I've been doing this now for a few years, and have finally reached 1000 posts. There have been a few good sequences of ideas in that time, and I've released plenty of different games using a variety of game engines. I've reviewed stuff, I've thrown ideas out there, I've provided mapping tutorials, I've explained my methodology of game design and critiqued the design methodologies of others, I've thrown random stuff in here and there just to break things up a bit.
I've gone from less than a dozen views on a typical day, to an average of a couple of hundred views. I'm certainly not huge in the grand scheme of things, but enough people are interested in my work to keep me plugging away at it. I've been through bouts of depression, worked at keeping my mind active to avoid it, and have had moments of manic inspiration.
As a thankyou to everyone for watching me over the past couple of years, here's a sneak preview of my upcoming children's book project (linked in with my Walkabout stuff). At the end of it all is a link to the Google Drive folder where higher res versions of these images are found.
Some of the things that have been mentioned earlier in the series relate to long term playability of a campaign. In part 8 I mentioned the idea of campaign resets, and how I don't like them (see the section in italics at the bottom).
Generally, the system proposed overcomes these issues by taking more powerful out of the day-to-day activities of a game (pulling their players into more administrative roles within the organisation), and ensuring powerful characters are never so far above the new players that they can't be threatened.
But, these ideas could dampen a player's motivation to keep playing. If a player has defined their play experience based on the growth of their character, what happens when this growth plateaus and their definition of play is no longer relevant.
The easy answer comes through secondary characters, and giving the player the opportunity to renew their pattern of growth with a new story.
That's a key part of the experience for me.
Here's a tangent...
If you go through movie news websites, there have been some recent articles about the shift in long-form movie narrative. Mostly due to Marvel's recent work. There are cries that "the sequel is dead, the movie universe is the new direction in film". Iron Man exists as a part of a wider continuity, other stories go on around him, and eventually he may be phased out of the films altogether (along with the core original avengers) to make room for a new generation of heroes.
Sometimes you've just got to learn to let go. Sometimes a character has told their story and it's time to move on.
Some players might not want to retire their characters within a wider game, once they become powerful figures within the narrative they might want to remain in that role.
A game system might apply a carrot or a stick at this point. The stick (penalty) for long term characters might come in the form of degradation, perhaps in the form of a rapidly compressed timeline for game events. Each game occurs on a fortnightly (or monthly) basis in the real world but represents an annual event in the game world, if we assume that characters start adventuring in their late teens, then after 20-30 games (around two years of game play) a character might start to lose physical abilities (one every second game thereafter), or may find regeneration after battle harder to succeed. This doesn't really work for the system currently in development, because it has a "real-time" downtime element for gathering resources/money and crafting goods. Another option might include increased chances of character death when a figure reaches a certain degree of prominence in the setting...better known characters have a higher price on their head and more assassins willing to take on that job.
A carrot (reward) might be a better approach. Maybe a player can voluntarily retire their character as an NPC, or sacrifice the character as a plot device. This would probably incorporate the Destiny Points mentioned in earlier posts. If a transition to NPC occurs, the player might "cash in" experience points invested into the character, maybe gaining 5% of the character's total experience as destiny points (round down)...the player would still get the chance to portray this character if the NPC is required for later storylines, but this character would only appear once or twice a year and wouldn't develop any further. If the player instead chooses to sacrifice their character for a wider story element, they might reclaim 10% of the character's total experience as destiny points, but this would have to be negotiated with event organisers. A player couldn't simply lose their character in battle then say..."Oh, that was a sacrifice, can I have my points now?"
A few more ideas using Destiny Points as a link between in-game narrative and out-of-game responsibilities will come in later posts.
For those of you who don't know what Boffer LARPs look like, here's a few images from the session I attended on the weekend.
On a vaguely related note, an interesting rule was adapted by this group after contact witth a Canberra based LARP group. The rule is certainly something I might consider for the pirate/steampunk LARP in development, it goes like this.
