You are viewing gametime

February 2014   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
chininhands

True Love Match (Kapcon 2014)

Posted by mr_orgue on 2014.02.16 at 15:22
I felt guilty, going into this game. If it worked - if it clicked - then five innocent people expecting goofy fun would get punched right in the feels.

The game was True Love Match, run at January's Kapcon in Wellington NZ. This was the game pitch:

Everything has been building up to this moment! Across this series, our lonely gentleman has farewelled sixteen beautiful ladies. Now only four remain! Across one whirlwind weekend it will be time to decide who the gentleman will choose as his.... True Love Match!
This game is inspired by the subgenre of romance reality TV, the most famous example being The Bachelor, with a side helping of the satirical Burning Love.
In True Love Match, one player will be the lonely gentleman and four others will be the ladies competing for his heart. Romantic developments between the gentleman and ladies will unfold using a version of Emily Care-Boss's Breaking the Ice; interactions between the ladies will use the rules of Gregor Hutton's Best Friends; the confessional-to-camera rules from Jared Sorensen's Inspectres might make an appearance too.
I have no idea if this is going to work. I guess we'll find out.


---

I mostly hate romance reality TV. I *really* hate The Bachelor. That show is inhumane and inhuman and actively harmful to the collective good. The show promotes the idea of "love" as a special, magical connection that you discover and honour. Nah. Love doesn't work like that. A lot of people think it does, though, and if you make life decisions based on that idea of love, you're setting yourself up for heartbreak.

We humans are messed up and permeable. We are not in command of ourselves; we don't know ourselves like we think we do. Our emotions happen for all sorts of crazy reasons, and we are useless at knowing why and even identifying what we're experiencing.

So, The Bachelor. you put two dozen women in a hothouse competition for a single man, and any chance of "authenticity" is gone. It's not about being fake or being real, those categories disappear entirely. There is no truth or untruth any more. There is no space for uninflected emotional response. The situation is all-powerful: these women are going to fall furiously in love with the bachelor, a man they just met, and all but one of them is going to get hurt.

The unseen, unspoken truth is this: situations have great power over us.

I wanted to see how powerful that truth was. If I recreated the situation as a game - a few hours, a few rules, and people who knew they were playing pretend - would it affect them?

---

Me, in email to Mash beforehand:

I don't know if it'll come together. I am confident it'll work fine as satire and humour if that's the way it goes, but I'll be disappointed if that's where it ends up - not disappointed in the players of course, just disappointed that the structure wasn't as strong as I currently assume it is.


In advance of the game I made the playsheets available. These contain full rules for the game. As mentioned, it's a mix of Best Friends and Breaking the Ice. BF was for the relationships between the women, and while it was a perfect thematic fit, I knew it was ultimately secondary. These rules were mostly a distraction, to hide the sucker punch coming in the other set of rules. In practice they were even less necessary than I expected. (Still perfect thematically, though. BF is a great game!)

While the Best Friends rules were simplified for TLM, the Breaking the Ice rules were so massively simplified that they don't look much like Emily's at all. Still there, mostly, is the dice transaction economy. At the start of a "date", both people get some dice to hold. During the date, when the other person does something romantic, you give them one of your dice. They roll it and see if sparks fly.

The first round of dates, people gifted dice a bit slowly. I told everyone they could chase, and give, dice a lot more freely, and in subsequent encounters loads more dice where handed back and forth. The lady players have mentioned just how much their experience began to revolve around chasing dice. The bachelor player said he could say any cheesy thing he wanted and he would be given a dice by whichever lady was next to him. After dates, all conversation stopped as the other lady players listened carefully for the clatter of dice, an indication of just how well that date had gone.

After the first run of individual dates, we had a group hangout session where only the Bachelor could hand out dice. Somewhere in there, the intensity racheted up. When we began the second (and final!) run of dates, I could feel the tension in the room. After that the Bachelor had to decide his final two, and then (after receiving advice from two unchosen) have intimate chats with both of them before deciding who he would propose to. We just followed through the format to the end.

The players were using coping strategies. Sudden outbreaks of exercise. People dropped out of character more frequently, as if taking a deep breath before diving back in. Several people expressed amazement that they were feeling this as intensely as they were. For my part, I was in a very weird space, carried along and guilty and excited, and I was genuinely moved to tears by one piece of character testimony.

