#19 - How Young is Too Young?

At the Con of the North this year I had a few games with Children. I'm talking under the age of 16. Although I myself am very young I found myself looking across a generation gap. There were three events where I mixed with youths, and found it challenging in different ways to communicate with the kids. A RPG is worthless if there is no way to communicate between the people involved. So I wanted to take time to react.

I'm not expert, I don't have children, and I don't commonly work with them, but this is how it went....

I held a Pokemon game at the Con of the North. Pokemon Master Trainer. It's not a great title - can't hold a candle to the classic Game-Boy's Red & Blue. But the kids liked it enough. A half dozen preteens sat with me at the table rolling dice and throwing Pokeballs. There was some rotten luck at that table. Dice rolls don't seem to reward effort or hope. But I wanted the kids to enjoy themselves.

I'm certain that game was unlike any other Pokemon experience they ever had. Pokemon as a franchise is not well suited to be a board game, and the particular game was a lot more random than most collectors would prefer. There is almost zero skill in that game. The familiar ways a Pokemon Master would utilize water types against rock didn't apply.

One kid in particular had a really rotten show, didn't catch any new Pokemon for 30 minutes. Basically ruining his whole game. Spent every turn thinking this would finally be his time to win big. It seemed very unfair.

I spent a lot of time at that table reminding players that it was their turn and trying to bolster hope as they rolled the die again. As everyone took their chance to battle the Elite four I kept repeating, "roll up - roll up," "Here we go," and "I believe in you." Not much to do on your turn but see the random result.

In the end it was a silly (and poorly designed) kid's game. But, I think everyone enjoyed the highs and lows.

I sure hope they did.

Another pair of events I held, were a RPG coffee and chat seminar. Meant to be a break from the games, instead a brainstorming session; a chance to talk about what we like and struggle with in our games. Children came to these, on two different days. The First went very well, had great participation and creativity from two kids half my age. They had questions ready to go, asked me for advice, and even told me about ideas they had been thinking of. We had a brief improvised game where I made use of a villain one of the Kids invented.

That child even had the attention to mention moments where I misunderstood what he had come up with. He even gave allowance for my adaptation of what he created. It didn't have to be the same as what he intended, and he was comfortable with my creative licence.

His buddy, the 2nd kid in the duo, took on the roll of main protagonist and asked my advice on how to best participate. Both in the game we briefly played at the Convention, and for future games he hoped to be the Narrator of!

From a pair preteens I was much impressed.

My other Seminar didn't go well... I'll never forget this kid, he name was Noah. I'll never forget him, because I was at a loss for what to talk about with him. He had no ideas to share when we sat down, nor had he ever played DND. That isn't such a problem, so long as we make comparisons and share some fiction. Noah knew that this wasn't a game just a launchpad.

But our rocket ship included no fuel.

Noah had no awareness of Middle earth, nor did he know any Greek myths. I was half convinced he had never seen a Disney movie. As I said he never had played DND, and his ignorance of Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs astounded me. The whole seminar was co-opted by Noah as the other attendees tried to help. The whole hour became about Noah making a DND character.

Finally I learned he had read Harry Potter, something we had in common. By this point Noah was dead set on making a "Smart Guy" hero. So I brought him to Player's Handbook pages on Wizards.

Just so WE are all on the same page here, DND Wizards are NOT like Hogwarts Wizards.

Noah eventually did make his Wizard and did make all the key choices a player needs when establishing their PC.

But I wonder where he will go from here... Who will he play with? How will he find his first game?

Now, I'm no child at heart; I don't write this to ask when will a Kid be mature enough to play in your game? I just want to emphasize that a gap in knowledge will emerge when you have people of different histories at the table.

Some of the Adults at my RPG seminars were not very experienced and sometimes felt like they were put on the spot.

These hiccups will come up, I just encourage you to exercise patience. Please consider how you previously felt "too old" or "too young."

It might help bridge the gap!

#18 - 2nd Opinions

I decided to write today about an issue I myself should be more attentive of. Any creative person needs inspiration, and builds off of works that come before them. I should be paying attention to what the larger Role-playing community is doing, and to the games that people are holding. I don't do this enough, but it is January, it is time to hold ourselves to some resolutions.

The simple truth is I don't read enough, but I should. I don't watch enough you-tube videos of other RPGs, nor do I expose myself to enough new ideas and great players. Today I wanted to mention two others and ways I'm trying to learn from they.

First is Seth Skorkowsky.

Who I will link to here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQs8-UJ7IHsrzhQ-OQOYBmg

Specifically about Seth I wanted to bring up his "RPG Social Contract." Simply put, Seth believe the responsibility between a GM and their Players is to ensure everyone has fun. The Players grant GM control over the narrative so that the GM gives everyone a good time. Fun is key to Seth, and to the games he makes and all the adventures he writes. If they were not fun we wouldn't play. So always and forever, that needs to be central to the design of the games.

Additionally Seth recognizes that players and the games they play are imperfect. He is aware that things will not go as planned, and good intentions do not guarantee good results. Yet, perfection need not be the expectation, just the good faith effort to make what isn't working better. To learn from our mistakes and remember that this is a game. That we are playing because we want to be play.

