(Note: this list has been placed up elsewhere in the past and is now placed here for easy reference.)
1. Jerome K. Jerome visits H.G. Wells (by 1913)
Unusual start,
you might think. But after dinner, Jerome started firing a toy cannon
at some toy soldiers and Wells started firing back. They thought that
adding some rules would be a good idea and took influence from a form of
wargame played for the previous century by Prussian military (called
Kriegsspiel). After several revisions, the renowned author of War of the
Worlds and The Time Machine published his 60 page book Little Wars (the
full title is "Little Wars: a game for boys from twelve years of age to
one hundred and fifty and for that more intelligent sort of girl who
likes boys' games and books". How times change...)
Little Wars had a
significant impact on the production of Chainmail and Gary Gygax praised
it in his foreword to the 2004 reprint. Wells is often called the
Father of Miniature Wargaming. Fact.
2. Gary Gygax plays Dave Arneson's Blackmoor (Nov 1972)
Dave
Arneson liked his wargames to have non-combat objectives and was
partial to the Tolkien-inspired fantasy options in Chaimail (by Gary
Gygax and Jeff Perrin). He invented a dungeon crawling adventure called
Blackmoor that Gygax finally played at Gen Con 5 in 1972. Gygax loved
the game and (long story short) the two went on to become co-creators of
Dungeons and Dragons (and you don't get much more seminal in
roleplaying than that).
The "co-creator" tag is a compromise,
largely. The two fell out dramatically, mainly due to Arneson resenting
Gygax's creative claims. However, it can be said that if Arneson lit the
torch, Gygax ran with it. D&D remains synonymous with roleplaying.
3. Steve Jackson, John Peake and Ian Livingstone found Games Workshop (1975)
These
three school mates created a small business to make wooden board games
and publish articles about "progressive gaming". The company secured a
deal to distribute TSR materials and quickly grew into a premier
publishing company. Games Workshop would go on to become a titan of the
gaming industry.
Jackson (not to be confused with the GURPS designer
of the same name) and Livingstone sold their stakes in GW back in 1991,
but Games Workshop isn't their only great legacy. In 1982, they produced
a book through Puffin called The Warlock of Firetop Mountain. A solo
adventure in the Choose Your Own Adventure style, their book
incorporated game elements (such as rolling to defeat monsters or
traps). Their line of Fighting Fantasy books were highly popular and
many other titles flooded shelves in the Eighties and Nineties.
PC
gaming has largely pushed adventure books aside, but many older gamers
can cite the influence a Fighting Fantasy book had on their formulative
roleplaying years.
4. Bryan Wiese watches Robin and Marion whilst reading The Lord of the Rings (1977)
Bryan
Wiese had never heard of D&D, roleplaying or even reenactment. But
while being immersed in both a book and film he was inspired to find a
way to recreate the adventure and combat in those works. He founded
Dagohir which, though maybe not the earliest game of its type, is the
earliest recorded live-action roleplaying game.
Getting the action
off the table and onto a field was a natural extension of roleplaying
and many independant groups started around the world. Combining
roleplaying, sport, theatre and historical reenactment, larping has
gained significant attention recently. Large German events can attract
thousands.
Live action events are subject to various definitions, and
there are many with no contact (such as White Wolf's global Minds Eye
Theatre games). Nordic countries have a reputation for bleak and high
concept storytelling and Australia has a strong tradition of
"freeforming" (non-contact larp).
5. James Dallas Egbert III attempts suicide (15 April 1979)
Michigan
State University student James Egbert disappeared from his dorm room,
entered the college steam tunnels, and swallowed some pills in an
attempt to end his own life. It was unsuccessful and, after waking, hid
at a friend's house. The search for him took a turn when private
investigator William Dear suggested that Dungeons and Dragons was a
contributing factor (Dear would later regret making this correlation).
The local media whipped up fear by (falsely) reporting that he was
roleplaying in the steam tunnels.
The resulting paranoia (especially
of a religious nature) that followed still clouds roleplaying to this
day. Chick Publications released the glorious Dark Dungeons which
blatantly links roleplaying with Satanic occultism and Pat Pulling (who
blamed her son's suicide on roleplaying and founded BADD: Bothered About
D&D) created a frenzy of anti-roleplaying sentiment that was ripped
to pieces by game designer Michael Stackpole in The Pulling Report.
The story ends badly. Egbert attempted suicide once more before succeeding on his third attempt. He was 17.
6. Release of E.T. the Extraterrestrial (11 June 1982)
Say wha-? What the hell does E.T. have to do with any of this?
E.T.
was a marketing phenomenon. It was the highest grossing film ever for
its time and was the first major film to suffer video piracy. In a time
when most people had to pay a ticket to see a film, E.T. was a must-see.
So,
with a high stake in the family market you can't show anything too
controversial. But in this blockbuster we see a bunch of kids
roleplaying, and keep in mind this is about the time when roleplaying is
seen as being literally in league with the devil. And the portrayal
isn't comical or scandalous or offensive; it just shows a group of young
gamers doing exactly what young gamers do. Marking character sheets,
giving out characters, discussing what to have on the pizza, even
explaining to the mum how nobody "wins" it.
The game was a modern
pop-cultural nod in a film that was designed to be an immediate pop
culture success. Compare it to the sensationalist Mazes and Monsters
(with Tom Hanks) also released in 1982 and you'll see why E.T. is such
an iconic moment of roleplaying representation.
7. Mark Rein-Hagen travels to Gen Con with Stewart Wieck and Lisa Stevens (August 1990)
This
is the second time Gen Con has popped up, so it could have been fair to
give the first Gen Con in 1968 its own spot on this list. On the way to
this event, Rein-Hagen (of Lion Rampant) came up with the idea of a
modern day game about vampires. Stevens (also of Lion Rampant and now
CEO of Paizo) engineered a merger with Wieck's White Wolf Magazine and
the next year Vampire: the Masquerade was released by new company White
Wolf Publishing Group.
Over the course of about 15 years, White
Wolf's star rose dramatically, shone brilliantly, and crashed
spectacularly. They achieved notable success with their World of
Darkness line which near dominated the gaming industry for much of the
mid-nineties. Some poor decisions, player disillusionment and sheer bad
luck saw them massively slump in popularity and they were finally bought
by CCP Games (of EVE Online) in 2006.
