Observations of the Fox

 You know what I said in the second post ... ... ignore it.  I'll clarify that a bit. When I said that a switch needs a good balance to it, weighing up the pros of the potential advantage and cons of the potential disadvantage, that's still kind of true. But a good narrative isn't always about balance.  I've written that players are often participating in roleplaying sessions for a combination of escapism and telling a good story. That escapism often requires letting them do things easily and show off their characters strengths, but a good story often has obstacles where the characters are underdogs and have little chance of success. Imbalance often swings between extremes. Sometimes the heroes are on top of the world, sometimes they are facing drama, sometimes they have no idea what they're doing because they don't have all the facts. I like to make sure things swing in all sorts of directions, as long as it can be justified by the narrative. 3rd Edition D&...

 Apparently, according to some sources, the first game to do this really well was Sorceror (written by Ron Edwards and published by Adept Press)...but I distinctly remember seeing implementations of relationship maps back in World of Darkness games in the 90s. The idea is that different characters in the story are connected to each other, Points (or nodes) on the chart indicate who they are, and lines between them can be used to indicate who connects to whom...but there can be more than this. Relationship maps can be simple... ...or quite complicated... They can link only the characters in a campaign, or they can link characters to places, and to objects that may be important to the story. The links can also depict more than just a connect between elements of the setting. I like to add symbols to the lines between nodes, or colour code them. In this case, the nodes are groups, because these are the important units of the story. Within each group there could be a separate relationsh...

 If the clock is a visible meter of tension rising, a switch is a less visible indicator. A switch works off a binary of yes or no... is something happening, is it not happening. There's no gradually turning up of the heat and then watching things flip from one state to the other, instead it's a single roll, a single randomising factor. The switch might activate after a single roll, or it might not activate after a dozen rolls.  (Ten years ago it was easier to do a search for roleplaying games that incorporated switches, now a quick search tends to give me console RPGs on the Nintendo Switch)   I basically first ran the idea of a switch without realizing it back in high school. The premise was a mysterious carnival, with a mysterious vendor who may or may not have been the devil. It was a game of Rifts, so over-the-top shenanigans was a typical part of play. Rune swords had just been introduced in one of the most recent sourcebooks at the time, and I thought they'd b...

At the simplest level, the clock is a visual tracking mechanism. It's basically a circle divided into segments (often 4, 6, or 8), and it typically represents big effects underway in the story.  The idea of the RPG clock has been around for at least 20 years, and it can be traced back to systems where a major feat may be accomplished through multiple successes,  and arguably back to the idea of hit points. However, the clock has evolved in a few different ways.  Hit points and multiple success systems typically allow you to remove multiple levels with a single action, while clocks move incrementally...tick by tick. Hit points and multiple success systems are reactive to specific actions being taken. Clocks can be tied to anything, including timed effects ("You've got six turns to accumulate as many successes as you can") Clocks tend to be chunky, with big incremental ticks that add sudden drama with each one's passing. Clocks often impact the narrative in some way...

Among game designers there was a debate for many years about whether a game system mattered. This was pushed at The Forge, with essays such as " System Does Matter " by Ron Edwards. ...but to show that the debate has been going on for years, here's a random assortment of links to articles and posts over the years that have addressed the idea. " Why System Matters " " Game Structures Addendum - System Matters " " System Doesn't Matter* " " RPG History - What events/games led to 'System Matters' needing to be 'rediscovered'? " " Does System Matter? " " Why the Rules you use matter " " System Matters 24 years later " All of them are interesting reads and watches... (and yes, I know that two of the forum posts linked refer to the same video, but the varied discussions are interesting) The thing about most of these discussions is that they refer to the written words on the pages of a game...