Beyond Seth, I'll mention another YouYube personality, one I don't know as well. That is Cody from Taking20,

Link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCly0Thn_yZouwdJtg7Am62A

I haven't seen as much of his content, but like me he seems to emphasize being self critical. To question why you are having the games played the way you always have. To resolve issues that come up by asking some elemental questions. "Was this a fluke or a mistake?" "Could we have seen this coming?" and "Did we how did we want things to go anyway?"

Part of learning from our mistakes is understanding that they were. This need not be something we do alone! By definition a RPG is something we do not do alone! Things only happen because we decide they do.

In a fictional world of infinite possibilities, how can we say that something was inevitable? That this was how it was supposed to go? I look forward to watching more of what he has to say because I also have these questions and comments front and center.

That's it for my commentary on ways you can improve. But what good would it do me not to ask for your favorite guides and lessons. Are you a fan of someone you like learning from? Reach out on my contact page and let me know how you keep trying to sharpen your skills.

#17 - Incorporating Puzzles

One of the elements I think of in role-playing games are the activities that go on outside of a role-playing game. Obviously there is a social aspect, and it’s often key to have the players talking with each other. To keep the game running smoothly you also don't want it to go too long, and you find ways to draw the attention of people who are getting bored.

Another trick I can interrupt normal game play with, is by handing over a puzzle to the players. Such a toy breaks up normal game-play by adding a new dimension. It takes the action from a land entirely of make believe, and adds a real world element. The focus shifting to a puzzle means it is no longer on something we are imaginings, but now on something we see.

Even better if it is something you can hold in your hand!

Puzzles like this, Anagrams, riddles, or even jigsaw puzzle are often not necessary for a game. But, its richness comes in the reminder that a role-playing games has more than 1 dimension. We don’t merely pretend, we interact, we exchange.

Here are 3 quick suggestions for incorporating a puzzle seamlessly!

#1 Make it physical!

An anagram can be a great way to produce a password. Suppose the heroes need a secret phrase to open a door. They may know what letters go into that password, but not which specific word / words. That will surely make opening a locked door more exciting. But even better than giving them a slip of paper with the letters jumbled on it is giving them a stack of post it notes. This allows everyone around to have a look at the letters individually, they can quickly rearrange them and puzzle it out together. For an anagrams specifically, post its also help to ensure their final answer uses all letters.

There is no possibility of forgetting an E somewhere, if you are still holding it in your hand.

#2 Make it nonessential!

If solving a puzzle is required to continue the plot it is instead a roadblock. That would be fine, if they can find the solution… It will not feel as good however if they solve it immediately. that would make the test mundane. It would feel even worse if they cannot solve the puzzle, that would highlight their helplessness. Set puzzles aside for bonuses. If they have to assemble a map that was cut up with a jigsaw have the map show them something special. Reward them for solving it, for going above the call of duty. Never punish them for not seeing an "obvious" answer.

#3 Have a backup

With my last note in mind, it is possible the heroes will solve your puzzle right away. Some players may have heard a riddle before, or it may only take 30 seconds to complete the Rubik's cube. In that case whip out another one! If they needed a password to get thru a door, and they already have it on hand, ask for a 2nd or a third. A three part challenge isn't much more difficult than a single obstacle. It will take more time obviously, and getting the hat trick will feel great! Anyone who has scored a critical hit can appreciate the lucky roll, but to get it 3 times in a row is remarkable.

The reward of a puzzle can be the solution itself. Solving more than one can be double / triple the glory!

That said, I wouldn't ask the heroes to solve 4 or 5 riddles in a row... Don’t make the puzzle a chore.

#16 - In Praise of DND

I had a debate with a fellow player recently. It all started when I requested joining his new DND game. My pal was happy enough to accept me, but he did raise a concern, "I thought you didn't like Dungeons and Dragons."

Well, its complicated.

But I didn't back out of my offer to join the game, I wanted to participate. On that day, as I will today, I offer my single greatest praise of DND. The game is robust!

When I say robust I think of my High School statistics class. I think of sample sizes, and the more data you can get for your question the stronger an answer you will have. This is what it means to be robust; strength in numbers.

This is an understated part of what makes DND a great game. The people I know who love it, compliment its variety and the opportunity for creativity. How much room there is to play around within that system. Why wouldn't there be room to play around? the game has existed for 40+ years! The community is millions strong. There is a continuity from one group of players to another. Even if the campaigns hold no similarity in settings, or evil-doers, the players will likely make similar characters. Their spells and equipment will be familiar from one hobby center to next hang-out. There is a symmetry from one game to the hundredth game - even after decades!

DND is like a stock or broth. The flavor that it brings to your stews, sauces, and dishes is so strong that it allows every chef to experiment and personalize it to their taste.

Ravenloft makes a perfect example of this strong flavor. Ravenloft as a module or setting blends two different types of adventures into a fantastic mixture. That quest to slay Strahd is unmistakably Gothic, while at the same time a bold sword and sorcery tale! A perfect crawler and horror mixture.

This robustness of DND, the long history, makes it one of the greatest games of all time.

