How to write adventures - I keep talking about scene based design

I'm continuing my thinking on adventure design, and have now come to how I've planned out my Savage Worlds scenarios. Since I've heard so much about how great this game is for cons, I designed scenarios from that. I've listened to how people often use a scene based design to fit in the time constraints, and that fit me perfectly.

So, I wanted to do something with a lot of feel of the X-files. Since I started from that, it was very natural for me to think of a scene that introduce the mystery and then play the intro and then introduce the characters. Since I was not writing a TV-show, I did think up the first part, but we started play when the players entered the plot.

The first scene would utilize the outcome of the background scene as its "bang". So I imagined a miner in this small community being attacked by his whole kennel of dogs, and how his fiance would see it and panic. That was what had just happened. Then I planned on putting the PCs in that small mining town, fill it with NPCs and build scenes from character interaction and some"plot based" scenes that would exhibit more of the strangeness that was the basis for the hounds attacking the miner.

The main plot was that the miners had dug deep into the Appalachians in West Virginia, and uncovered Cthonians. They reacted by psionic mind controls and called in their minions. I planned to have some weird things happening, like the MIB show up and discourage the PCs from snooping, and finally have the fiance disappear only to call someones phone and lure them out into the wilds at night. I had decided that after fooling around like that, I would end it with a scene where the PCs found them somehow confronting "aliens" in a strong light and finally finding themselves with redacted memories in their car out on the highway.

So, how did it go, and how did I used the scene based design?

Well, I started with the players taking control. They came to the town, and started talking to people. I decided to take a cue from Vincent Baker's advice in Dogs in the Vineyard, and started to give away as much as possible from all the NPCs. Vincent is wise, for without that they would have stumbled!

Talking to the NPCs, the characters were set in a location, some people were there and that was often the extent of my scene framing. I did not include any "bangs" or any destabilizing events into those interpersonal interactions.

In between those I dropped some small bombs in the shape of scenes with not only location and people, but also destabilizing events. It turned out that those scenes which all had things happening they had to react to did work really well. I totally failed to make one of them a chase scene with the Savage Worlds chase rules, but that was only me at odds with that rules set, and I've posted about that in other posts.

Worth noting here is that I did not introduce any shakeups in the "interview" scenes we had. Maybe I should have, because I sometimes felt that all those individuals with cool stories to tell had to walk up to the player characters more often than being sought out. It might be something that is dependent on how proactive your players are, but I did take that with me to my next attempt. It was my greatest lesson from this kind of adventure design.

Then there was that about how to string scenes together. In this scenario, which I called "Deep Calls to Deep", the players had the choice of going where they wanted and talking to whomever they choose. That kind of made it very natural for me to toss in my bombs after they had learned stuff which would make the next thing happening feel more cool. It made for a fairly natural flow, I would think.

All in all I think it went well, and as far as I understood from the after game chat I had nailed the X-Files feel. Nobody ever got any hint it was a Cthulhuoid menace.

But, what could I make different, and better, the next time? I will talk a bit about stringing scenes together next time.

My problem with Fiasco

I have read so many times, and heard on so many podcasts, that Fiasco is a great game. Having listened to some actual play, and detailed rules explanations, I find that this really isn't a game for me. I kind of wish it was, though.

Not every game is for everyone, and you don't have to love every game. Just move on, right? Kind of true. The thing is, the kind of play that Fiasco supposedly is all about is one I think sounds interesting. I also think the multitude of play sets are really cool, and some are kernels to really cool games. Maybe there's something to learn from Fiasco, or maybe there's something that can be found to make it work for me? I'll start to nail down what I don't like.

Playing the game is, unless I have misunderstood something completely, basically done in four phases. First you roll the dice and distribute them using the play set, then you make shit up until you run out of dice, them you roll them again and you make more shit up until the end.

What I don't like about that is the "making shit up" part. In that part, you for each scene get to decide how it ends or how it's set up. That's what's rubs me the wrong way. If someone else is deciding what happens, why should I sit and waffle about what happens? This, I feel, robs me of "player agency" or if you like, the point where I think rpgs really shine. That thing, I think, is going into a game ready to gamble some resources not knowing the outcome, exploring a secondary world. If someone sits there and just makes shit up, why should I then play out that scene? I'd like to turn that on it's head.

When I listens to people playing Fiasco I don't hear people play. I hear people just talk. Making shit up without any relation to effort involved, traits involved or chance just don't a game make.

This makes me think of another game I have read but know played, and listened to and becoming confused. That game is Burning Empires. In that game you do one thing differently, though. In BE you have one trait that is the one that determines success in that scene, and after the talky part you actually do the game bits. You roll dice and "make your bets". I'm wondering if that retrofitted to Fiasco would suit me better?