When the final choice was made, everyone felt it.

Afterwards we had a debrief. (If you run this game DO NOT FORGET THE DEBRIEF.) Hugs and talk about what happened and why, a general comedown process to step back into normal emotional processing. And then we were done, off to the next game...

I've been trying for the last month to draw some useful lessons out of this. I haven't, yet. What happened in our game was so distinct to our particular configuration of people - all experienced, all confident playing emotions, most with enormous trust built up between them. And even then, if we had ended up with a different person playing the bachelor, we would have had a massively different experience.

I think it shows that situations have power over our emotions, sometimes, if we engage with the situations in such a way as to allow it. Would it work if the players didn't want to "go there"? Maybe, to an extent. I don't know that I'll ever find it. I don't think I'm going to run this game ever again. It's too mean.

---

Much love, of course, to the amazing players - Anna, Nikki, Muppet, Andrew and Jenni. Jenni took this pic of the rest of us:
truelovematch_cast

Anna has detailed report of the experience on her blog.

Jenni covers it on her blog.

---

Do you want to try True Love Match yourself? Grab the playsheets. I also prepped a run-sheet to keep me on track, but it's basically all there in the playsheets - come up with an order of ceremonies that suits you. Will it work? I dunno. Hopefully? If not, hey, just lean into the comedy. At worst, you can spend a few hours viciously lampooning The Bachelor, and that's not a bad way to spend some time.

As mentioned above, the Best Friends stuff was pretty irrelevant to where the game really had power. Would I cut these rules? No, I wouldn't. They provide support if needed for whatever might happen in the mansion, but they also provide a bit of weight to the relationships between the women, something concrete and mechanical to balance out the concrete mechanical relationship with the bachelor. That said, if you wanted to cut them, would I try and talk you out of it? Probably not. Do it your way.

In preparation, Mash referenced Dale Elvy's amazing player activation stuff in his game EPOCH. This was definitely a useful suggestion, one I kept in mind as I got things going. I recommend checking that out.

(Curiously, TLM was one of two on this subject offered at Kapcon that year. Kapcon is a weird convention.)

---

This is not the version of this post I wanted to write. I had a longer - substantially longer! - version in the form of incoherent pieces and half-thoughts that needed full paragraphs to explore. I couldn't make that one happen. Partly because I need to get something down before this recedes in the memory, and partly because I couldn't manage to put those half-thoughts together right. This will have to do, for now at least.

Player Facing Scenarios

Posted by mashugenah on 2014.01.20 at 13:59
Tags:
When the Forge spawned the "Indie Game Revolution", I was very sceptical. I took my line pretty far - I called out steve_hix over his award of "Best GM" at KapCon for his break-out Indie game, "The Lucky Joneses", a game about dysfunctional families that was finally released last year as Bad Family. I argued that the GM in Indie games had a much lower burden to carry than the traditional GM because the onus is on the players to make the bulk of the fun. Eventually, Dale found the perfect retort to that argument in his concept of "Player Activation", a core principal of his break-through Horror game, EPOCH. The core argument: causing players to make their own fun is harder than it looks. The concept of player empowerment, rather than GM storytelling, has gained an astonishing currency over the past 5 years, and everyone wants to get on board, and it's creating some interesting tensions in the way that games and scenarios are constructed - in some ways I think it's created an ideological tangle that I'd like to pull apart, at least a little.

I started out playing AD&D 1st Edition. I started RPGing just after 2nd Edition came out, but as kids we couldn't afford the current edition. I picked up my PHb at liquidation prices, and one of my regular players had parents who'd given up playing a few years before we began and had a stockpile of AD&D 1st Edition stuff. We spent a happy few years cutting our way through increasingly elaborate, but always implausible, dungeon complexes. The first game I ran that included anything I'd now recognise as roleplaying was Doom of Daggerdale, and it was a revelation. I mean that fairly literally, because the game is about a small town whose tangled and dark underbelly is exposed by the characters. There's a quite complex back-story about wizards who did bad things, and the people they loved, and betrayal and corruption. It made by 12 year old head absolutely spin. What strikes me about it now is that you don't even need the player characters for that story to be compelling. The player characters are disconnected from the action - they are disinterested parties, cutting through the tangle for profit. For the scenario to work, it requires pro-active player characters, whose pro-activity doesn't generate a story about themselves. It has taken the first step to being "player-facing" without being about the player characters.