However, White Wolf left a
huge mark on game design. Their desire to embrace the more artistic
aspects of roleplaying and game presentation were inspiration for many
in the '00's indie explosion and the higher standard of their published
books forced other game companies to improve the quality of theirs. They
surfed a cultural wave; it's a pity they floundered on the beach.
8. Peter Adkinson turns down Richard Garfield's Robo Rally (1991)
Garfield
approached Wizards of the Coast (then a small roleplaying publisher)
with his board game Robo Rally, but Adkinson felt that the cost was out
of his league. He asked Garfield if he could come up with something
portable, fast-playing and cheap to make.
The result was Magic: the
Gathering, which debuted in 1993. It proved massively popular, started
the collectible card gaming boom, and grew Wizards of the Coast into one
of the biggest game companies ever.
Magic is blamed for destroying
many roleplaying groups, clubs and stores as card gaming quickly pushed
aside tabletop rpgs. However, it remains incredibly popular and
continues to this day.
Wizards of the Coast would achieve even more
success with Pokemon and bought out TSR (owners of Dungeons and Dragons)
in 1997. Getting hold of the world's most iconic roleplaying game was a
boon for the company, as we will see later...
9. Ultima goes Online (24 September 1997)
This
was a hard call. I kinda want to steer clear entirely of
PC/video/console gaming, but in all good faith it needs to be
considered. Computer games have taken cues from roleplaying for many
years. Mazewar from 1974 (!) takes place in a virtual maze where players
shoot each other (players could play over ARPAnet, too). Jumping ahead,
TSR licensed SSI for the first AD&D computer game Pool of Radiance
in 1988. But back in 1981, Richard Garriott produced the first of his
Ultima games.
Text-based Multi User Dungeons (MUDs) allowed many
people to play together in the same world, but combining such an
experience with a visual interface was beyond the abilities of
contemporary hardware, though a few had tried. Ultima Online finally
came out in '97 and truly launched the age of the MMO.
It was rapidly
succeeded (and surpassed) with Everquest (or "Evercrack" for its
addictive reputation) which in turn was supplanted in 2004 by new
heavyweight title World of Warcraft.
As another note, the terms
"roleplaying game" and "RPG" are now indelibly ingrained in the public's
mind as digital gaming terms rather than traditional pen and paper
games, which I find sad. Just try googling "rpg" and see what you get.
10. Wizards of the Coast produces the Open Gaming License (2000)
By
the end of the Nineties, D&D had become a joke. The format was
tired and stale. The game showed its faults. There were far too many
better products on the market. And TSR management were running the
company into the ground. Wizards of the Coast bought it out and got to
work revamping D&D.
Most D&D fans weren't expecting the
product to be as good as it was (anti-WotC sentiment ran as high as
anti-D&D did) but the true innovation was the Open Gaming License
that came with it.
The brainchild of Ryan Dancey (bless his soul),
the OGL basically gave permission for anybody to create publications for
the 3rd edition of D&D. Third party publishers sprang to arms,
producing guides, adventures, setting books and more with various
success and quality. Established companies (such as White Wolf, Chaosium
and Pinnacle) had a new medium and new companies also were able to use
the OGL to kick-start their careers.
3rd edition/d20 became the most
popular game of the '00s and easily the best supported title to be seen
in that time. It also gave D&D back the credibility it so
desperately needed.
You'll notice that there's nothing for the last 13 years. Did nothing happen?
Yes
and no. 3rd ed D&D floated well for much of the 00's. White Wolf
fell in a hole. Chaosium and Steve Jackson Games did their thing. 4th ed
D&D dropped the ball and Paizo Publishing picked it up with
Pathfinder. The indie scene exploded with a blast of creativity and
continues to produce excellent games if you can find them. Warhammer 40K
transferred to tabletop roleplay with success. And the latest trend
seems to be the retrospective Old School Roleplaying (OSR) movement.
Bit
big events? Market shaking ones? Not there. That being said, a good argument could be made in favour of Kickstarter and the Forge website, both incredibly important to the current world of roleplaying.
As it stands, this list is subject to change.
Wednesday, 10 September 2014
Wednesday, 3 September 2014
Werewolf: the Apocalypse hack job (ruleset option)
I've got a lot of experience with the old Werewolf game and always enjoyed it, despite its many flaws. My take on Werewolf is a bit more brutal and unforgiving than most people, leading to a lot of division amongst my players.
At times, I've considered revisiting Werewolf, and I wrote an epic theatrical roleplay doing just that for a couple of recent conventions which got it largely out of my system. However, a mate of mine has been considering running a Werewolf game and wanted some advice, so here's a brief run-down of what I would do if I were to run a Werewolf freeform now.
The Basics
First off, there's a lot of flaws in this game. The Umbra tends to damage the realism of the setting, though it can be essential for great story opportunities, so you need to limit it. That affects the gameworld immensely. In addition, the threat of the Apocalypse is kinda played out, and the 20th anniversary concept of the Prophecy of the Phoenix being "a call to arms" is a major cop-out. Address these concerns early or they'll take over your game.
Secondly, the system sucks. It may call itself a "storytelling game' but it's really just a task-based game system. Overhaul it.
On a related note, adjust character creation. The various tribes and auspices are wildly unbalanced, which works fine with some mature players, but most of the time you're gonna end up with a lot of applications for Lupus Stargazer Ahrouns.
Probably the most important part of the overhaul is this; Werewolf can easily fall for the trap of becoming a game where players hoard superpowers in order to bash up monsters. That's not what makes the game cool, so anything you can do from the onset to prevent this happening is positive.
The Setting
Pretty much everything here can be considered optional, but it's what I'd do with Werewolf now.
Consider the Apocalypse over. The Garou lost. The result of the Apocalypse was that the Umbra was destroyed, meaning that the world is spiritually dead. There may be small pockets in the Umbra in important spiritual spaces (major caerns and nodes, Wyrm hives, Weaver infestations) but the spirit realm is mostly unreachable. Nobody returns from the Deep Umbra, but Incarnae and Totems can sometimes be contacted.