Players who show up without costume have 3 hit points for their characters.
Players who show up with partial costume have 4 hit points for their characters.
Players who show up with full costume have 5 hit points for their characters.
The rules didn't take into account quality of armour, or extra damage for magic/character-strength/two-handed-weapons...but it was a day of battles and combat practice more than anything else. This group runs alternate fortnights of battle days such as these, and quest/scenario days.
The idea of rules that link the in-game and out-of-game worlds is interesting. To keep things legitimate in parts of the world with over-zealous legeal/litigation systems, such rules might become an integral part of the game. In this part of the world, an organised gathering of a certain size requires the presence of qualified first aid officers, a formal requirement to be run by a non-profit entity is a grey area when the transfer of money is involved (it's typically safer to set one up). But these are out-of-game concerns.
When I talk of rules that link game and reality, I mean things like quizzes that people might need to sit out of game, and if the quiz is passed, the player is now permitted to access higher level classes that are expected to possess this knowledge in game. It basically helps to counter the situations when a player would say "I don't know that, but my character would". The World of Darkness LARP group, the Camarilla, had tests called "ordeals" which players would neeed to sit before they could take on the roles of storytellers or coordinators. This way the people in power actually had the knowledge necessary to wield that power correctly (if not the morals to do so). In a boffer LARP you might also have a couple of quizzes/ordeals to ensure a player fights safely before allowing their characters to access larger/more-dangerous weapons. Once the player passes such an ordeal once, all of their characters gain access to the wider versatility. Some groups might even require regular annual refresher courses on weapon safety (especially with regards to ranged weapons).
Just a few more ideas to make sure everything is good.
It allows scope for numerous character types within an ecosystem of communal storytelling, so that basically matches with the intended design goals.
It doesn't allow everyone to play everything that they could imagine, because that would dilute the focus of the game and basically water it down to an incoherent mess. Instead of this, it uses a chunky point system to channel players into preferred character types.
It allows players to gather their characters into meaningful factions with some kind of mechanical benefit for doing so.
With a definition of cultures, races and occupations, we can even combine existing systems to develop subcultures within the setting. You want a specific farming caste within the settlers, then maybe you can define this through a faction that limits itself to settlers who have held the farmer occupation at some stage in their lives. You want a group of freebooting swashbucklers who regularly interact with pirates and privateers, maybe define a faction that includes characters from both of these cultures.
We have the scope for career development, as players take their characters through a number of different narrowly defined occupations, This tends to increase the versatility of the characters through the course of play, rather than specifically increasing their power level...so new characters have a chance of confronting experienced characters successfully, but experienced characters are more desired in quests for their range of skills, and they have a wider variety of activities to engage in during the "down time" between games. There is still a progression of skills and a progression of advanced occupation types, allowing more experienced character to have an edge, but the emphasis is on rounding out characters over the course of play.
There hasn't been a post over the last couple of days, because I've been working on University assignments, and also because I've been writing up a fairly comprehensive spreadsheet of occupations, culture and races, assigning abilities to them, and trying to come up with some interesting techniques for each. I'm trying to make sure all of the abilities are shared by at least half a dozen different occupation types, and where they aren't I'm adding in a couple of occupations to cover the shortfall.
Belonging to an occupation allows a character to improve their related skills by a single level, getting to level two (intermediate) requires learning the ability from two different occupations because you gain a different perspective on the ability when you perform it in a different job. To get to level three (advanced) requires learning the ability from three different occupational perspectives. When there's half a dozen different occupations sharing the ability this allows a variety of occupational progressions on the path to ability mastery. Everyone gains an edge in specific abilities because they can learn a level from their culture or race.
I'm currently up to about 150 occupations, maybe 40 of which are allowable to starting characters.