So, what do I like about all this?
 
I really like the idea of the setup for the game in Fiasco. Coincidentally, in Burning Empires you also start the game by generating the setting and framework for play. That part I think could be really cool to explore in a game of a more traditional bent. Maybe that part is why I come back to Fiasco again and again, and even bother to talk at length about a game which looks like it will bore me to tears. But, the system for building a city in Dresden Files looks interesting! There is a system based on that in the new shine FATE Core book I own. Maybe there is a way...

Narrative criticals

First off, let me just say I like criticals. The thrill of seeing the dice indicating that something wonderful/awful is going to happen is like no other. The drawback of course is to have to find those critical tables, rolling another die and all that which slow down the game. Maybe there is another way?

This fine post is one solution, where the damage is rolled off one small table and the game effects are narrated. Well, if you don't like those newfangled big words, made up on the spot.

Let's take that one step further in the player empower direction. If you do sand boxing, player initiative rules, right?

Let's assume you roll d20 to attack, and that low is good. Then, on a roll of 1, turn to the player that just rolled a critical success and ask them. "You just did something awesome. Let's hear what it was?" Likewise, when someone rolls a 20, ask them. "Now you have messed up. Let's hear how it went wrong." Players agency, right? As experience have shown that nobody is as brutal when describing a fumble as someone who inflict it on themselves.

Action/Drama/Fate points and player engagement

I was replying in a comment on this post, and realized it was turning into a post of its own. I'll expand all my thoughts below.

The idea was that points which players can use to change probabilities and/or change the game world is bad in a old school game. The perceived threat was that of eliminating the deadliness of the system. Here are some direct feedback on that, and some further thought on the matter.

There are multiple kind of systems for giving the players a way out, and for changing the fact of the game world. I have played multiple systems using those and have some experiences to share.

First, in Warhammer FRP there are something called Fate Points. Those can be used to "save the character from certain death". Suggestions are mitigating the effects of a fall from a cliff, or a critical hit. But, and it's an important but. Once they are gone, they are gone! In a game like WHFRP, which is quite deadly, this is literally a life saver. Will it rob the game of something? Well. I have played with quite a few characters in WHFRP and I tell you that I sweat every time my character takes a hit! Fate points or not. Too see those few points dwindle just reinforce how close to death I just came.

Secondly I want to mention the Drama Dice of 7th Sea. In that system you roll dice depending on your stat and your skill, as a pool. But, you only keep as many as your stat's value. Using the Drama Dice, you basically get more dice to choose from to keep. So, using this mechanic you make it likelier that your character succeeds. These Drama Dice you get for acting in a heroic and swashbuckling manner, i.e. it reinforce the theme of the game. It's a reward mechanic. When I was running 7th Sea, I noticed that the psychological effect of getting a physical token (poker chips in our case), and comparing the amount to the guy sitting next to you, made it work really well to reinforce the theme of the game. Sure, sometimes people chucked in token after token (you can commit them after the fact) on a roll they really wanted to succeed at, but it mostly worked as a prod to act thematically correct.

Thirdly, and finally, I'm coming to Type IV D&D. I played in a campaign up to "Paragon Tier"?  See, I have already managed to dismiss the jargon from my head. Anyway, up to what used to be called Name Level. I remember that I once in a while used a Action Point when I wanted to do something, but in that game the "respawn time" of powers was dominating the game so much that yet another mechanic, like getting "blooded" and triggering new effects, made it down in the general noise of game mechanics. Basically, I barely noted those points and they never affected our actions as far as I could see. They surely never did mine.

So, what am I trying to say? I'm saying that having some kind of points or game mechanic to "save your bacon" can work out in many different ways. I would claim, with some emphasis, that the brittleness of characters is not the defining factor of old school play, and that there are more than one way to skin a cat. The cat in this case being giving those points to players. Compare getting xp for gold to the Drama Dice in 7th Sea. Those are both reward mechanics. Also, having dwindling resources can in fact give the game an even tenser feel, and reinforce the dread. If that's what you're after. But, when you add something like a new mechanic to the game, make sure you are not conflicting with other systems in the game, making the effect lessened by it being forgotten or drowned!

I am vary of the idea of giving more spells to neophyte magic users. It change the tone of the game, but I don't think a scarce resource like the Fate Points in WHFRP does. Is it a valid comparison? I don't know.

RPG and card play - whimsy cards and suchlike

Those of you who have read this blog from the beginning (What? Haven't you all? Go back and read up. I'll wait here) might remember a post I did way back about whimsy cards. I've found something which brought them back to memory.