So we're now living in the aftermath of war. The Wyrm is largely attacking the Weaver. From a Mage point of view, the Sleepers have won the Ascension War and thus refuse to believe the world can be destroyed by a spiritual force they don't recognise, so the mundane world continues on, dead inside.
The Garou lost many in the Apocalypse and are fewer than ever. Totems are jealous of their tribes and mixed-tribe packs are very rare. There are less than five thousand Garou remaining worldwide (or even less, if you prefer).
Sept warfare is more prevalent than ever, battling for control over the few remaining caerns, allowing access to the Umbral pockets previously mentioned. This has the bonus of keeping tension between PCs rather than the typical problem of chucking outside threats at the characters.
Character Creation
I'm giving the system a big overhaul. Pick a Breed, Auspice and Tribe.
Breed
- Homid: +1 Gnosis, +2 Willpower
- Metis: +2 Gnosis, +1 Rage
- Lupus: +3 Gnosis
Auspice
- Ragabash: +1 Rage, +2 Willpower
- Theurge: +1 Rage, +2 Gnosis
- Philodox: +2 Rage, +1 Willpower
- Galliard: +2 Rage, +1 Gnosis
- Ahroun: +3 Rage
Tribe
- Black Furies: +2 Gnosis, +2 Willpower
- Bone Gnawers: +2 Willpower, +1 Rage, +1 Gnosis
- Children of Gaia: +2 Willpower, +2 Gnosis
- Fianna: +2 Rage, +1 Gnosis, +1 Willpower
- Get of Fenris: +3 Rage, +1 Willpower
- Glass Walkers: +3 Willpower, +1 Gnosis
- Red Talons: +3 Rage, +1 Willpower
- Shadow Lords: +2 Willpower, +1 Gnosis, +1 Rage
- Silent Striders: +2 Willpower, +2 Gnosis
- Silver Fangs: +2 Willpower, +2 Rage
- Stargazers: +3 Willpower, +1 Gnosis
- Uktena: +3 Gnosis, +1 Willpower
- Wendigo: +3 Willpower, +1 Rage
In addition, put 3 more points into Rage, Gnosis or Willpower, allocating where you will.
(Example: I make a Homid Philodox Fianna. I thus have Rage 4, Gnosis 2 and Willpower 4. I have 3 more points to allocate, so I knock up my Gnosis by 2 and Willpower by 1, ending up with Rage 4, Gnosis 4 and Willpower 5.)
Systems
This is where it gets kinda tricky. I'd go largely for a systemless game with a few conventions thrown in. Keep in mind that I haven't fully designed most of these ideas to a complete stage. These could be considered principles more than rules.
Rage
I'm not big on Rage being a big battery that you trot around with until you find a fight. So I propose trying a different method. Werewolves have a current Rage and a Maximum Rage. The current Rage is usually at 0.
At times, I've considered revisiting Werewolf, and I wrote an epic theatrical roleplay doing just that for a couple of recent conventions which got it largely out of my system. However, a mate of mine has been considering running a Werewolf game and wanted some advice, so here's a brief run-down of what I would do if I were to run a Werewolf freeform now.
The Basics
First off, there's a lot of flaws in this game. The Umbra tends to damage the realism of the setting, though it can be essential for great story opportunities, so you need to limit it. That affects the gameworld immensely. In addition, the threat of the Apocalypse is kinda played out, and the 20th anniversary concept of the Prophecy of the Phoenix being "a call to arms" is a major cop-out. Address these concerns early or they'll take over your game.
Secondly, the system sucks. It may call itself a "storytelling game' but it's really just a task-based game system. Overhaul it.
On a related note, adjust character creation. The various tribes and auspices are wildly unbalanced, which works fine with some mature players, but most of the time you're gonna end up with a lot of applications for Lupus Stargazer Ahrouns.
Probably the most important part of the overhaul is this; Werewolf can easily fall for the trap of becoming a game where players hoard superpowers in order to bash up monsters. That's not what makes the game cool, so anything you can do from the onset to prevent this happening is positive.
The Setting
Pretty much everything here can be considered optional, but it's what I'd do with Werewolf now.
Consider the Apocalypse over. The Garou lost. The result of the Apocalypse was that the Umbra was destroyed, meaning that the world is spiritually dead. There may be small pockets in the Umbra in important spiritual spaces (major caerns and nodes, Wyrm hives, Weaver infestations) but the spirit realm is mostly unreachable. Nobody returns from the Deep Umbra, but Incarnae and Totems can sometimes be contacted.
So we're now living in the aftermath of war. The Wyrm is largely attacking the Weaver. From a Mage point of view, the Sleepers have won the Ascension War and thus refuse to believe the world can be destroyed by a spiritual force they don't recognise, so the mundane world continues on, dead inside.
The Garou lost many in the Apocalypse and are fewer than ever. Totems are jealous of their tribes and mixed-tribe packs are very rare. There are less than five thousand Garou remaining worldwide (or even less, if you prefer).
Sept warfare is more prevalent than ever, battling for control over the few remaining caerns, allowing access to the Umbral pockets previously mentioned. This has the bonus of keeping tension between PCs rather than the typical problem of chucking outside threats at the characters.
Character Creation
I'm giving the system a big overhaul. Pick a Breed, Auspice and Tribe.
Breed
- Homid: +1 Gnosis, +2 Willpower
- Metis: +2 Gnosis, +1 Rage
- Lupus: +3 Gnosis
Auspice
- Ragabash: +1 Rage, +2 Willpower
- Theurge: +1 Rage, +2 Gnosis
- Philodox: +2 Rage, +1 Willpower
- Galliard: +2 Rage, +1 Gnosis
- Ahroun: +3 Rage
Tribe
- Black Furies: +2 Gnosis, +2 Willpower
- Bone Gnawers: +2 Willpower, +1 Rage, +1 Gnosis
- Children of Gaia: +2 Willpower, +2 Gnosis
- Fianna: +2 Rage, +1 Gnosis, +1 Willpower
- Get of Fenris: +3 Rage, +1 Willpower
- Glass Walkers: +3 Willpower, +1 Gnosis
- Red Talons: +3 Rage, +1 Willpower
- Shadow Lords: +2 Willpower, +1 Gnosis, +1 Rage
- Silent Striders: +2 Willpower, +2 Gnosis
- Silver Fangs: +2 Willpower, +2 Rage
- Stargazers: +3 Willpower, +1 Gnosis
- Uktena: +3 Gnosis, +1 Willpower
- Wendigo: +3 Willpower, +1 Rage
In addition, put 3 more points into Rage, Gnosis or Willpower, allocating where you will.