We have a well rounded economy that makes sense, it might be a bit overly complicated and intimidating to new players, but new players don't really need to worry about that side of things to enjoy the game. The economy is in place to facilitate the construction of special items without resorting to GM fiat (which is important in a game where there may not be a centralised GM).
When it comes to a magic system, I really haven't touched on that at all. I love the magic system in Mage: the Ascension (I've stated this time and again), but it needs a good GM and is probably too open ended for LARP play. I've seen it fall apart during the previously mentioned World of Darkness live campaigns I've been a part of. Instead we have some good anchor points for a magic system in place; there are abilities for Mysticism, Ritual, Faith, Negation and Transformation, and a system of techniques which could be rewritten as "Spells" and easily slotted into the existing mechanisms of play.
In a miniatures game like Confrontation, magic spells become available to characters who possess mastery over specific schools of magical training (necromancy, enchantment, theurgy, sorcery, etc.) I'm thinking of something similar for mages in this game. Perhaps a school of magical training grants a simple pocketmod booklet filled with a range of 6 spells, of which a character starts with one (such a book might have a front cover depicting the school's name and a suitable sigil, while the back cover gives a brief description of the school's tenets, or maybe offers some kind of quest to gain experience points for new spells in the book).
Confrontation actually uses a deck of cards, with a dozen or more spells belonging to each school (packs of school spells purchased seperately), and some spells belonging to two or more schools of magic, but I'm not sure if this is the way to go. I think a cluster of related spells makes more sense, where many spells might have a more powerful effect if you possess a certain synergistic ability at an intermediate level. You might have a range of animal spells, a range of plant spells, a range of enchantments or curses, a spirit set...you get the idea. If you want to have a different set of spells available, you need to follow the right occupation (which might require a few shifts of occupation before you can open up that class).
Crafting techniques would work the same way. Smiths might be able to use metal to produce basic farm implements and tools...Swordsmiths gain a more advanced group of items such as weaponry that they can now produce...Glassblowers might be able to produce bottles, vials, glass windows, etc...Boilermakers might be good with pipes, boilers, and the necessarily componentry for building steam engines...Alchemists might stride the gap between crafting and magic, with the ability to produce an assortment of potions and elixirs. Every set of spells or crafted items is intrinsically linked to a specific occupation, and both groups might require components consumed (or a specifically built workshop environment) before their effects become manifest in the game.
The versatility of spell and crafting books is offset by the requirements necessary for these effects.
Now that we’ve reached the advantages of gathering
characters into factions, it’s probably a good time to look at how those
factions might form and what limitations might be placed on factions.
Since factions can start from 3 players, and could
theoretically expand to cover any number of players, the variations possible are
endless. Personally, I think the narrower the definition of the faction, the
more focused it will be, and the stronger the relationships between the
characters in that faction. More inclusive factions, on the other hand, then to
have a wider focus and looser relationships.
The first thing that could define a faction is race; whether
that comes in the form of specific races being permitted to join or specific
races being denied entry to the faction. There’s an inherent racism and
prejudice when saying a faction may only possess members of a single race; I’m
not includes applying moral judgement to that choice of racism/prejudice, I’m
just saying that it’s a thing. If a
specific faction decides to only welcome members of the Dhampyr race, then it
might be justified as a Dhampyr supremacist group, or maybe an alliance of like
minded individuals who work together to explore the Dhampyr condition. Such a group
wouldn’t make sense to have non-Dhampyr’s present, but it might loosely
affiliate with other races outside the faction. A single race faction has a
simple intrinsic weakness, since magic will be keyword related, and all members
of a single race share a specific keyword, then an area effect targeting a
specific keyword will target all members of the faction (for better or worse).
If a faction is
defined as an anti-Wyldkin hate group, they might invite members of all races
to join…except Wyldkin. There’s an inherent racism/prejudice in that as
well. But when a group is so open, with so many options for its members, it
becomes necessary to create additional defining aspects for the group if it wants
to retain a level of focus and not just devolve into a beige blurred mess of incoherence.