So yeah, I want to play.

#14 - Strikeout

Before, - I've talked about the nature of role-playing, as a shared fiction. I've also mentioned the choice - consequence dialogue. The way players work together to have their character's accomplish something. Players make decisions as the representatives of their characters. GMs offer the consequences to advance the drama. All of these player decisions, and the following consequences amass into a story. The story of the RPG, a shared fiction.

This can work out great, and teammates can solves large problems, usually its a lot of fun to cooperate. But, sometimes this collaboration doesn't catch on. Sometimes the heroes ignore the behavior of the people around them. When they start to feel that nothing matters, or they have nothing left to contribute, the sharing is lost. The story falls apart from lack of attention.

It’s pretty easy for a book to end if you stop reading. Lack of interest can lead to dallying about and hours of busy nothings.

I've seen a lot of dumb decisions in my time. Sometimes I sit there as the GM, and I think the current course of action will lead to ruin.

It is not my job, as the referee to punish players, but it is also not my job to save the heroes from poor choices.

This is when I deploy my "three strikes" rule. If ever I get 3 bad decisions in a row, the game is over.

By "bad decision" I mean something that would surely result in the death of a character. Or in some inevitable unpleasant consequence, like going to jail or contracting food poisoning.

If I get 3 of these in a row, I deploy a strike out, and finish the game early. Completing the shared fiction by fast forwarding to the end result of trouble. The consequence arrives ahead of schedule. This "bad ending" is easy enough to believe because the trouble had just chosen.

While it may not have been what people wanted to happen, nobody ever really calls foul. Its the logical conclusion.

I wouldn't get into the habit of expecting this as a needed tool for a GM. Nor is it really necessary to explain that you are ending the game because of people not taking things seriously. This advice is more of a secret weapon for when the truly dumb and bizzare raises its head.

The more important question may be, do people still want to play?

#13 - World Building Lesson 102

While reading through the rules of a Star Wars role-playing game. I saw that if a character accumulates too many dark side points they cease to be a player character. If you fall to the dark side you cannot continue to play as your character, the hero becomes an NPC. A friend of mine asked me about this, they seemed to think it was unfair, "why would you loose control of your character just because you turned evil?"

The justification was one of simplicity. If a character did fall to the dark side, then we all would know what they would do next. There is no more need for a player to delineate the characters actions.

In finished fiction character can be simple. Their motivations can be summarized in a few sentences and everyone can appreciate their decisions. This is fine and all, but it is unrealistic.

For one thing real people resent being categorized, for another they contradict themselves. Characters in a novel have a purpose for the drama, and their actions push this along. Fictional characters are plot devices, their decisions are not always their own.

Reality rejects simplicity. Real people behave with nuance. We all see ourselves as exceptional, and we know what motivates us but find others a mystery. Creating characters with every detail fleshed out can be quite reductive. Paradoxically it makes them simpler and smaller.

This is not to say that your characters cannot be well detailed. Just that fixed details makes them more of an object to be seen - "objectified." Knowing all of the quirks and idiosyncrasies of a person can lead someone to manipulate them. If I know a person in and out as well as my car, I can drive them anywhere.

Such perfect knowledge is rare in the real world, or at least an uncomfortable thought. You can just as easily give an impression of some part of you fictional world without showing how the magic trick is done.

It might also avoid the tail from wagging the dog.

A good way to avoid this is to have unfixed details and to be vague. A character might be working through their anger problems, instead of having anger issues. It allows the character to surprise us with a moment of calm, or an outburst after a still period. We still know they did what they did, but we are unsure where it might go next.

What happens in the following scene could go either way, a shouting match or an apology. Such is real life.

#12 Breaking the Rules

In my previous article I wanted to impress upon players and narrators that the rules of a RPG have to help the game. If they are not helpful they should not be there. Here we get into shaving off the unhelpful bits of rules.

My most successful role-playing group shares the belief: "less is more" when it comes to the rules. These are the "Soviets," if you have been keeping up with my blog. We've played several different games now, with different rules and we like to see open space on character sheets, and rule packets under 10 pages.

The key appeal for not having rules is freedom. If we have not already decided that A will cause B, then when A occurs we can decide what is best to follow. We are free because we don't have to abide by what is written, then we can adjust the game as we progress. There is obvious value to that.

But lets discuss when we decide to go against the rules, and not simply leave something open for later. A great breaking of the rules is Destiny. If you recall, I mentioned in Essay #7 that destined events are interruptions to normal game play. Destined events are not part of the normal rally of choice and consequence. Destined events may very well also be outside of the rules.

As with Luke Skywalker and his proton torpedoes. I don't really think a die roll is necessary when he makes his final shot at the death star. He chose to trust in the force, and that should be a reason to ignore the rules.

Thinking further on Destiny, I want to encourage players to think of ways that they can also break the rules. Sometimes in games I play, I see players looking over their character sheets and they don't see a relevant skill for what they want to do. I'm not a fan of players deciding they want to use such an such a skill. I would rather the role-playing be seamless. Player decides on an action and tries to find a way to make it work.