(Example: I make a Homid Philodox Fianna. I thus have Rage 4, Gnosis 2 and Willpower 4. I have 3 more points to allocate, so I knock up my Gnosis by 2 and Willpower by 1, ending up with Rage 4, Gnosis 4 and Willpower 5.)
Systems
This is where it gets kinda tricky. I'd go largely for a systemless game with a few conventions thrown in. Keep in mind that I haven't fully designed most of these ideas to a complete stage. These could be considered principles more than rules.
Rage
I'm not big on Rage being a big battery that you trot around with until you find a fight. So I propose trying a different method. Werewolves have a current Rage and a Maximum Rage. The current Rage is usually at 0.
During your turn, you MUST spend any available Rage on certain actions. Rage actions include:
- shifting one body type toward Crinos form
- running toward an opponent (3 steps)
- running away from an enemy (Fox frenzy; also 3 steps)
- attacking an enemy (if no enemies are available, the garou must attack another valid target, which may include allies, which accounts for frenzying. Also, you may move 3 steps toward an enemy as part of this action.)
- performing an aggressive act of strength (ramming a door, throwing a car, ripping through a wall)
- howling, roaring or screaming (once per round of combat)
- healing a wound (you may not heal aggravated or silver damage)
However, during your turn, you have the option of:
- Gaining Rage (at the end of this turn, increase your Rage by 1)
- Maintaining your Rage (leave your Rage at the current rank)
- Reining in your Rage (at the end of this turn, decrease your Rage by 1)
Effects that give garou Rage still occur (being hurt, touched by silver, seeing the moon) and may force a Garou into performing a Rage action.
Keep in mind this will totally change the way werewolves operate. They won't be awesome for two rounds and then slack off; they'll be mediocre for a round or two and then become devastating. Gifts may need to change (Stoking Fury's Furnace may allow you to gain 2 Rage per round, for instance).
Gnosis (and Gifts)
Big changes here.
You don't so much "spend" Gnosis as use it as a constant source of power. Gifts now only work through fetishes, so if you want to access a rank 1 Gift you need to be carrying a fetish to activate it. You can never carry more total "points" in fetishes than your maximum Gnosis.
Effectively, you're dedicating Gifts to yourself. If you have spare Gnosis left over, you are able to use that Gnosis to power Rituals, or add it to someone else conducting one.
Gifts are much rarer than ever before and you may only know a few at a time. Every Gift is closely connected to the spirit that has granted it to you and you must show the fetish of their favour somewhere on your person. This also allows for costuming fun.
At this stage, I haven't got a list of appropriate Gifts, so use your judgement for now.
Rituals can still be performed by most Garou who know them. You'll need access to an amount of Gnosis equal to the Ritual rank, or possibly more. Stepping Sideways is now a Rank 1 ritual taking at least five minutes to perform, typically at a caern or other significant spiritual space.
A starting character currently has fetishes for a number of Gifts equal to her Gnosis -1 (so a Garou with 4 Gnosis knows 3 rank 1 Gifts).
Willpower
More big changes.
You'll note that we don't have Attributes, Abilities and Backgrounds. These are covered under Willpower.
For each point in Willpower, gain a Personal Trait. These may be skills, professions, convictions, ideals and the like. They also take the place of Merits.
Examples of Personal Traits include:
- I am in love with Walks the Night
- Nothing can hold me back
- Neurosurgeon
- Loyal to my Alpha
- Spirit guardian
- Pure breeding
- Corax ally
- Smooth diplomat
- Never leave a man behind
- Grand klaive
Once per hour (or game session) you may invoke one of your Personal Traits to affect a scene. The GM should give advantage to characters doing this. Effects may vary and no system is included so far. Still working on it.
Maybe you can take Personal Flaws as well at character creation, allowing you to gain more points to spend amongst Rage, Gnosis and Willpower. It's a nice idea.
Damage and Wounds
Werewolf claws and teeth inflict one non-aggravated Wound (another change). Most weapons should follow suit. Gifts and the like may increase this damage.
Characters tend to have four Health Levels: Bruised, Hurt, Wounded, and Incapacitated.
Silver, acid, fire and the like cause aggravated damage that takes time to heal. Typically one week per Health Level.
Final Notes
This is far from perfect, and combats are still going to take a long time. There's still work that needs doing on Gifts and Rituals, and how exactly does this whole "Personal Trait" business work?
I'm not sure. But I think it's worth trying.
Additionally, there's more detail I could go into on the setting, such as the Garou Civil War, the demise of the Silent Striders and the Ronin Tribes, but that's for people who really want to know. For now, I'll let it be
- shifting one body type toward Crinos form
- running toward an opponent (3 steps)
- running away from an enemy (Fox frenzy; also 3 steps)
- attacking an enemy (if no enemies are available, the garou must attack another valid target, which may include allies, which accounts for frenzying. Also, you may move 3 steps toward an enemy as part of this action.)
- performing an aggressive act of strength (ramming a door, throwing a car, ripping through a wall)
- howling, roaring or screaming (once per round of combat)
- healing a wound (you may not heal aggravated or silver damage)
However, during your turn, you have the option of:
- Gaining Rage (at the end of this turn, increase your Rage by 1)
- Maintaining your Rage (leave your Rage at the current rank)
- Reining in your Rage (at the end of this turn, decrease your Rage by 1)
Effects that give garou Rage still occur (being hurt, touched by silver, seeing the moon) and may force a Garou into performing a Rage action.
Keep in mind this will totally change the way werewolves operate. They won't be awesome for two rounds and then slack off; they'll be mediocre for a round or two and then become devastating. Gifts may need to change (Stoking Fury's Furnace may allow you to gain 2 Rage per round, for instance).
Gnosis (and Gifts)
Big changes here.
You don't so much "spend" Gnosis as use it as a constant source of power. Gifts now only work through fetishes, so if you want to access a rank 1 Gift you need to be carrying a fetish to activate it. You can never carry more total "points" in fetishes than your maximum Gnosis.