Naturally, this particular group might
require its members to have been attacked by a Wyldkin (or have lost a family
member to them). The drawback with this type of group comes from the
defining races not permitted; what does an
anti-Wyldkin group do when there are no Wyldkin in the game to fight against?
Personally, I think that if you want direction in a faction,
but don’t want to narrow the focus too far, then a grouping of two races is
probably a good starting point. Maybe a third if you’re using the more obscure
This is exactly the same for cultures. One culture becomes a
narrow focus, all but one culture becomes very nebulous and vague unless there
are other defining factors.
Occupations could be an interesting way to define a faction,
but since occupations are so transient in this game it would be pretty
debilitating for a faction if it only allowed members who were current members of
a specific profession. We are a faction based on a ship anchored on the north
side of the harbour, we will only allow people who are sailors to join us.
Instead, every character who follows an occupation gains access to certain
abilities and techniques, before they move on to new occupations. If a group
were pondering this as the criteria for membership, it would make far more
sense to restrict characters based on the possession of a specific ability
level, or the possession of a certain technique.
A final way to define a faction might be through the
completion of a specific task or quest. This kind of quest should probably work
as something than can be done on the side while other activities are engaged,
rather than something that requires a dedicated GM and story. This might be a better
way to define a faction for characters who are already in the game, rather than
allowing players to write in their backstories “Oh, yeah, a couple of years ago I completed the Trial of the Red
Lotus, so now I’m a member of the Blood Coven”.
Now that I’m looking at it, the defining factors for
factions are starting to look like the suggested methodology for defining prestige
classes in D&D 3.0/3.5. The kinds of advantages I have in mind are vaguely
Other options for defining a faction could include the
requirement to wear a specific uniform item (“a red shield”, “a black bandana”, “a surcoat emblazoned with a
specific emblem”) to identify the members during the course of game, or
maybe an in-game membership fee (“spend a
gold coin every month to retain membership in the Colonial Gentleman’s Club”, “donate
2 units of timber or metal each month to the craftsman’s guild to gain access
to their workshop”). There are dozens of ways a faction could restrict its
entry, but if it ends up being too restrictive then many players will just look
for other factions to join with their characters.
On the other hand, too many members may mean that the
founders of a faction are suddenly swarmed by new members and lose control of
the group they started. It’s all about balance.
(EDIT: I'v just reaslised that yesterday I mentioned that all faction members will be spending a minimum of one risked story XP into their faction each session. This is definitely a criteria for factional membership, some factions might define themselves by asking for public declarations of XP invested [within the faction anyway]. Some might evenrequire their members to use two of their story XP in this manner just to show the commitment of members.)
LARP is a social activity. That’s why I’m involved in it.
Sure there are social aspects in an MMORPG, but everything is moderated through
a screen. Some people like that, there’s always the stereotypical slobby gamer
who inhabits avatars of hot chicks wielding oversized swords or guns, and
wearing skimpy armour…but LARP isn’t about them (for the most part… let me tell
you a story about a trip to Melbourne one time).
Following up on the last post about “doll-housing”, there is
a great way to use this technique to expand the game for everyone. I touched on
it at the end of that last post, it’s the point where a few players get
together and develop a tight knit group that acts as a self-contained unit for
I hate to say it, but one of my regular commenters was among
the first group of players I saw do this well. +Klaus Teufel, was a part of a
secretive group containing a pair of vampires and a mage (which I became embroiled
in later), I think it’s safe to say now that the game has been dead for 15
years that these characters were bound by the fact that they were all secretive
infernalists (I’m sure he’ll be able to correct me on this if I’m wrong).
Using this group, they infiltrated vampire communities, mage
communities, and various other groups through their influence. Most people
seemed to know out of character that they were up to something, and many
translated that meta-game knowledge into their characters (but that’s another
point entirely)… very few actually knew what was going on.