For those of you who don't know, whimsy cards was a game supplement from Lion Rampart, consisting of a set of cards you could play during the rpg session and have something out of the ordinary happen. It was an interesting way to add some player influence over things in the game, and others have used similar techniques since. Guess what I've found?

My latest find is the Adventure Cards, usable with Savage Worlds. I have not seen the pack sold for SW, but maybe they are as usable for any system as the old whimsy cards were. Anyway, if you are curious about the idea and want to take a peek at them, there is a way!

Point your browser to the Savagepedia, and the Savage Worlds fanzine Shark Bytes. Apart from lots of NPCs, adventures, extra rules and setting material, the fanzine included some extra Adventure Cards. It's all free for download on the 'pedia. Check it out! It would be cool to hear of them being used for a thing like a classic delve.

Playing Lady Blackbird

Last Saturday, I ran Lady Blackbird with a couple of friends. It was fun and everyone laughed a lot. Still, it was not as I had hoped it would be.

For those of you who doesn't know, Lady Blackbird is both a scenario and a game system. John Harper designed it, and distributes in freely on the web (see the link above). It's a pdf with a setup, some sketchy setting information and five characters with a rules summary. This means that all the time when you play Lady Blackbird, the character will be the same, and it will start the same way and diverge from there.

So, what did I like? Well, the game system if easy enough and the character are all fun an easily triggers ideas for play. Also, all characters have relations to each other and other forces in the world. It's a good setup.

So, what did I not like? Well, the game system really demands you to invent stuff. You should go out of your way to really, really grab xp at every opportunity. You should also look for opportunities to reinvent the character and take the meagre stuff on your sheet and develop it, though play. You think this all sounds like positives? Yeah, kind of. But, it also mean you have to have proactive players. You have to be able to design and add to the setting as a player. This is not for everyone. Actually, I think the old saying that a good GM can make anything fly is wrong. Good players, can make anything fun! Mine weren't too bad, actually.

What am I complaining about then? Maybe I'm just teasing, to make a bland post more dramatic? Anyway.

It went well, like I said. But, it took quite long in the session until people actually remembered their keys, and that they gained xp for them! Also, I tried to follow the GM advice and ask questions and follow along, and not try to steer the action. Those times I tried to force the issue by pointed questions about how people felt about being treated "like that", they more often than not shrugged and let it pass. But, it shall be said that they did create more trouble for themselves after a while anyway. I just wished they had responded like I wanted them too! Yeah, I know. They did well.

Now I want to run this game again, to see if it will differ as wildly as it seem to have done, in podcasts and forum posts. Interesting game.

Some thoughts on a Glen Cook novel

I might sound like a broken record (imagine how some youngsters wont understand that expression!), but I have once again been thinking about campaign frames, story and player influence.

Recently I finished a novel by Glen Cook, A Shadow of All Night Falling. It had a sad ending, where the fates of nations and individuals were intertwined. Some people sacrificed a lot and it wasn't very clear if they really got what they wanted. Now, imagine that happening in a rpg campaign.

As a GM you can set up the potential for this high drama. You can show the powers that be to your players by exposing them to NPC's and hope they interact enough to show the motives and the personality flaws of everyone involved. What you can't do is making the players take a stance. They might do, or they might not. Sure, you can set it all up so that they player characters have some emotional or other investment in a faction, but it's still not sure. Looking at that potential and not knowing if it will fizzle of not, I can understand the lure of heavy handed story railroading.

As I read that book I thought it would have been great to have been the player in a campaign that ended thus. I wonder if it can be done, nicely, in a way that I'd enjoy? I'm not sure. The John Wick game, Houses of the Blooded, tries to do that  by making the players help build the narrative and the intrigue. I guess that should help create some enthusiasm. Hmm.

Another take on a "D&D Endgame"

I've been thinking a bit about the idea of a sandbox. It is basically the idea that you give the players an area wherein they can shape things. Having read John Wick talk about player empowerment in his Houses of the Blooded, I'm amazed by the similiarities.

John isn't exactly old shool. He masterminded they metaplot for AEG when they published the Legend of the Five Rings and acompanying CCG. Talk about story trumphing player initiative.

But, in HotB, he talk alot about how players can, and should, take the part of the narrator. To shape things.

I realized that this is the sandbox ideal, in another form. There have been a lot of discussion about the "D&D endgame", and how there are or not rules supporting something of that kind. Now, look at HotB. It's a game where the players will rule a land, have servants, fight for resources, spy on foreign powers, make strategy and take decisions on how to manage their fief. Add to that game mechanic that actually support player the tools to shape things. Hand out points, currency, for the players to help set the things in motion.