Effectively, you're dedicating Gifts to yourself. If you have spare Gnosis left over, you are able to use that Gnosis to power Rituals, or add it to someone else conducting one.
Gifts are much rarer than ever before and you may only know a few at a time. Every Gift is closely connected to the spirit that has granted it to you and you must show the fetish of their favour somewhere on your person. This also allows for costuming fun.
At this stage, I haven't got a list of appropriate Gifts, so use your judgement for now.
Rituals can still be performed by most Garou who know them. You'll need access to an amount of Gnosis equal to the Ritual rank, or possibly more. Stepping Sideways is now a Rank 1 ritual taking at least five minutes to perform, typically at a caern or other significant spiritual space.
A starting character currently has fetishes for a number of Gifts equal to her Gnosis -1 (so a Garou with 4 Gnosis knows 3 rank 1 Gifts).
Willpower
More big changes.
You'll note that we don't have Attributes, Abilities and Backgrounds. These are covered under Willpower.
For each point in Willpower, gain a Personal Trait. These may be skills, professions, convictions, ideals and the like. They also take the place of Merits.
Examples of Personal Traits include:
- I am in love with Walks the Night
- Nothing can hold me back
- Neurosurgeon
- Loyal to my Alpha
- Spirit guardian
- Pure breeding
- Corax ally
- Smooth diplomat
- Never leave a man behind
- Grand klaive
Once per hour (or game session) you may invoke one of your Personal Traits to affect a scene. The GM should give advantage to characters doing this. Effects may vary and no system is included so far. Still working on it.
Maybe you can take Personal Flaws as well at character creation, allowing you to gain more points to spend amongst Rage, Gnosis and Willpower. It's a nice idea.
Damage and Wounds
Werewolf claws and teeth inflict one non-aggravated Wound (another change). Most weapons should follow suit. Gifts and the like may increase this damage.
Characters tend to have four Health Levels: Bruised, Hurt, Wounded, and Incapacitated.
Silver, acid, fire and the like cause aggravated damage that takes time to heal. Typically one week per Health Level.
Final Notes
This is far from perfect, and combats are still going to take a long time. There's still work that needs doing on Gifts and Rituals, and how exactly does this whole "Personal Trait" business work?
I'm not sure. But I think it's worth trying.
Additionally, there's more detail I could go into on the setting, such as the Garou Civil War, the demise of the Silent Striders and the Ronin Tribes, but that's for people who really want to know. For now, I'll let it be
Tuesday, 26 August 2014
5th ed D&D Player's Handbook (review)
D&D is like the girl I grew up with. As kids we had a great time, and it didn't really matter that our games weren't too sophisticated as long as we had fun.
Then we hit our teen years and we kinda went different ways. We still enjoyed each others company, but I'd started noticing other games and girls and she was kinda hung up on trying to make those old schoolyard frolics into something more than what they really were. She started to bore me and I started to avoid her.
Then in 2000, I heard she was coming back to town. I didn't expect much, and boy was I surprised when she rocked up looking a million dollars! She'd shed the awkward body of her developing years and had matured spectacularly. The pimples were gone and the braces discarded. She was still the same girl at heart, but now she was smarter, cooler, prettier and sexier. She'd always had this potential, but it was a surprise to see her actually live up to it. There were still other girls who I liked (some even moreso) but there was a place in my heart for D, and she was glowing at this stage.
However, the popularity got to her head, and she got caught up in her own bullshit. It was nice to see her, but she had a lot of admirers around that I didn't care for, so we drifted apart again.
Then she gave herself another makeover, and this time I hated it. She was obviously hanging with the wrong crowd, or at least a subculture that I couldn't approve of. She looked tacky and she wasn't the girl she used to be. She was vapid and shallow. She was trying too hard to be cool. She was so obviously trying to be someone that she wasn't, and it was so sad to watch her do this to herself.
So sad, in fact, that I let her go. I couldn't be a part of that.
But last week, I got a knock on my door and guess who was standing there? There was D, slightly shamefaced and desperate to be held. She'd ditched the subculture threads and once more had returned to the girl I'd fallen back in love with in 2000. Though this time, there was something different.
Yes, there it was in her eyes. Rather than take another step down the path she was heading, she'd backpedalled to a better time. And this time she wouldn't screw up. She's wiser now. This isn't a makeover but a do-over. She's learnt so much and she wants to fix it up.
What a sucker am I? She's probably gonna break my heart again. She'll probably go off the rails. But I know that she really wants to make up for the past and she's trying so hard. I need to give her this chance.
And for the first time in a long while, I believe in her. Because this is the best she's ever been.
So come to my arms, glorious girl! It's good to have you back.
What's it like?
It's basically 3rd ed in principle (and when I say 3rd, that includes 3.5, d20, Pathfinder et al. Nobody gets so pedantic and fussy when discussing 1st edition as they do with 3rd. What's the red box? 1.4? 1.5? What about the Rules Cyclopedia? 1.8? It's all just 1st ed, like 3.5 is just 3rd. Deal with it.)
There's nothing wrong with it being a polish of 3rd. 3rd was pretty clean overall. There's a lot of people saying that it feels a lot like 1st ed, but I don't see it. Frankly, that's a good thing. 1st ed kinda sucked, mechanically, though the atmosphere was fun. That 1st ed atmosphere isn't really existent in 5th (not like in, say, the wonderful Dungeon Crawl Classics) and it doesn't need to be.
Roll a d20. Add a modifier. Beat a target. Passive targets tend to be 10 + a modifier. You've seen it all before, kids.
The Character Sheet
I mentioned in my previous post that you can tell a lot about a game by its character sheet, and that's true for D&D5. Actually, you can probably review this book best by flipping through it backwards.
The character sheet has a few of the old familiars. Classic six Attributes and modifiers (again, like 3rd). Saving Throws have changed so that there's one for each attribute (so you can make a Strength save against the boulder falling on your head, and so forth). Armour class, Hit points, Initiative modifier, and Speed are all familiar. There's a list of 18 Skills, which is a good amount without going crazy, and they seem to be a good spread.