The game had to be structured that way because there was no way of predicting what characters would encounter the game. I don't think anyone would have been able to write or sell an AD&D 2nd Ed scenario whose PC requirements were a group of human adventurers from a small town with an uncle who was a corrupt constable etc etc. What I learned to do, as I think almost everyone did, was to build up a stockpile of D&D adventures out of Dungeon Magazines, and file off the serial numbers as best we could to re-skin the scenarios for our specific groups. NPCs you'd used in previous games replaced similar characters in the present scenario. Doing that creates a sense of continuity where one doesn't exist naturally.

I think this is still the default design philosophy of most RPG scenarios. I picked up Night's Black Agents recently, and I absolutely love it - for me, it's the best implementation of GUMSHOE so far, and it does everything I could hope for in a Spy game. One of the big selling points of GUMSHOE is, and always has been, it's core idea that games shouldn't bog down in the investigative phase - clues are given out for free. This has often been expressed in terms of ensuring that the players can drive the action, because they're not waiting around for information. The GM advice in NBA calls for the GM to saturate the players with information to force them to decide what to do. Fear Itself is even more upfront about the centrality of the player characters as protagonists. Included in the core book is a starter scenario, "(S)Entries" to get you going - but the player characters enter the scenario in the classic role of adventurers dating back to the dawn of our hobby, as contractors coming in to explore the stories of non-player characters. It's a little disappointing, because I think the bulk of the GM and story advice in the book is aimed at delivering specific stories about specific characters, and it's almost all good advice. It's like a footballer tripping themselves up while doing their touchdown dance. To me, that just proves how insidious and pervasive the old story design paradigms are. The whole design philosophy of the system has been re-oriented around empowering and enabling the player characters, but when the rubber hits the road, the provided sample scenario still has the same basic problem as adversarial D&D's Doom of Daggerdale: For the scenario to work, it requires pro-active player characters, whose pro-activity doesn't generate a story about themselves. It has taken the penultimate step toward being "player-facing" without being about the player characters.

In EPOCH, I think this manifests itself in an emergent tension between the characters' stories as told through flashbacks and the Horror Track. I ran Road Trip yesterday for a group of neophyte gamers, and they grasped the core elements of the horror mechanics within a few minutes. They milked their injuries for dramatic potential, some of them used their flashbacks to evoke a sense of character, they got the drama of the hero/zero decision. At the end of the scenario, they'd gotten a "Hollow Victory", which is the basic result for a group that engages with the premise rather than ignoring it. To get a "Total Victory", they needed to investigate the back-story of a feud between two biker gangs and investigate the history of one faction's grizzly mascot: a mummified human corpse. The scenario background is all very interesting and evocative and all those good things but it's completely irrelevant to the player characters. In logistical terms, they need to set aside the time they're spending on their domestic family drama to explore someone else's.

Solving this problem isn't easy for the scenario designer, especially the EPOCH scenario designer where the possibilities for player character configurations are virtually unlimited, or for the contractor-style setup, where the premise of the game is that some disinterested contractors are going to come in and solve the problems for profit. I've addressed the problem in only two of my games, Succession and the forthcoming Death on the Streets, and then only by placing some pretty severe restrictions on the kinds of characters that can experience the scenario while simultaneously expecting the players to buy into the scenario premise.

There are is a simple thought experiment that the scenario designer can use to evaluate whether their scenario is really player-facing: what happens in the scenario if no player characters arrive on the scene? We're used to thinking about scenarios by setting up a story trajectory that the player characters disrupt. For example in Spirit of the Tentacle, if the player characters don't arrive, the cultists summon a tentacled monster who destroys New York. While running the game, the villains' timetable grinds relentlessly on. What that means is that in effect, the player characters are anti-protagonists. They're not trying to achieve anything, they're trying to just maintain the status quo (of a tentacled monster not destroying NYC). In contrast, in The Hand That Feeds, if the player characters never arrive in town, nothing happens: the situation remains as it is. In both, the characters are explicitly contractors, but in the Hand that Feeds, they characters are creating the story, which is inherently more empowering. If you can't even imagine your scenario without the player characters, then I think odds are good your scenario really has player-character protagonists driving the story.