If you are a player go ahead and announce your intention of doing something. Whatever your skills, the cooperation between you, your teammates, and the GM can find a way to make it happen.

If you want to toss you crumpled piece of paper into the recycling bin you don't need to have a "throwing" skill. Simply saying that is what you want to do is enough notice to everyone there that you will use whatever talents your character has to achieve that end. You could had it off to your teammate for the alley-oop. You could mock "throw" it by holding our your hand and "running" the motion of the paper flying through the air. Or you could just use telekinesis.

This may seem like a dumb example, but I will remind you, that role-playing games are make believe. If you want to hold your hand out the car window and fly, lets figure out a way to make that happen.

Of course I'm not suggesting that a character can flap their arms around and fly. But just as much as we can dream of taking to the skies, a character can explore ways to get up up and away. No telekenisis required.

For players and GMs, please don't limit yourselves by what the books say. Reward the creativity of your fellow players and of the narration. 

It will make sure anything is possible.

#11 - Making the Rules Work for You.

At the Con last weekend I spoke with a player in my upcoming RPG. It will be set in the Soviet Union and part of a series of games we've formed through compromise. I would say we've had success in designing our own rule sets for our unique adventures. Last year, we has the post apocalyptic "Fallout: Twin Cities" game, and more recently finished the Yukon Horror. These I play with some of my good friends from the "JB's Games" over there on the website. Both of those games and my Soviet one will have homemade rules. The character details in this adventure have been quite bare bones.

While discussing the rules at the Con, I tried to clarify my rules on "Perks," a way to give certain special abilities to heroes. My player, Erik, wanted his character to have a competitive athlete perk. Which would bolster his efforts for physical performance when he had someone to go up against. That sounded great and would be a good addition to the shared fiction. But, I wasn't sure what that would mean for the game. If you recall, our rules are sparse.

The game has only 3 types of character details, Attributes, Skills, and Perks. I was explaining to my fellow that I didn't want Perks to merely be an increase to the other two. If a Perk is a simple increase to another Attribute, it doesn't make that Perk special at all. So too if the Perk was too much like a Skill. For a few minutes I ran some ideas past Erik to think of other ways to convey his Perk. I wanted something qualitative, something more creative than the simple increases above.

But, Erik wasn't satisfied by any of this. Instead he reminded me that he needed the rules to work for him, and in this case he wanted a concrete reliable increase. He wanted something quantitative, something numerical.

Eventually, her persuaded me. Then, I made some notes for how his competitive athleticism will impact the game. Don't worry it will be a fixed quantitative boost.

The larger story here today is to illustrate why we have the rules here in the first place. As a child you might have pretended to have a tea party and in your young bustling imagination anything goes. Whatever sort of tea you wanted you had, every flavor of jam tasted great on plastic toast. In the shared fiction of a role-playing game it gets more contractual. Erik's character is a great athlete, this could stand on its own. But, when he goes up against another star runner Erik's hero will need a measurement of how fast he is. We have rules, character sheets, attributes, and skills to keep track of these things.

In a tea party everybody can be a princess. In an RPG it often necessary to know exactly what that means.

Some games have more rules than others. Some rule systems ignore different things. A hero's social class is not relevant in most D&D adventures for example. In some games being a Duke and not an Earl might have a big impact on the game. Rules can change the way a game plays out and the way the character's behave. Ultimately, leaving things in or out is up to you, and the other people you are playing with.

My quick advice is that if it is worth measuring it is worth a rules notation.

#10 - Meta-Game Thinking

I was speaking with a friend of mine, one who doesn't participate in RPGs, about my hobby. I began to brainstorm with him what manner of a role-playing experience he might find exciting. We tossed around idea, but ultimately he said that he was turned off by the fact that in the RPG, whoever it was he became for the game, he would know that he would only be assuming, or at the best guessing, what they would think feel and believe, or how they would behave.

This is true. Try as we might, to imagine out lives otherwise, or to create a simulated experience, we will only ever be pretending, playing a game. The levels of complexity to our make believe, the depth, the details, or even the moral of the story, don't cover up the fact that we are participating in a story.

An interactive story, a story were both the actors and the narrators have power to decide what happens. These are aspects that appeal to every role-player.

But it is a game none the less.

We have to recognize the nature of the fiction we create, and we have keep it at arms length.

If you assume the role of another, you are a player acting as someone else, and doing your best not to act like you are acting like someone else.

This is where the magic happens. I haven't any scientific understanding of how to pull this off, it is more poetic.

Still, doubling back to the point that you must recognize you are acting in a game, but not treat it like a game. If you were to treat it like a game, you would be engaging in meta-game thinking. Which is where you as the character in the game know that you are merely in a game.

This would be similar to if you went about in your own life as if it were a simulation and not reality. Certainly this is an interesting thought experiment, but I haven't met a person who takes the idea seriously. Or at least no one has ever bothered to explain that they do believe they are in a facsimile of reality and not actual reality.

If they did they would be engaging in meta-reality thinking, which is meta-game thinking but about our lives out of the game, whereas meta-game thinking is thoughts of the player, having their character behave like the character is in a game.