There's a few interesting new features. A spot each for "Inspiration" and a "Proficiency Bonus" stand out, which I'll get to later, but the most intriguing part has to be a little area for Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws. This is new territory for D&D and immediately got me interested.
A second page deals with notes, treasure and the like while a third page is dedicated to spells.
The sheet is pretty clean, though it'd be clever to run a Hit Point track down the side of the page which you could use paper clips to monitor (ala Deadlands). It's such an easy and simple method and beats rubbing out numbers and damaging the sheet.
Going Backwards
The index seems pretty functional, and has worked very well for me as I've needed it. the Appendices include Conditions, Gods, Planes, Creature stats, and additional reading and are all quick and functional.
The Conditions have cute picture examples that assist the text. The Gods cover some classic historic pantheons and also some of the published D&D ones. The Planes basically gives a Planescape primer. Creature stats cover dogs, snakes, gators, horses and the like with a zombie and imp thrown in for interest. The Additional reading section begins with a couple of paragraphs by Gary Gygax from 1979, which I thought was a nice touch.
Magic
The book is split into three sections; character, rules, and magic. Sadly, the magic section is nothing special.
There are absolutely no surprises in the magic section. This is classic, level-based Vancian magic. (I was surprised to hear an experienced gamer mate of mine say he hadn't heard this term before. Vancian magic basically refers to the "memorisation" or "utility belt" style of magic design which most editions of D&D have used. It refers to the writings of Jack Vance, which inspired the magic system for D&D. It's like saying "a Tolkien-esque world" or "Lovecraftian gods".)
This is disappointing. I'm not a fan of Vancian magic and hope that a future edition will create something better, possibly taking some cues from Ars Magicka. Many (but not all spells) include a nifty feature where you can cast it as a higher level spell for extra benefits. Eg. I can cast Magic Missile as a third level spell and get 2 extra missiles than I would if I cast it at 1st level. This level up feature could form the basis of an improved magic system. (Weirdly, some obvious spells don't include this feature, even though they seem obviously suited for it. A perfect example is Mirror Images, which doesn't get extra benefits though it seems obvious that you could grant extra images.)
The end result is that this section is the most disappointing part of the book. To its credit, it's fairly compact.
Game Rules
The second section of the book covers the meat of the rules.
It's a mere 27 pages, which I think is glorious. It covers Ability Checks, Saves, Travelling, Resting and Combat, with a few little other necessities. Again, it's all very 3rd ed (especially the combat) with a few differences here and there.
As I said, there's a Save for each Attribute. Resting is split into Short and Long Rests, which grant different benefits. There's a new simple feature called having Advantage or Disadvantage, which means you roll two d20 if you have it, keeping the better one with Advantage or the lower when Disadvantaged. It's simple and effective.
Probably the biggest change is the idea of a Proficiency bonus. This starts at +2 and increases by 1 every four levels, maxing out at +6. You add your Proficiency bonus to "stuff you're proficient with". So instead of a Fighter gaining an extra +1 to hit each level, you just add your Proficiency bonus to weapons he knows (all of them). Thieves are Proficient with more Skills than other people.
You can be proficient with weapons, tools (there's a heap of different tool types, which is cool), Saves, Skill, Spells and a few other things.
I quickly liked it. Instead of having shitloads of bonuses to a few things (like in 3rd) or simply half my level to everything (like in 4th) this time you get a simple increase to your range of abilities. It's simple and is probably the best Skill system we've ever seen in D&D. But it won't be for everyone.
Character Creation
This is probably where the best part of the book is.
Though there's a couple of different methods presented, the default Attribute system is "roll 4d6, drop the lowest, do it six times, and allocate at will". That gives you a pretty solid idea as to the range we're expecting. From there, you pick your Race, Class, and Background.
That's the big change. In original Basic D&D you picked a Class, and Races were Classes all their own. Later, this became an X/Y axis where you picked a Race and a Class. Now they've added a Z axis for Background and it's the most exciting thing we've seen in D&D for a long time.
Race
Not a lot of surprises, and again very 3rd ed. Dwarves, Elves, Halflings and Humans all feature strongly, with Dragonborn, Gnomes, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs and Tieflings thrown in for good measure. There's a little note stating that these last four don't appear in every world, but are included for if you want them, which is a great addition.
Most of them have subrace options (such as Hill or Mountain Dwarves, or High/Wood/Dark Elves) and have a range of benefits. Humans gain a point in every attribute, which goes a long way. Nothing seems particularly crazy.
Class
The range of Classes is once more a flashback to 3rd, with all 11 of those classes included with the addition of the Warlock chucked in to bring the total up to 12. Each Class grants you Proficiencies to boost your Skills, Saves and equipment usage and various tricks, maneuvers, spells and abilities as you go up level.
Each Class forks into options as you go along which kinda covers the Prestige Class idea (Mages pick a School to follow, Barbarians can follow the Path of the Berserker or opt for the more shamanic Totem Warrior, Paladins pick an Oath out of Devotion, Ancient or Vengeance, etc.) It all allows for a lot of customisation and could easily open up for expansion.
So far, nothing seems ridiculous or broken. Time will tell.
Background
This is the good stuff and is what people are talking about when they say that 5th is borrowing from the "indie scene". This is the section where the game asks you to define who your PC is, rather than what it can do.
It also briefly mentions alignment, which is back to the classic Law/Chaos, Good/Evil scism. You aren't obligated to pick an alignment.
A Background helps define your character as a person and is where all that funky "Personality" stuff on your character sheet finally comes in. It also grants you proficiency in certain Skills and Tools and also gives crazy other benefits (eg. A Charlatan has a false identity they can slip into.)
You get to customise your Background as appropriate and many options are given. It's probably best to give an example.
I rolled up a pretty reasonable Human Monk and thought that the Acolyte and Hermit backgrounds were pretty obvious choices. However, I decided to fuck around and make him an Entertainer and went for a dancing instructor, with some kind of funky dance-based martial art.
Next up I had to pick two Personality traits and I went with "I enjoy a good partnership" and "I'm always moving". Then comes an Ideal and I went with "Passion: Emotion is the expression of the soul" which seemed wanky enough. As a Bond, I chose to go a bit obtuse and decided that my monk was obsessed with a dance called the Tanrateuva; a near impossible dance to master and will create interesting roleplay opportunities down the road. Finally, a Flaw, which wrote itself; "I can never refuse a dance."