Another technique is to think about how specific the constraints on the player characters are. Again, I think we're used to this kind of approach indicating robust design. Doom of Daggerdale suits almost any conceivable group of characters, and hence represents robust design. But the trade-off should be obvious: if the supposed heroes of the story are completely interchangeable, are they really the story's heroes? Specificity creates logistical problems for short-run games. I'm sure none of us wants to go back to the days when sitting down for a one-shot scenario required reading 10 pages of world exposition, character background and relationships, and a character sheet requiring a PhD to interpret. The 3 inspirational cards of EPOCH and narrative authority has solved a lot of ergonomic problems with short-run games!

There is no perfect game. There are always trade-offs in designing scenarios. I just hope via this post that one of the central design features in most commercial RPG scenarios is now at least a little clearer, and if you design a scenario with a strong NPC storyline, it's as a conscious design decision.

chininhands

Providence Summer, 1961

Posted by mr_orgue on 2013.11.27 at 21:38
Tags: ,
Spend a summer in Providence, 1961! Bored teens and squabbling kids have to confront some hard truths as their comforting illusions start to break apart.

I'm delighted to release this series pitch for +Robin Laws's Dramasystem (a.k.a. Hillfolk from +Pelgrane Press Ltd). Inspired by the film "Stand By Me", it's based on a game I ran a decade ago that changed what I thought was possible in RPGs. That game was basically rules-less, but I'm confident Dramasystem would have made it a lot easier to hit that incredible sweet spot of character drama.

Grab it here

This series pitch has several unique aspects. Players own two characters, not one; the characters are not all known to each other at the beginning; and it has some (completely unplaytested!) rules that reinforce power inequalities. These features lean against each other to support a dramatic exploration of young people trapped in troubled family situations.

Big shout out to the Providence Summer players - Nancy, Kathleen, Brian, Steve and David - this release marks the 10th anniversary of that marvellous game. Here is the actual play account, for the curious...

Thanks also to Gregor Hutton for some uber-helpful layout advice!

I've forgotten everyone's LJ usernames sorry.

Activating Players

Posted by mashugenah on 2013.11.18 at 16:50
Tags: ,
I am a huge fan of EPOCH, Dale Elvy's game of survival horror. In particular, I am a fan of his idea of "Player Activation" - the idea that the total game environment, from system to presentation, needs to foster an interesting and collaborative experience. Dale's advice in the rulebook itself can hardly be faulted, and much of that advice can be found free on either the EPOCH or his own blog. However, despite my respect and love, I find myself taking a slightly contrary view about this matter from time to time, and a recent exposition seems like a great focus for explaining why.

Dale advises GMs to Pimp Your Game. As Dale explains:
In EPOCH I argue there are no ‘bad’ players. Only players that are not ‘activated’ and that it is possible for a GM to activate almost every player using a variety of techniques. However, by far the most important technique is to ensure the players of the game are aligned with the style, an objective of the game that the GM wishes to run.
This is indisputably useful perspective on the game, but I think there is a conceptual pitfall that I worry about falling into: while this is expressed in terms of empowering players, what it can do is put more pressure on the GM to perform. There are no 'bad' players, only 'bad' GMs that fail to 'activate' their 'not-bad' players.

Dale's advice is excellent - up to a point. I like to think about this in terms of a critical minimum energy level. I've run several games, and played several games under Dale, where swift and incisive GM action has switched a player on, and kept the game running. However, when I think about the games that were great, instead of merely adequate, I can't think of an example where any kind of player activation was needed. So, even if we rule out 'bad' players that doesn't mean we should rule out 'good' ones.

But, actually, let's not rule out 'bad' players just yet. Instead, let's take a quick look at the types of trouble players identified in Greg Stolze's "How To Play Roleplaying Games." He identifies three main types, "The Overactor", "The Powergamer" and "Mr Lazybones". EPOCH's "player activation" is designed to remove the tools of the Powergamer - the system cannot easily be gamed in the way familiar to the master of a D&D3.5 feat tree. Similarly, Mr Lazybones will soon find himself out of outcome cards - but Dale's advice is broader than that, structured around eliminating this type of player.