Now, there is space for a playing a character who does believe that they are in a game, or a simulation and acting like they do know that their surrounding are fictional. But, this still sits with the above problem of only guessing at how they would think feel and believe, without actually having a parallel belief outside of the game.

That is unless you yourself actually believe your reality is a simulation.

If I have lost you, please don't feel bad. Again, I don't know of anybody who takes these ideas seriously in the “real” world. Taking it seriously in the game world is easier to think about, because we are all aware of the illusion, but it is essential not the break it, if you do you stop role-playing.

I will say there is nothing wrong with playing a game and treating it like a game while you are playing that game, but that wouldn't be role-playing. You would merely be playing a game.

Not role-playing in a role-playing game is like watching a movie and treating all the characters like the actors that portray them. Interesting perhaps, but please don't interrupt the shared fiction by treating it as only fiction.

The unique nature of role-playing allows people to create fiction together, and to interact with at the characters they wish to be. What comes out of it will always be a work of the imagination, but many imaginary things feel more real to us, that whatever simulation we are all walking around in in “real” life.

#8 - The Trouble with Sherlock

Mystery in role-playing games is almost impossible to pull off. Every time I've included a murder mystery or a puzzle with a single answer, the players always get stuck. This may seem odd to any fan of detective fiction. After all, If deduction is such a simple skill, why do intelligent players make bad conclusions? Sherlock Holmes' famous logic, is to remove the impossible answers until only one remains. That "last answer standing" is the truth. But, that has never worked for a role-playing game. Because, deduction requires a clue and previous knowledge.

The trouble with Sherlock, is that his deductions are short, easy to explain, and save the day. This arises when we realize that a deduction requires a known connection. I once read a story where Sherlock identified someone's line of work by looking at their right hand. The right hand was larger than their left, and so Sherlock said the man earned his money through labor. Sherlock concluded this because a man who works in labor would have a larger right hand. The man before Sherlock had a larger hand, and thus could be (and was) a laborer.

This is fine and all, for a story where the author can tell me something and have me believe it. But, as a person in the real world (and as a role-player) I don't know that. It isn't an established fact in my life that laborers have larger hands. I could believe it if I read it in a book, but it isn't something that I knew. I never learned before. That clue given to me in a role-playing game, would have led me to a different conclusion. I'd have gotten there, logically, because I have different previous knowledge. Players can't be expected to make a single deduction from the fact that a man has a larger right hand. It could / would mean that he is a laborer, but only if the player already knew that before. A larger could also mean that he has diabetes. A larger hand could mean he plays basketball. A larger hand could mean he types in a chair for a living.

We don't know everything, we can't. What we do know, is different from one player to the next. As players in a role-playing game we have as much influence in creating the world of fiction as the narrator. In a role-playing game with 4 players, that clue of the larger hand could lead to 4, or more, conclusions. Each player could have a guess on what it means. Each will believe that they have correctly deduced what the clue meant. They all applied the same logic, and all made a justified conclusion.

The bizarre part of that result, is that each of them will be right. The role-playing game exists only in shared imagination. Whatever the player is thinking IS the “real” answer. Telling them otherwise is unhelpful. To have a better mystery in your role-playing game, match your in game clues, with in game knowledge.

A player might suspect that detective smoke cigarettes, and that the cigarettes they found may be a clue for their slice of personal knowledge. But, it is much better if the heroes had already seen that detective smoke a cigarette. Do not think that this is heavy handed or obvious. We are carefully matching known in game facts with in game clues. If there is to be only one correct answer we need proof positive from the game itself. Relying on common sense, tropes, or guesswork will point the finger at the butler when it should have been the Gardner.

Also, say that it is proof positive. If the players make a good conclusion. They think they've identified the right suspect, please reward them with that certainty. Players have been confused before by a wild goose chase. Once I had cornered the right suspect who then tried to lay blame on another. This is believable, that the guilty party would throw off guilt, but it led the rest of us to spend 3 more hours on the case, when we had already solved it. Realistic perhaps, but not rewarding. It was punishing and frustrating.

Less is more when it comes to good mysteries in role-playing games. Try creating a handful of potential suspects and just a few clues. Center these few clues, around a larger clue. Make sure the clues are consistent with each other. For example: We have witnessed the Private Eye smoke, there are cigarettes left behind at the scene of the crime, and tobacco smell was left on the victim. These clues circle the correct suspect, even if we don't gather all of them, we have a good place to ask the right questions. If all three are found, the players should be able to cut out all the wrong answers. If the players get stuck, introduce new action, have shots ring out, to bring their attention back to clues they ignored.

With a few clue found, let the players think of creative ways to test their hypothesis. Then give them clear proof that their theory was right or wrong. Agree with your players after they've argued it among themselves, and chosen the right answer. In the end, if your mystery has only one answer, everybody should agree on the order of events.

#7 - Sticking the Landing

Recently my GM and I held a postmortem of a game that left us dissatisfied. At the adventure's and all the players discussed what we would do next. No person was eager to continue the story line. The GM and I agreed it wasn't the best play through, the was ending sub-par. The game had become cartoonish; Players glossed over the the more interesting elements for conflict and exploration. In the end, we all decided to pick something else for the next season. Maybe next year, we shall revisit the “cartoon.” Shortly thereafter, that old story line was forgotten.