This gives a pretty good idea as to how Backgrounds work. It isn't anything we haven't seen in many other games over the last twenty years, but it's a first for D&D and it's welcome. As a side note, I spent more time on the Background than anything else, which is cool.
Playing your character in keeping with your Background allows you to gain Inspiration which you can cash in for Advantage. This is glossed over briefly and seems to be detailed in more depth in the Dungeon Master's Guide.
Customising
Multiclassing is back to a system similar to 3rd, but without the XP penalties. Feats exist as an optional rule and are nowhere near as important as in 3rd. Basically, whenever you gain an Attribute increase (every 4 levels or so) you can gain a Feat instead. The list of Feats is fairly short, but satisfactory.
Myself, I'd include them.
Verdict
It seems that the developers wanted to try some new things, but were scared because they tried something different with 4th and suffered for it. So they went for familiarity with a few tweaks.
It's not a huge game changer. Backgrounds are exciting, admittedly, but you could simply plug that onto previous editions with minimal fuss. The Skill system is the best we've seen, and Magic is boring.
This isn't the best roleplaying game on the market. But it is the best D&D the market has seen, and a huge step back in the right direction.
I doubt I'll commit to anything long term with this incarnation of the girl next door, but I'm happy to have her back. And I'm sure she'll mature more wisely this time.
(Style 3, Substance 4)
Then we hit our teen years and we kinda went different ways. We still enjoyed each others company, but I'd started noticing other games and girls and she was kinda hung up on trying to make those old schoolyard frolics into something more than what they really were. She started to bore me and I started to avoid her.
Then in 2000, I heard she was coming back to town. I didn't expect much, and boy was I surprised when she rocked up looking a million dollars! She'd shed the awkward body of her developing years and had matured spectacularly. The pimples were gone and the braces discarded. She was still the same girl at heart, but now she was smarter, cooler, prettier and sexier. She'd always had this potential, but it was a surprise to see her actually live up to it. There were still other girls who I liked (some even moreso) but there was a place in my heart for D, and she was glowing at this stage.
However, the popularity got to her head, and she got caught up in her own bullshit. It was nice to see her, but she had a lot of admirers around that I didn't care for, so we drifted apart again.
Then she gave herself another makeover, and this time I hated it. She was obviously hanging with the wrong crowd, or at least a subculture that I couldn't approve of. She looked tacky and she wasn't the girl she used to be. She was vapid and shallow. She was trying too hard to be cool. She was so obviously trying to be someone that she wasn't, and it was so sad to watch her do this to herself.
So sad, in fact, that I let her go. I couldn't be a part of that.
But last week, I got a knock on my door and guess who was standing there? There was D, slightly shamefaced and desperate to be held. She'd ditched the subculture threads and once more had returned to the girl I'd fallen back in love with in 2000. Though this time, there was something different.
Yes, there it was in her eyes. Rather than take another step down the path she was heading, she'd backpedalled to a better time. And this time she wouldn't screw up. She's wiser now. This isn't a makeover but a do-over. She's learnt so much and she wants to fix it up.
What a sucker am I? She's probably gonna break my heart again. She'll probably go off the rails. But I know that she really wants to make up for the past and she's trying so hard. I need to give her this chance.
And for the first time in a long while, I believe in her. Because this is the best she's ever been.
So come to my arms, glorious girl! It's good to have you back.
What's it like?
It's basically 3rd ed in principle (and when I say 3rd, that includes 3.5, d20, Pathfinder et al. Nobody gets so pedantic and fussy when discussing 1st edition as they do with 3rd. What's the red box? 1.4? 1.5? What about the Rules Cyclopedia? 1.8? It's all just 1st ed, like 3.5 is just 3rd. Deal with it.)
There's nothing wrong with it being a polish of 3rd. 3rd was pretty clean overall. There's a lot of people saying that it feels a lot like 1st ed, but I don't see it. Frankly, that's a good thing. 1st ed kinda sucked, mechanically, though the atmosphere was fun. That 1st ed atmosphere isn't really existent in 5th (not like in, say, the wonderful Dungeon Crawl Classics) and it doesn't need to be.
Roll a d20. Add a modifier. Beat a target. Passive targets tend to be 10 + a modifier. You've seen it all before, kids.
The Character Sheet
I mentioned in my previous post that you can tell a lot about a game by its character sheet, and that's true for D&D5. Actually, you can probably review this book best by flipping through it backwards.
The character sheet has a few of the old familiars. Classic six Attributes and modifiers (again, like 3rd). Saving Throws have changed so that there's one for each attribute (so you can make a Strength save against the boulder falling on your head, and so forth). Armour class, Hit points, Initiative modifier, and Speed are all familiar. There's a list of 18 Skills, which is a good amount without going crazy, and they seem to be a good spread.
There's a few interesting new features. A spot each for "Inspiration" and a "Proficiency Bonus" stand out, which I'll get to later, but the most intriguing part has to be a little area for Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws. This is new territory for D&D and immediately got me interested.
A second page deals with notes, treasure and the like while a third page is dedicated to spells.
The sheet is pretty clean, though it'd be clever to run a Hit Point track down the side of the page which you could use paper clips to monitor (ala Deadlands). It's such an easy and simple method and beats rubbing out numbers and damaging the sheet.
Going Backwards
The index seems pretty functional, and has worked very well for me as I've needed it. the Appendices include Conditions, Gods, Planes, Creature stats, and additional reading and are all quick and functional.
The Conditions have cute picture examples that assist the text. The Gods cover some classic historic pantheons and also some of the published D&D ones. The Planes basically gives a Planescape primer. Creature stats cover dogs, snakes, gators, horses and the like with a zombie and imp thrown in for interest. The Additional reading section begins with a couple of paragraphs by Gary Gygax from 1979, which I thought was a nice touch.
Magic
The book is split into three sections; character, rules, and magic. Sadly, the magic section is nothing special.
There are absolutely no surprises in the magic section. This is classic, level-based Vancian magic. (I was surprised to hear an experienced gamer mate of mine say he hadn't heard this term before. Vancian magic basically refers to the "memorisation" or "utility belt" style of magic design which most editions of D&D have used. It refers to the writings of Jack Vance, which inspired the magic system for D&D. It's like saying "a Tolkien-esque world" or "Lovecraftian gods".)