The trade-off, however, is that EPOCH struggles to deal with the Overactor. Stolze outlines the key to rehabilitating these players:
Players like this need to understand that they don't call the shots, that the group isn't there to serve their pleasure at the expense of their own, and that it's okay for selfish, odd-duck characters to grow and change so that they work better with the rest of the party.
The problem is the EPOCH actually runs completely counter to this solution. Survival is based on "interesting" characters, and flashbacks are designed to put the rest of the game on hold while the character is explored. The voting mechanism may mean that a specific group rejects a specific over-actor's character, but I have just as frequently seen the reverse, where someone is rewarded for their bad behaviour at the expense of the scenario as a whole. Structurally, EPOCH is at best neutral in terms of helping a GM to contain an overactor - the GM must still exercise the usual array of psychological tricks and tools to keep things on track. That still puts it far ahead of the curve, however. Most games are susceptible in equal measure to all three of Stolze's trouble types.

Dealing with "Overactor" players in EPOCH scenarios is almost entirely in the hands of the group, but the GM can help in a few ways. The most important thing the GM can do is help redirect the player flashback toward the story of the game. It is all too easy for a player to become invested in some completely arbitrary back-story that lead to the character's formation, but which does not connect specifically to the situations that the characters are encountering. Perversely, the way to do this is to extend the flashback sequence, asking leading questions explicitly connecting the flashback to the nominally triggering event. Secondly, you can encourage other players to either join in or piggyback with their own cards. I think that a key way of getting flashbacks to work for the group is to frame them in such a way that joining on or piggybacking feels natural, and that inclusivity ameliorates the worst parts of the Overactor's usual behaviour.

The framework of the discussion so far has been about players, but the reality is that roleplaying is a group activity. If we accept that there are no 'bad' players, are there nevertheless, bad groups? I've had the experience a few times where one or two players was doing everything right, in terms of the system demands, and yet they were out of sync with the group, which meant that the games didn't work that well, but you couldn't point to any one character as being a problem by themselves. I've now seen this with both veteran EPOCH groups and neophytes, and I suspect that it is driven by the implicit competition for "interest". In the most extreme case, one played opted out of using a flashback when prompted by the GM because they felt unable to compete with the gonzo flashbacks of a couple of other characters. In some ways, the challenge for the GM in that came was de-activiting players on overdrive.

One of the great things about EPOCH's tools, especially in voting and in the details of the flashback cards, is that the onus for doing these things is shared by the group. Other players can take a role in activating their other players. In amongst the excellent advice for GMing in EPOCH and elsewhere, it is entirely too easy to overlook that the players outnumber the GM in most games, and so have the potential to have an even bigger impact than even the most adroit game manager.

I have often advocated EPOCH even to friends who are not particularly interested in horror, because I belive that the concept of "player activation" is transferrable to other games. This is always something that I look for when buying or playing a new game. Most of the forgettable, or memorable for bad reasons, games that I've played or run were that way because of players who were unengaged. Similarly, most of the really amazing experiences I've had have been in groups as a whole who really took the game and ran with it. This post has been intended to just point out one fly in the ointment, and suggest a way of fishing it out.

chininhands

Bundle of Holding +4

Posted by mr_orgue on 2013.07.19 at 16:08
The Bundle of Holding +4 has 20 hours to go!

Pay what you want for three great games - and pay over the average (about $16.50 as I write) to get three more!

Among those three more is Monster of the Week, by Kiwi game designer Michael Sands!

Check it out: Bundle of Holding

chininhands

Ennies & SJVs

Posted by mr_orgue on 2013.07.16 at 13:08
Huge congrats to Gametime contributers Matt & Debbie Cowens for winning some SJVs for their book "Mansfield with Monsters" and for themselves as best new talent! Result!

Huge congrats to close Gametime friend Dale Elvy for grabbing two Ennie nominations: Product of the Year for his game EPOCH, and best free product for the EPOCH quickstart + adventure Road Trip

EDIT: Three nominations! Also for Best Electronic Book!

EDIT: FOUR nominations! Also for Best Rules!