Individually, these characters might not have had the
influence to make a lot of difference in the story, but as an unholy trinity
they could combine their forces to overcome the vast majority of characters who
operated independently as “lone-wolf moody stalkers of the night”. Rarely did
other characters unite their forces unless facing a specific one-off threat
provided by the GMs, after which they’d go their separate ways again.
In the interests of pushing the concept of player driven
storyline, it makes sense for this game to formalise the relationships between
characters, especially in small factional groups that might struggle for power
in the shadows.
Let’s start with the fact that I’m a big fan of the triangular
number progression sequence
1T = 1 = 1
2T = 1+2 = 3
3T = 1+2+3 = 6
4T = 1+2+3+4 = 10
5T = 1+2+3+4+5 = 15
The one player unit is 1T, a single player. A pair of
players can work together, but they get access to a new level of power (or something
special) once they add a third character to their mix. Three characters becomes
the minimum number for a small faction.
Since we talked about primary characters and secondary
characters in earlier instalments of this series, we can discuss their
implications here as well. I would suggest that a player may not have primary
and secondary characters belonging to the same faction (because this could be
abused to artificially boost factional numbers), but then we run into the
problem of players knowing what is happening behind the scenes in two separate factions.
This causes a problem when dealing with immature players who would use this meta-game
knowledge to their advantage, but let’s assume most of our players are mature.
A second rule that would help curtail this problem might state that only a
primary character may hold a leadership role within a faction (and thus know
what is truly going on within the faction).
What are the bonuses for working as a faction?
Here I’m thinking prestige, access to a secure
stronghold/storage-facility, access to resources, training in special abilities,
and factional secrecy. Players in the faction would be able to choose which
options their faction possesses, and would be able to lure new players to their
faction with promises of rewards from those options.
Let’s link this into the story point system where players
risk their experience points by linking it to a specific storyline. This way
when the faction gains power, everyone gains a benefit, when the faction loses
power they suffer. It’s in their best interests to push the factional agenda.
This means every character has one to three points invested
in their faction, and in turn, this gives the faction leaders a pool of points that
may be spent to empower factional benefits. Faction leaders don’t necessarily
know who is contributing what number of points, they just know the overall
As an idea, these points might be spent in the following
Secluded Meeting Place = 1pt (Maximum for a 2T faction)
Secure Meeting Place = 3pts (Maximum for a 3T faction)
Stronghold = 5pts (Maximum for a 4T faction)
Fortress = 7pts (Maximum for a 5T faction)
Employ a minor mentor (capable of training a basic level ability)
= 1pt (Max. 2T)
Employ a competent mentor (capable of training an
intermediate level ability) = 3pts (Max. 3T)
Employ a master mentor (capable of training an advanced
level ability) = 5pts (Max. 4T)
Regular income of a small amount in some common material =
1pt (Max. 2T)
Regular income of a moderate amount in some common material
= 2pts (Max. 3T)
Regular income of a large amount in some common material = 3pts (Max. 4T)
Regular income of a small amount in some uncommon material =
2pt (Max. 3T)
Regular income of a moderate amount in some uncommon
material = 4pts (Max. 4T)
Regular income of a large amount in some uncommon material =
6pts (Max. 5T)
Access to bodyguards / workers = 1pt per pair of bodyguards/workers
Factional secrecy = total number of points to be spent must
be greater than half the number of characters in the faction (rounding down).
You get the idea.
Factional prestige would purely be measured by the number of
characters publicly swearing allegiance to the group.
I think that this bit of the game might be one of the
defining systems that sets it apart from other LARPs. So we might need a bit
more work to get this part right.
This blog is a meander through my interests in and around the world of independent roleplaying. Due to spam bots I authorise people's responses to the posts here, so if your reply doesn't appear straight away, don't get frustrated. You might just need to wait a couple of days for me to log on again. If you're really passionate about your reply, send me an email and I'll make sure that your message gets through.