Don't it sound like old and new are converging here? I think the main difference is that in the game John Wick designed there are game mechanic for what the old school think is a natural development.

Sure, that means it's less of a wide open toolbox, but John is upfront with his intentions. He explains that this is a game about one specific thing, and D&D never did that. On the other hand, many have theorized that D&D also are a game about something specific, like exploring. I happen to agree, and also think it's kind of cool to make it explicit and have game mechanic support your vision. I will just mention gold for xp again, since I think it's the idea in a nutshell.

Take a peek at what John Wick is doing. He is interesting.

Some reflections on sanbox campaigns

If you hang out by the blogs, especially those OSR oriented, you have probably heard the word "sandbox" mentioned a gazillion times. I don't know if it's as frequently used on the rpg forums. Maybe it is.

The idea behind a sandbox is nice. You have a world to explore as a player, and the GM have the freedom to develop just as much as is needed, since the players are going to be exploring and thus be the engine that takes the campaign somewhere. Often, freedom from "story" seems to be an objective when people set up to talk about their sandbox campaigns. I think a few things is worth mentioning about this.

Now, I am just as bored by GM railroading as the next guy. But, that is just as extreme as a world map for sandbox and having everything that happen by driven by the players. Simply put, elevating the sandbox style of play and disparaging "story based games" is taking one extreme and making it an ideal while calling the other bad and "extreme". You see what I mean?

I have had some experiences that highlight some things worth thinking about, regardless of game style. I once had a game prepared where the characters were walking down the street and a NPC jumped into the river right in front of their eyes. I expected my friends to do the obvious thing and try to rescue that fellow and try to find out why he was trying to kill himself. Let's look at this from two perspectives.

From the sandbox perspective, I was a bad GM. I had a story and I wanted my players to walk the path. In a way I agree with that description. It might have been better if I had asked the players what they wanted to do.

Let's put it another way. We had gathered to play a game, and I had prepared some stuff to entertain my friends. They re-payed that by acting like jerks, just being contrary and refusing to follow along. Weren't they just ignoring my kind of fun and trying to strike out on their own instead? No, I maintain they broke the social contract.  The rest of the session was a meandering mess where they walked around town ignoring any kind roguish adventure. No fun was had. While I certainly failed to make the game fun for them, they failed to make it fun for me as well.

If your players wont grab a plot hook you'd better let them create their own adventures. In the same vein, if your players seem to wander about and not doing much like adventure you'd better show them a hook or two. If they wont do any of those, they might need a reminder that you agreed to play a game and they don't. Too bad it took me quite a few years and my own attempt at a sandbox campaign to realize that.

It's very popular in the blogosphere to talk about the liberating effects of a sandbox. This experience of mine, and my latest attempt at a sandbox campaign in Traveller have shown me that neither the open sandbox nor the GM-story ends of the spectrum works for me. Nuances don't come across as well in this medium, but for me it seem to be the way to make a campaign work. A guided "story-sandbox" kind of works. I wanted to toss in those two cents in the big sandbox conversation.

Plot cupons? How about Whimsy Cards?

Long ago I remember seeing a game supplement like no other. It was created by a company called Lion Rampart, which also created Ars Magica. Me and my friends had that gorgeous game and since we had created many characters to it and felt it had potential, we perked up at the promise of more of Lion goodness. For some reason none of us ever bought it, but I have many times wondered how my later gaming habits might have turned out if we had.

For those of you who don't know what Whimsy Cards is, they can be summarized as small cards the players get to wield and play during a session to influence the game world. It's not possible to suddenly say that they sky is purple, but the cards could be used to introduce twists and turns to the game, like a sudden appearance of reinforcements. Whose reinforcements? That'll be decided in play either by the player who played the card, or by the DM who has to take it into account when narrates what happens next. West End Games once published a game called Torg, which you might heard of. It included a set of cards, not unlike the Whimsy Cards, called the Drama Deck. Like the whimsy cards, they could be used to change the gameplay. Just recently I got hold of the boxed set of Torg, and I plan on actually try it out and see how it works.

Some of you, my readers, might of course have heard of the idea of giving the player narrative power. After all, it's one of they identifying mark of many of the new school indie games. But, even for those of you who might not feel very comfortable or interested in those games, I think the idea of Whimsy Cards is an interesting option. It will keep the game on a firm and familiar footing while at the same time inject some uncertainty into the game even for the DM. Also, having to play cards to get narrative power or other kinds of influence will be a way to pace it and see how much of that new spice you'll like in your game. I'd love to hear how some classic gaming goes with that kind of thing added in. One of these days I'll try it myself.