#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?

#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.