Hurrah!

chininhands

Fast Play Games

Posted by mr_orgue on 2013.06.04 at 09:05
(x-posted from Google Plus)

While driving today I was thinking about starting to play a new game. (Especially with new people; double-especially if they are new to gaming). A certain type of setup started to appeal to me.

(I'm dabbling in some online play and that has sharpened my attention; the lack of physical cues and general slow-down effect mean certain structures seem much easier to launch than others.)

I fixed on this, using a players + GM format:
* give the players clearly defined (but customisable) characters with relationships to each other
* put them all in a scene that goes to the essence of those characters and is interesting in itself
* LET THEM PLAY
* twist that scene to raise the stakes somehow
* LET THEM PLAY SOME MORE
* apply rules from here, but still, only lightly (at least from the player's perspective)

This kind of setup gets the shared fiction rolling, gives people a chance to try out their characters, and sees the emergence of story, and it gets there fast. That sounds like a good thing to me, especially when you have two hours and dodgy internet connections and you want to get something firing quickly.

Thinking about games that support this was trickier:

* Classic D&D - you get handed a character sheet that says "Dwarf" and "axe", then the GM says "you guys are at a cave entrance" and the girl next to you says "we cautiously enter the cave!" - boom. You're in. Rules come later and you don't need to understand them at all.

* Any traditional-style game with pre-gens and a predesigned adventure can do this, really. If the game would work in a convention setting, it would probably work for this context too. But these scenarios rely heavily on massive designer/GM investment beforehand, so they're an inelegant solution.

* Lady Blackbird - John Harper's game is a very close match! Characters, relationships, go! I haven't played this yet but I intend to roll it out soon for my next stage of online dabbling.

* Tonight We Slay A Dragon Or Die In The Attempt - Simon Carryer's fascinating new game, part of a broader collection of techniques he has cultivated. I'm very keen to play this with him and see exactly how he pulls the elements together at the table.

* City of Fire & Coin, for Swords Without Master - I read through Epidiah Ravachol's preview/playtest adventure yesterday and found it a pretty good match for what I'm thinking here, although I wonder how well the rules would resonate with the people I'm thinking of.

* Mountain Witch, by Timothy Kleinert - been a few years since I've played, but as I recall, it was quick to get this moving and to have players doing fiction-stuff.

Beyond that, I got stuck. As counterexamples - Fiasco and My Life With Master, which I think are both excellent games but have a setup phase that seems like a big imposition on my 2-hour-session online group of new faces (when setup is part of the fun with my 3-hour-session face-to-face crew).

So... any other suggestions, or comments, or whatever the hells?

[Over on G+ Hamish Cameron immediately suggested Dungeon World, which, OF COURSE.]

Dungeon World and Dangerous DMing

Posted by grandexperiment on 2013.04.18 at 09:34
Tags:
Last night I ran the second and final session of Treasure Hunt with Dungeon World. It was a lot of fun, fast paced and action packed. My only regret was that the game probably should have had a third session, as there was a lot of material left barely touched on. I think adding 50% to my estimates of length for Dungeon World games is a good idea :)

Dangerous DMingCollapse )

Dungeon World and the Dynamic Adventure

Posted by grandexperiment on 2013.03.25 at 12:53
Tags:
As I prepare myself for Against the Cult of the Reptile God and Treasure Hunt with Dungeon World, I have learned something else. DW seems better suited for translating my old D&D experiences than other RPGs that I have looked at so far.

I have had a hankering to revisit the classic D&D module for a while in a hope to recapture some of the play style of that time (which now eludes me). I had looked at doing this with both modern rule sets like D&D4e and RPGs based on those older rule sets like Castles and Crusades. However, neither provided easy or satisfactory results in this regard.

During those efforts, I came to realise that the old D&D modules look pretty awful on paper and much of what I remembered liking about them was added to the game during play. However, to say that the D&D module did nothing to encourage the later aspect would be wrong. D&D modules generally are a snapshot of a dangerous environment. This at first appears woefully static and dull, but implied in the presentation is an expectation that this environment is merely a tool through which the group forges all the narrative flow and drama by playing in it, interacting with it, and changing it. When I read them, I quickly begin adding my own events, personalities and dangers, as that was how I read them in my youth. I think it was simply not considered the job of the module designer to write about certain parts of an adventure that now are, probably due to the most narrative approach of adventure writing pioneered by Call of Cthulhu and the like.