Everything in this series so far has consisted of things I've learned by running games, things I've learned by participating in games run by other people, or things I've learned from hearing about games that friends have been involved in. If you only ever play in series of games run by one person, using one system, and the same group of players. All the tensions on the narrative are going to be similar no matter how many sessions you play. If you judge all roleplaying by that set of narrow experiences, it's a bit like judging all  TV shows even thought the only thing you've ever watched is the 90s sit-com Friends. If you say that it's rubbish, or you say that you've become bored of all TV because you've become bored of the one TV show you know, you may not realise that there's a lot more potential that you haven't explored yet....and you can even make your own. To further the analogy, if the only TV show you've watched is Friends, then the on...

Facebook post used by permission (written by Jeah-François Vincent) So many of the points I've addressed in this sequence of blog posts are present in the Facebook post...in a bad way. Let's go through a few of them, one by one... The group plays one game. We've already established the three way tension that plays a part on most game sessions. Different games pull on the narrative flow in different ways, and at different ties during the course of play. This can mean that the same group, with the same narrator, can have a very different play experience during a session if they play with one game system compared to another. Honestly, this isn't a totally bad thing, it's just a predictable thing... if you go for too long with the one game system then you end up in a bit of a creative rut, but it also allows everyone a bit more control over the flow of play because they know how and when the game will try to exert an impact. The horror that some players express when reg...

Quite a few of my students have found this blog, and they've been asking me to write about key members of the various groups I've been running. They've also been trying to work out who is who among the  various nom-de-plumes already included in various articles. That's been kind of nice, and it basically leads into a lot of the things that I've been discussing.  I've always thought that one of the aims when running a good game, is creating an event that people want to come back to. Anything that might help that situation is potentially a good thing. If I can get people talking about the game between sessions, this is a good thing (as long as the game doesn't become detrimental to other parts of their life... and I've seen that happen in the past, briefly mentioning "Mephisto" from the distant past at the end of part 7 ) . If I can get players more immersed in the events of the story while the game is happening, that's a good thing. If I...

I remember back when I started going to conventions in the early to mid 90s, where I met a range of people who'd actually been running games for 15 years. I had read about long-term campaigns in RPG magazines, but generally thought they were urban legends until I met some of the people who had actually taken part in a few of them.  As far as I'm aware, a bunch of those folks are still running the same campaign worlds. The characters have certainly been and gone, I've heard that many of the first generation of players have literally died of old age, and the original narrators have passed on the mantle to new ones. Many of these games even shifted through game systems, from early D&D to Advanced D&D, then 2nd edition, sometimes even swapping to completely different game systems as the needs of the narrative shifted, perhaps moving to Pendragon, Ars Magica, or Rolemaster. These were the kinds of epic campaigns that I always wanted to be invited into, or wanted to run. ...

For a lot of folks, there seems to be an assumption that a tabletop RPG only occurs during the course of play when the official session is running. I touch on this when I discuss the ideas of setting up a liminal space for the session, and when I mention that "bleed" can be a dangerous thing. But bleed exists and always will exist, and it can be used to advantage. I'm still a fan of the idea that there needs to be a separation between the fantastic world of the session, and the real world beyond. However, there is always the opportunity to make the real world a little more magical by spreading the game to it.  I began seeing this idea back in the mid 1990s. I was a part of a few communities of live-action gamers, and the internet was nothing like it is today. These various groups typically held games monthly, the first Saturday of the month might be one game group, the second might be a different game... but having thirty or more players trying to cram in a complete story...

There has been this thing in roleplaying circles ever since I started playing back in the late 1980s, it probably goes back to the beginning of roleplaying games. It's a discussion about "fairness" and equivalence between the players. It appears in discussions about other forms of game play too. Fairness In game development, the concept of  fairness  refers to the idea that the game should be balanced and unbiased, with all players having an equal chance of success regardless of their skill level or other factors. A fair game is one in which all players have the same chances of winning and losing, and where the outcome of the game is not determined by random chance alone. There are a number of ways that game developers can strive for fairness in their games, including: Balancing gameplay : This involves adjusting the game mechanics and rules to ensure that all players have an equal chance of winning. This can include adjusting the power level of different characters or it...