Observations of the Fox

It might be the fact that my blog is currently on a similar topic, but Google has started sending me links about things that people can do to improve their TTRPG experience... like this one . Let's consider the points it raises in the context I've described so far. 10. Run a session zero: the right way I've already indicated that communication between the players and the narrator is a key to success in any RPG session or campaign. For a single session game, this usually comes in the form of letting players know what they're in for as a part of the one-shot, but for campaigns (the typical mode of play for D&D) then a session zero is something that's a relatively recent phenomenon. This can really make or break a game.   If we consider the three way tension between narrator, players and rules, a session zero gets everyone on board with how the rules will pull on the story, this happens through the narrator explaining the system or any house rules they might have m

This blog is not called 'Laws of the Fox" or "Decrees of the Fox". I don't claim to know everything, I just try to learn about the world through a bit of observation, some thoughts and theories, then a bit more observation to see if those ideas hold water. If they do, my theories gain a bit more credence, if they don't I look for new ideas. It's basically scientific method, and over the years I've shifted my views on many topics.  I don't get a whole lot of discussion here, but I shared the post in a couple of Facebook groups and got all sorts of insight. My knowledge about aphantasia has expanded somewhat as a result of these new discussions and observations, but one if the key lessons learnt is that the word "aphantasia" seems to describe a few interrelated conditions that are being conflated, and there is still a lot of research to do regarding mental visualisation and the shared imaginary experience of RPGs (or even play in general).

There's a test that has been going around in recent months. The idea is to visualize a red apple in your mind's eye. Think about what the apple looks like within that imaginary space. Is it a realistic thing, shaded and textured, and does it feel like someone could reach inside your head, pull the apple out and start eating it? Is it a vague placeholder that has some of the elements of "apple-ness" about it, but it's more abstract because you know it's not the real thing and your mind just takes shortcuts to give the impression of an apple? Do you completely struggle with generating an image of an apple altogether? I'd be inclined to suggest that folks who engage in roleplaying tend to fall into the lower numbers here, while those with aphantasia tend to fall into the higher numbers. It takes a degree of imagination, an ability to suspend disbelief, and an ability to manipulate imaginary forms to successfully get into the imagined world of an RPG session.

 The term "Roleplaying Games" is made up of three overlapping terms. Role    the function assumed or part played by a person or thing in a particular situation. Play       activities that appear to be freely sought and pursued solely for the sake of individual or group enjoyment An activity can be characterized as play, or described as playful, to the degree that it contains the characteristics listed here: Play is activity that is (1) self-chosen and self-directed; (2) intrinsically motivated; (3) guided by mental rules; (4) imaginative; and (5) conducted in an active, alert, but relatively non-stressed frame of mind.   Game     1. an activity that one  engages  in for amusement or fun.     2. a complete episode or period of play, ending in a final result. Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherw

Games have a variety of dimensions, some of which may be limited in scope, some of which may be open. The two most obvious of these are time and protagonism.  Time At one end of the scale, there are plenty of tales about games that have gone on for decades . At the other end of the scale, some games might only last half an hour. Most games fall somewhere between these extremes. I don't have data immediately available on the average campaign length, but I vaguely remember reading something in the last couple of weeks that suggested the average length of a campaign is about 4 to 6 months.  If you're playing a one-shot, time is an important factor because you want to tell a self-contained story that gets effectively resolved in the allotted period. If you're playing (or running) an open campaign, this isn't as rigid but it's often still a good ideas to ensure your story gets resolved before other factors get in the way. The kinds of factors I'm thinking of here ar

The last post looked at limiting the number of players in your games to make sure everyone gets enough time to interact with the shared collaborative story unfolding amongst the group.  It suggested that everyone should get an equal amount of "screen time", but I'll add a side note before I go much further. Some people will try to hog the spotlight regardless of how much time you give them, and other people will prefer to take a back seat. I've played with plenty of both over the years. I generally aim to be pretty democratic in my methodology of running games. I try to make sure the majority of people are having an enjoyable time (even if it means one person is complaining that they're not getting their desired limelight), rather than giving a single person an awesome gaming experience at the expense of the rest of the table. Yes, I've had players walk away from my games because I didn't let them run rampant in my sessions, but the remainder of the player

My most recent experiences running games have been at the high school gaming club I established and as an alternative to school sports. These two forms of play are a very unusual niche style, combining elements of one-shot play and campaign play.  The gaming club operates with half-hour sessions at lunch-times, and it has about 20 players involved. If I had all of these players playing at the same time, especially in a game like D&D, it might take a quick player 30 seconds to describe what their character is doing (a sentence to describe their intention, some rolling of dice, some interpretation of those dice, and a sentence of event description so everyone else can hear how the die roll has changed the storyline. At 30 seconds for 20 players, a single player will spend half a minute on their turn and have to wait nine-and-a-half minutes until their next turn. That's a maximum of 3 actions per player per lunch break, and many high-school students will get bored and distracted d

Here's where things get fragmented. However, a lot of the same concepts still generally apply.  If you're running a game at a local game store, or at a gaming convention, you want to make sure you attract the right sorts of players to your game. If you're running a game at home, you want to make sure everyone understands what you intend to do with the game so people can decide if they want to participate in your sessions or not. I've spent a lot of time doing both, and have seen a few differences in the way each of these needs to be considered. This probably also fits under the idea of getting everyone on the same page in a game, or at least understanding where everyone is coming from when they approach the game and explaining where you'll be heading as you run the game. This is where I'll be deviating away from the Forge terminology, and probably drifting back to some of the Vector Theory terminology that I developed here on the blog back in 2010. Conventions