What we had played in the “cartoon,” was a revamp of something the GM had enjoyed some years ago. It was successful in the past, but not appreciated by veteran role-players. Our team bravely pushed back against the struggles set in our path. We had teamwork down a science and found several ways to solve every possible problem. Those solutions however, became cliche. We muscled past every conflict, and that was all we did. We rushed to the ending. When we arrived at the final scenes, encountering the ancient evil, we attempted to brush it aside. We were not able to overcome in the same vein as our earlier enemies. Our repetitive behavior did not succeed at game's end.

We were not destined to out muscle everything. A different resolution was supposed to take place. Yet, we did not gravitate to alternatives, and one by one we failed to fight our way out. By then, we were conformable in our routine choices. Comfortable as well, with the consequences that had favored us before. We pressed forward hard, to no effect.

Thus a disconnect ensued. Abruptly, all our plans failed, it was not the ending we were expecting. Equally unexpected were are actions to the GM. Soon, The heroes were knocked out, some with fear, others by having their bone's shattered. In the final moments my hero's destiny arrived. In that moment of glory I asked, “What did we even want again?”

The Game was off the rails. A quick decision had to be made and it all felt hollow. I committed suicide to save the party, not as a heroic deed, but because I couldn't think of anything better to do. Then I sat back and watched my teammates run away, as the GM gave a final eulogy about sacrifice for the greater good. Destiny gave safety to the heroes, but they did not deserve it. This happy ending was misplaced. It wasn't the real ending, or the real destiny, the game was over because it had no where to go.

Recall the necessity of player's choice. That is their special power in a role-playing game. The GM's unique power is to administer the consequences for the choices players make to the GM's setup. This back and forth is a tennis game of shared storytelling. Events leads to decisions, that lead to consequences, that provide for choices, that lead to events. This is the normal dialogue of Choice - Consequence.

Things destined, break this cause and effect. Destiny is independent of the choice – consequence dialogue. If something is part of Destiny, it will occur regardless of choices made. Regardless of what transpired beforehand. Independent of all the players wishes and intents. It is a great interruption to normal game play, and is easy to abuse.
This does not mean that a RPG cannot have a destiny. Players can certainly elect to give heroes destinies. GMs also can prepare events in a game to be “scripted,” and happen independent of the players' say so. Remember, that destinies are not part of the normal dialogue. These destined events are purposefully predetermined. Meant to be another dimension atop the deterministic tennis match, of choices and consequences. Destiny will always be a separate layer of events, and cannot fulfill the needs of cause and effect.

When my moment of destiny arrived, the end was near. No one else could act. This was not only because I destined to interrupt the regular game, but also because they were near death. Yet, the opportunity, that was my destiny, was not clear. All the foreshadowing of our bravado led us into doom. A happy ending was not foreseeable. At that time I had convinced myself that the heroes were to all die.

The destiny felt hollow, as it overturned the choice – consequence dialogue. This ending did not compliment the heroes, it merely side-stepped their doom. Doom fell on us because of our poor choices.
I want to stress, that the ending was not dissatisfying because of the destiny. Nor because of the interruption. It was because the Destiny arrived, as a last chance for choice. When no choice should have had the consequence of saving us. It was an ending roughly stuffed in. Everything we had done before gave us failure.

Perhaps the destiny should have been that I led the heroes to their end, bitterly fighting to the last in a vain attempt.

“A New Hope” ends on a happy note. Luke had the destiny to destroy the death star, and he agrees to this destiny. Despite the tie-fighters, turbo lasers, and Darth Vader, he accepts his 1 in a Million shot at firing proton torpedoes. His choice doesn't guarantee the happy ending. The story could have gone otherwise. Star Wars could have been the tale of a valiant defeat, and not a decisive strike at evil. Luke's choice doesn't mean he will win. Destiny guarantees that ending. We are most excited for Luke not when the Death Star Blows up, but we he decides to go for it. The actual explosion is “scripted,” as the event, the effect, that follows the most important element in the story, the choice.

What a dumb movie it would be, if he decided not to take his chances, not to choose trusting in the force and the Death Star explodes anyway?

Thus I stress to you, Players and GMs, to compliment the choice – consequence dialogue. Provide destiny where it matches the proper choices of role-players. Feel free to cheat, ignore die-rolls, and write over whatever you had planned. The resolution is not the climax, or the final destination. The real ending, occurs a few minutes before a heroes eulogy, or the award ceremony.

#6 - World-Building 101

Why do Orcs want to fight heroes? Have you considered this before? Anyone who is familiar with lord of the rings would have noticed that Orcs are both bloodthirsty but also cowardly. What is that all about? Now there is an answer to this, Tolkien did talk about the nature of Orcs and described their wicked motivations. But as for you, the creator of your own fictional world, you must tell us! Characters will encounter a lot of holes and questions if you make details baseless. Don't overlook two essentials, consistency and connectivity. I offer those up as the hallmarks of good world-building. If you make any fictional setting, I implore to consider how does one aspect of the world effect another? Also please keep those aspects the same throughout time.

