. It's part of the game, actually. Whether the session will be exciting or boring, pedestrian or deeply moving...that's all up to chance. It's unexpected. 

Story Games in the mold of The Forge, however, are typically designed to emulate fiction. They want that Three Act, or Five Act, structure that movies have. They also tend to try and explore some theme, linked to emotion and trying to get into the head of someone going through some shit. In that sense, they are a lot closer to the origins of Role Play as a psychotherapy. You're there to explore emotional impacts, traumas, and hard moral decisions in the game. And if the game is well designed, you'll also create an interesting narrative out of the experience. 

It's like going to see an art film at a film festival. It's cathartic. Or is supposed to be, anyway. 

Sometimes, though, that deeply moving, lovingly crafted art film is just a boring dud. You come away from it feeling like you just wasted a few hours of your life, because you couldn't connect to the characters, and the story was purposefully vague or anti-climactic to make some sort of statement. Maybe you kind of get what they were going for, but you still didn't really enjoy the experience. 

And I think for me, one of the reasons this always seems to happen to me when I play more narrative-focused Forge style games, is that I know how the sausage is made. I've studied creative writing and screenwriting. I've been a DM for 4 decades now. I've got insider knowledge on both ends. 

Being able to see how the game mechanics are supposed to craft a five act structure, or manipulate you into feeling just this sort of way about the events in the game...well, I see through it. 

It turns what should be an entertaining, if challenging, art film experience (or literary novel read, take your pick) and turns it into one of those poorly made films where you see every "twist" coming a mile away. Or at least it seems like that for me. 

Still, I'm looking forward to seeing what this guy has done. I may not be the target audience for his game, but that may make me more valuable to him as a play tester. And maybe, fingers crossed, this will change my experience of story games. I'll let y'all know soon.

It's not your DM's job to provide you with a story

I've been in a bit of a lull this weekend, not really motivated to work on my research. So I've been wasting a lot of time on YouTube. This video popped up on my recommended list today. I've seen a few videos from this guy before, and while focused on 5E, he's given me a few things to think about with regards to the game.

I have a few issues with this video, though, and so, since this seems to be the way debate happens on the internet, I should actually be making my own YouTube video, sampling bits of this one, and then giving my rebuttal or interpretation, or explaining how my philosophy differs. But I'm just going to write up my thoughts here instead, since my web cam is busted. I guess I could use my phone camera to do it - it's better quality than my web cam anyway. But I'll just write my ideas here anyway.

His "simple dirty tricks" to run a successful RP session are:
0. Have a goal for the session (this is more of a general bit of advice he gives)
1. Introduce a backstory NPC (AKA a new NPC related to a PC's backstory)
2. Introduce a third party (to complicate the RP with a new agenda)
3. Set the PCs up for a fall (a bait and switch/manipulate their emotions gambit)
4. Create a moral dilemma for the PCs (orc babies, anyone?)
5. Introduce a new ally or enemy (how this is different from #1 is...the new NPC is not related to a PC's backstory, how it's different from #2 is...I'm not exactly sure, unless the "third party" in #2 is completely neutral in whatever conflicts are going on)


My first impression is that aside from one of the "dirty tricks" (#3), I wouldn't consider any of these to be dirty tricks. But with the nature of click-bait titles, I'll let that slide. He needed to jazz up the title to get people interested. And in my case, it did work.

So, first of all, his idea to "have a goal for the session" seems to imply that the DM knows and is planning for an RP session. My philosophy of GMing any more is to never have a goal for the session as GM. It's the players' responsibility to come up with goals for the session. If they decide to just hang out in town chatting up NPCs, THAT is apparently the goal they have come up with for the session.

That said, if the players do opt to RP the entire session instead of exploring or hacking & slashing, his five bits of advice of things to throw into the session to liven things up aren't all bad.

#1 seems to imply coming up with a "backstory NPC" off the cuff. While that's certainly possible, I've found through the years that throwing in an already established NPC works better. We've already got an idea of the NPC's character, and the players may familiar with the NPC's attitudes, goals, etc.