So why is Dungeon World suited to this particular approach? There are a number of reasons. Two of them actually touch on my last two posts. The first is the Discussion. This approach along with the GM Moves pushes the GM hard not to treat any environment in a static way. When the GM has a turn in the discussion, they are looking for how to bring in danger, signal danger or set danger up somehow. If the GM just focusses on the immediate environment then the GM soon runs out of danger to use in an interesting or believable fashion, so instead the GM views the environment as a dynamic one, with each part related to other parts of that environment. The GM is also encourages to fill in those blanks as needed to link the environment together to suit the needs of the drama as it unfolds.

The next is the Difficult Situation. The natural flow from PCs going into one dangerous situation and then out again adds a sense of dynamism. This is along with DW's rule set being forgiving on the GM, allowing them to easily brave any situation from a mechanical perspective, allowing the situation to evolve however it may.

The last main reason is the way the way scenarios are created. After some initial playing with Adventure Fronts (and they are very much a "that's how we have always done it" part of the RPG) I have found that it became very easy to break down D&D modules in the manner suggested and also improve on them. The simple process of identifying the adventures in the module, the various dangers within those and the agenda and ultimate goal of those dangers, immediately provides a dynamic antagonism to the seemingly static environment.

In fact, viewing old D&D modules in this light not only captures a lot of that older play style, it can also improve them in a few instances. There seems a lot of times in old D&D modules where some antagonists are directionless and do things to support a wider story without any real reason. Giving them an agenda provides reason for their actions, and though this can change some of the things in the original module, it generally seems to work better.

Dungeon World and the Difficult Situation

Posted by grandexperiment on 2013.03.11 at 08:51
Tags:
On running Dungeon World, I confirmed my suspicion that one thing that really makes it shine in play is the fact that it never shifts out of a discussion mode and into a wargame or board game mode. In most traditional RPGs, once combat starts, the objectives become almost exlcusively reducing your opponent to 0HP before the same happens to you. In Dungeon World, I found that the same flow of hard choices continued into combat, which was very satisfying.

However, from my actual play experience, I found a secondary aspect of the game quite appealing too. Dungeon World has a simple system, which can be boiled down to roll 2d6 and add a modifer. 6+ is failure, 7-9 is success with a cost. 10+ is success. As many people have already discussed, the 7-9 result is a core aspect of the *World games in that it keeps the narrative rich, complex and compelling for the players, as there is a constant stream of compromises, costs and choices that result from play that build on each other. The PCs often find themselves in difficult situations, frequently of their own making.

That is all well and good, but that's not the whole of it. DW's high probability of success, with the accompanying high probability of cost (which is not necessarily injury or death), means that when the PCs find themselves in a difficult situation, they can often get themselves out of it. And by doing so, they often set up for the next difficult situation. One result of this second aspect, which I didn't foresee, is that it encouraged me as a GM to follow through those difficult situations that the PCs put themselves in. In many RPGs, I am often reluctant to do this as the "kill or be killed" nature of combat tends to be final, meaning that those scenes result in reducing the drama/complexity once resolved. As a result, these scenes are generally reserved for the end of the story. In DW, playing through those scenes increases the dram/complexity once resolved.

To give an example from yesterday, one PC decided to confront an entire crew of pirates, who had his brother held captive. The resulting chaos saw them both survive (at considerable cost) and the pirates vanquished. And it raised all kinds of drama between the two PCs, leading to a very dramatic scene later in the game, where the PC who saved his brother abandoned him instead. In some other RPGs, the fatal nature of this scene would have had me as a GM look for ways to avoid it. Another example was a PC who tried to backstab the big bad, a very powerful sorcerer, in the middle of the scenario. I gave him a chance to succeed knowing that I had ways to reflect the consequences of failure without necessarily killing the PC. This also led to the PC having to compromise with another PC to deal with those consequences, which ultimately led to the PC's dramatic climax.

So, another reason that DW appeals to me is that it encourages the flow of play of putting PCs into difficult situations and then getting them out. Out of the frying pan and into the fire over and over again.

Previous 10