Now lets jump to another example of those “holes” I mentioned in world-building. People drive themselves nuts trying to figure out how different super-powers interact with others kinds of super-powers. Sure the Hulk has super-strength so long as he is angry, but couldn't someone with telepathic powers take away his anger? If such a psychic stole this anger would they become the Hulk? Is the nature of the Hulk's anger such that it cannot be transferred? Like the Hulk's physical power, is his emotional state an unstoppable force? I don't know the answer to these questions. Still, these questions are fair game in shared fiction. Linking anger to strength, means that everybody who lives with the Hulk is able to experiment with that aspect of reality. Giving different answers is a great way to infuriate everybody who have so far gone along with the agreed upon world.

If we disagree whether a thermometer rises when we put it in a fire, we are going to have problems with any meaningful conversation. Such is our shared world, consistency and connectivity is the name of the game here on earth! It is also in Marvel comics. Gravity has to be universal for us to derive meaning from it, and the same goes for wizards and wands in Harry Potter. We all know that the wand chooses the wizard, and if ever Rowling changed her mind on this, people would take to the streets.

My advice for you on this subject is to think of a few small details that explain many different aspects of the world. The fact that summers and winters are long in Westeros impacts all kinds of business in Game of thrones. For extended periods of time people can reply upon a large supply of food. They can predict the weather more easily, they wear the same clothes from one week to the next. Years pass, and people get older without having to worry about where to hold up and stop fighting when it gets cold in Game of Thrones. Our heroes can wander around without heavy fur coats, because last year and the next year will be summer. In this same way, they all know they had better get ready for an extra long winter. They know it will be cold and dark for an even longer period of time.

If explaining everything away gets out of hand, the second best choice is not the explain. By not giving solid answers to the foundations of your universe, you allow others to hypothesize for themselves. It is no secret that fan theories are all the rage these days. They are a dime and dozen. They come about because the nature of the world, to which they belong, is not known.

The dumbest moment in Star Wars history was when Qui-Gon Jinn told us where the force comes from. It should have been left alone. Leave the fans wondering all sorts of questions, like mine above! Are some Jedi born stronger than others? Can midi-chlorians be grown? Did Anakin Skywalker loose some midi-chlorians when he turned into Darth Vader? Is there a genetic link for midi-chlorian quantity?

These questions distract us from what should have been a fun space adventure movie.

Things are no longer magical when they are explained. In high School I played around with ideas like these. I didn't get very far in explaining much, and that is for the best. Midi-chlorians are best forgotten.

I will finish today with one of my own answer to that question from before. "Why do Orcs always fight the heroes?" It is because they cannot eat vegetables. Living as a species of exclusive carnivores has led Orcs to fight in search of food. They will strike at anyone who appears weak out of rabid hunger. They will also retreat as soon as they realize there meals will kill them. I will stop myself there before I explain too much and break open that consistency I mentioned. This detail does not match what Tolkien wrote, but it doesn't need to, this is how I explain it in my world. Every fictional world belongs to the people who create its shared existence. Good luck making, and sharing the details in your own!

#5 - Beware of Mary-Sue

Before I begin I will admit there is significant debate over what is and is not a Mary Sue. About who is and who is not, and about how best to explain it. Let me jump over all that and specify a kind of Mary Sue; perhaps the worst kind, an unbelievable character.

Fiction isn't meant to correspond to reality. It is only by our willingness to believe what is happening that a story proceeds. We take the events of Harry Potter on faith. It “happened” because the author, Joanne K. Rowling, said so. Like a train, the story chugs along, and impossible things occur one after another. We believe these, we suspend disbelief and trust in her, and our own imagination.

This trust is broken by the introduction of something unbelievable. If, for example, Santa Claus showed up in a Harry Potter book. Santa Claus pulls his reindeer, Rudolf, out of his magic sack and threw it in front of a curse to save Dumbledore. If this happened, we would have some questions. We might believe in Santa Claus. We might enjoy reading Harry Potter, but there is something unbelievable about Santa making an appearance at Hogwarts.

The greatest problem with this kind of unbelievable people and occurrences is that it is easy to do. It really isn't that hard to think of our fictional heroes as larger than life, or even godlike. But, we can't put these impossible people into a story they are mismatched for.

Consider with me the worlds smartest woman. Done, we have imagined her. Now imagine a movie where the world's smartest woman falls in love with the pastry chef down the street. There is some mismatch here, this pairing begs too many questions. A romance movie where a woman falls in love with a neighbor is believable, and has been done before. But, it doesn't require and is hampered by larger than life detail. What does she see in the chef? how did they meet in a meaningful way? Why do we believe she is the smartest woman in the world? More importantly, how does it serve the fiction to be the smartest?

We might ignore these things in a different story, the same way we might ignore the detail that Santa always wears red. But, this detail in the romance is out of place. Characters need context. Fiction can be anything, but that doesn't mean it should. We may want to make our heroes gods. But godly characters need god like responsibilities.