I did this intuitively as a kid. My best friend's main Fighter had a 3 Charisma, and tended to piss off otherwise friendly and helpful NPCs. If we were in a long RP session, I could usually find a way to work in one of the "Caric's Enemies Club" to the game and have some fun interactions with an established NPC.

#2 seems to again be premised on the idea that the DM is running the players through some sort of predetermined story. Having multiple factions that the players are free to oppose or try to ally with is great. And if there's a lull in the dungeon delving, it is in fact a good time to introduce new factions to the players. If you're trying to run the players through some kind of specific plot (whether it's predetermined or just heavily guided to try and steer things a certain way), this is actually a good way to derail that story! The players may find the new faction more engaging than the current allies/enemies, and want to totally switch gears. I'm actually all for that. But I don't think that's what the guy in the video intended.

#3 can be a real dick move, if not done right. And the guy making the video does warn you not to overuse this idea. The problem I see with it it, if you don't plan this ahead of time, it won't have the emotional payoff you're hoping for. And if you do plan it ahead of time, and are just waiting around for the players to disengage from the exploration and talk to the NPCs for a session, it will feel contrived when you trot it out. Now, if you're running them through some sort of story, and you know you'll have a break in the narrative, yeah, this would be a good time to use something like this. But if you are just providing a game world for the players to explore, this sort of thing should come up naturally as part of the in-game cause/effect of player actions/reactions. It's not the sort of thing that should be planned and "sprung" on the players just to try to manipulate them emotionally.

#4 shouldn't be something the DM forces on the players. The DM should always be giving them situations where they have choices to make of a moral or ethical nature. But I can't, as DM, force the players to engage in the choice as a dilemma. That depends on the player's mentality and how they envision their character.

In my experience, since RPGs are NOT the real world and the consequences aren't real to the players, they will happily take a situation that might actually be a dilemma in real life and easily choose to do one thing or the other. A writer can decide that Hamlet can't decide whether avenging his father or not betraying his king is the morally correct action. As a DM, all I can do is dangle the situation in front of the players. Whether they decide to ignore their father's ghost, run straight to the throne room and draw steel, or spend days moping around fretting about the decision is out of my hands. It's my job to take their decision and roll with it, and play it out.

And if there is a dilemma, it's usually not every character fretting over the possible courses of action. It's a debate between PCs that have made opposite decisions. And they will happily debate it out in character (and sometimes out of character too) while I just sit there and listen.

#5, as I noted above, isn't really any different than #1 or #2. They're all basically trying to spice up an RP session by throwing in more NPCs to interact with. And that's fine. If the players have decided to hang out in town and do research, pursue personal goals, or just have a laugh, the more and more varied types of NPCs they have to interact with, the better. This point just suggests a different type of NPC to throw at the players compared to the first two "dirty tricks."

So looking at the specific points offered, yes, these are usually good ways to spice up role play encounters. In fact, they would mostly work even if it's just an encounter, not an entire session. The problem I have with the video's premise is that it expects the DM to be providing some sort of coherent narrative for the players to move through. That's not the DM's job. The DM should set the stage. The DM should be reactive to the actions of the PCs more often than they should be actively trying to "move the plot" of the game.

If the DM plans for an RP session, and prepares one of these "dirty tricks" to use, but the players aren't in the mood for an RP session and would rather get on with the adventure, then it's going to be a dull or frustrating session for everyone.

So budding DMs, don't force it. If you find your players in the mood for some heavy RP instead of exploration/combat, remember these "tricks" as things you can do when things seem to slow down and you need to add a bit of spice. Just don't force them upon your players.

Inexperienced players, force it! If you're in the mood for role play, role play away! If you want to explore or get in a fight or whatever, let the DM know that's what you want to do.

The best RP sessions aren't pre-planned or forced. They just happen spontaneously.