To reinforce this idea, that an extraordinary character needs to be in an extraordinary story; lets imagine a commonly accused Mary Sue, Superman. Superman is clearly impossible, he is purposefully perfect. One of his more unbelievable cohorts is Jimmy Olson.

Superman can bend steel, can out-run a rocket, heck, he can fly! Jimmy takes pictures for a newspaper. There is a problem with this pairing. Jimmy Olson is described as “Superman's Pal,” but the idea that Superman would elect to take Jimmy on an adventure with him is ridiculous. Jimmy isn't prepared to accomplish even 1% of the things Superman can. Jimmy should get killed in any issue when the man of Steel decides to confront armed gun men with his pal in tow. If jimmy Olson survives every encounter with horrible monsters, and giant robots, we beg some questions. How is he so lucky? When does he do his job? How does he get home after being flown to the top of a building for his own safety?

If I wanted to put Superman in a story with Jimmy Olson, I should focus on the mismatch. Superman doesn't schedule interviews for the daily planet, and Jimmy doesn't lift cars. But if Jimmy was interviewing Superman while Superman was saving lives we have a better pairing. It is unrealistic to believe Superman would fight crime with Jimmy. If Jimmy is an innocent bystander however, while Superman is being super, we keep the believably.

Jimmy takes pictures of Superman for the weekly edition, but suddenly a bomb goes off! Superman needs to rush to the city's aid, and Jimmy needs to score a scoop. At the scene of the explosion, armed gunmen attempt to fire on Superman but he is bullet-proof. Jimmy hides behind a brick wall trying to get a closer look. A thug spots Jimmy and aims to kill. Superman flies in and stands in the line of fire! Jimmy yells out thanks, Superman smiles as he rips the assault rifle out of the bad guy's hand, before snapping it in two! Suddenly, Jimmy calls out, Superman look sharp! as a bus-load of school kids hurtles into the fray.

Superman is impossible, Jimmy is not. But so long as Superman sticks to doing the impossible and Jimmy sticks to doing the ordinary, balance remains. I will categorically deny that Superman is a Mary Sue so long as he stays in a “super” story. Let Clark Kent write the editorials.

The last thing I want to mention is about that World's smartest smartest woman from earlier. We can believe there in her, and we can believe that she will fall in love with anybody if its in the right story.

That is where I leave it to you. Tell me, why did the world's smartest woman fall in love with the pastry chef down the street? Providing some context, and essentials for your details is being aware of Mary Sue.

#3 - 1st Time GM

Welcome to the ranks of the GM! If you are reading this then you have already made progress into being a Game Master, or a GM. GMs go by other names in different games, and they serve many functions. GMs are are referees and judges. They both interpret and enforce the rules of the game. GMs are also narrators and stage director. Their responsibility is to depict what is happening to the players, to give prompts for player responses. GMs can even take the roles of every other in game character the players, non-player characters.

With all this range of responsibility you may be thinking that the GM is the most important person in the RPG. They appear to have limitless influence and duties! This may be the case, but the paradox of the GM is that while they could do anything to determine the course of the game, the best GMs will do very little.

Therein is my biggest tip for new GMs, Think of your role as a movie director. While the game plays out the players themselves will amplify the drama. Players will find reasons to execute revenge, to seek fame, to save the day, and get a final kiss in the sunset. Players do all that, you as a GM will set it up for them, so they can bask in the spotlight.

In a movie, the actors, starring in their roles who will have the best one-liners, who will look into the camera and wow the audience. Our best memories of movies are often not of what we saw in the footage, but the people in the movies. Gorgeous landscapes and choreography is pleasing, but also impersonal. Our heroes of the screen are the personal touch in a movie. The Players of a RPG are the personal touch. Each player in the RPG is a hero of the story. Your job is to set them up for a close up.

This is easy enough to think of. Even mundane occurrences have an opportunity for Drama, for conflict. If a player suddenly find themselves locked out of their car, they have choices to make. Can they reach through the window to open the door? Do they have a spare key somewhere? Should they call a locksmith? Will they be too late for the interview that they have to call a taxi now?! In this small example, the GM as director offers a single sentence. They then wait for the player to respond with Drama.

The GM will say, “As you reach in your pocket your don't find your car keys.” A good player will ask for a few clarifying questions, “what about my purse? What time is it? Where did I last have my key?” The GM should go ahead and give answers, and then wait patiently. The responsibility is now on the player to decide what to do. The other players in the room will watch them, perhaps they will offer suggestions of how other heroes can help, “Geoff can drive you and we can find your keys later... I'll call the office and say you are sick.”

Even if the others players aren't involved in the choice, whether they are not helping, they will wrap themselves in the drama. Other players want to know what the hero will do, the same way we want to see what movie stars do. The game continues as the heroes make choices. Your job can be as easy as asking questions. It might be disappointing to hear the first time, but the game isn't about the GM, it is about the players, the heroes. You may be the referee but you are not the bad guy. You may be the narrator but you cannot make decision for the other players.

Yet, as the GM you have the unique opportunity to set up the challenges they face. The Players will follow your lead in to drama. Your satisfaction will be seeing them bravely charge forth into the obstacles you put there.