This is disappointing. I'm not a fan of Vancian magic and hope that a future edition will create something better, possibly taking some cues from Ars Magicka. Many (but not all spells) include a nifty feature where you can cast it as a higher level spell for extra benefits. Eg. I can cast Magic Missile as a third level spell and get 2 extra missiles than I would if I cast it at 1st level. This level up feature could form the basis of an improved magic system. (Weirdly, some obvious spells don't include this feature, even though they seem obviously suited for it. A perfect example is Mirror Images, which doesn't get extra benefits though it seems obvious that you could grant extra images.)
The end result is that this section is the most disappointing part of the book. To its credit, it's fairly compact.
Game Rules
The second section of the book covers the meat of the rules.
It's a mere 27 pages, which I think is glorious. It covers Ability Checks, Saves, Travelling, Resting and Combat, with a few little other necessities. Again, it's all very 3rd ed (especially the combat) with a few differences here and there.
As I said, there's a Save for each Attribute. Resting is split into Short and Long Rests, which grant different benefits. There's a new simple feature called having Advantage or Disadvantage, which means you roll two d20 if you have it, keeping the better one with Advantage or the lower when Disadvantaged. It's simple and effective.
Probably the biggest change is the idea of a Proficiency bonus. This starts at +2 and increases by 1 every four levels, maxing out at +6. You add your Proficiency bonus to "stuff you're proficient with". So instead of a Fighter gaining an extra +1 to hit each level, you just add your Proficiency bonus to weapons he knows (all of them). Thieves are Proficient with more Skills than other people.
You can be proficient with weapons, tools (there's a heap of different tool types, which is cool), Saves, Skill, Spells and a few other things.
I quickly liked it. Instead of having shitloads of bonuses to a few things (like in 3rd) or simply half my level to everything (like in 4th) this time you get a simple increase to your range of abilities. It's simple and is probably the best Skill system we've ever seen in D&D. But it won't be for everyone.
Character Creation
This is probably where the best part of the book is.
Though there's a couple of different methods presented, the default Attribute system is "roll 4d6, drop the lowest, do it six times, and allocate at will". That gives you a pretty solid idea as to the range we're expecting. From there, you pick your Race, Class, and Background.
That's the big change. In original Basic D&D you picked a Class, and Races were Classes all their own. Later, this became an X/Y axis where you picked a Race and a Class. Now they've added a Z axis for Background and it's the most exciting thing we've seen in D&D for a long time.
Race
Not a lot of surprises, and again very 3rd ed. Dwarves, Elves, Halflings and Humans all feature strongly, with Dragonborn, Gnomes, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs and Tieflings thrown in for good measure. There's a little note stating that these last four don't appear in every world, but are included for if you want them, which is a great addition.
Most of them have subrace options (such as Hill or Mountain Dwarves, or High/Wood/Dark Elves) and have a range of benefits. Humans gain a point in every attribute, which goes a long way. Nothing seems particularly crazy.
Class
The range of Classes is once more a flashback to 3rd, with all 11 of those classes included with the addition of the Warlock chucked in to bring the total up to 12. Each Class grants you Proficiencies to boost your Skills, Saves and equipment usage and various tricks, maneuvers, spells and abilities as you go up level.
Each Class forks into options as you go along which kinda covers the Prestige Class idea (Mages pick a School to follow, Barbarians can follow the Path of the Berserker or opt for the more shamanic Totem Warrior, Paladins pick an Oath out of Devotion, Ancient or Vengeance, etc.) It all allows for a lot of customisation and could easily open up for expansion.
So far, nothing seems ridiculous or broken. Time will tell.
Background
This is the good stuff and is what people are talking about when they say that 5th is borrowing from the "indie scene". This is the section where the game asks you to define who your PC is, rather than what it can do.
It also briefly mentions alignment, which is back to the classic Law/Chaos, Good/Evil scism. You aren't obligated to pick an alignment.
A Background helps define your character as a person and is where all that funky "Personality" stuff on your character sheet finally comes in. It also grants you proficiency in certain Skills and Tools and also gives crazy other benefits (eg. A Charlatan has a false identity they can slip into.)
You get to customise your Background as appropriate and many options are given. It's probably best to give an example.
I rolled up a pretty reasonable Human Monk and thought that the Acolyte and Hermit backgrounds were pretty obvious choices. However, I decided to fuck around and make him an Entertainer and went for a dancing instructor, with some kind of funky dance-based martial art.
Next up I had to pick two Personality traits and I went with "I enjoy a good partnership" and "I'm always moving". Then comes an Ideal and I went with "Passion: Emotion is the expression of the soul" which seemed wanky enough. As a Bond, I chose to go a bit obtuse and decided that my monk was obsessed with a dance called the Tanrateuva; a near impossible dance to master and will create interesting roleplay opportunities down the road. Finally, a Flaw, which wrote itself; "I can never refuse a dance."
This gives a pretty good idea as to how Backgrounds work. It isn't anything we haven't seen in many other games over the last twenty years, but it's a first for D&D and it's welcome. As a side note, I spent more time on the Background than anything else, which is cool.
Playing your character in keeping with your Background allows you to gain Inspiration which you can cash in for Advantage. This is glossed over briefly and seems to be detailed in more depth in the Dungeon Master's Guide.
Customising
Multiclassing is back to a system similar to 3rd, but without the XP penalties. Feats exist as an optional rule and are nowhere near as important as in 3rd. Basically, whenever you gain an Attribute increase (every 4 levels or so) you can gain a Feat instead. The list of Feats is fairly short, but satisfactory.
Myself, I'd include them.
Verdict
It seems that the developers wanted to try some new things, but were scared because they tried something different with 4th and suffered for it. So they went for familiarity with a few tweaks.
It's not a huge game changer. Backgrounds are exciting, admittedly, but you could simply plug that onto previous editions with minimal fuss. The Skill system is the best we've seen, and Magic is boring.
This isn't the best roleplaying game on the market. But it is the best D&D the market has seen, and a huge step back in the right direction.
I doubt I'll commit to anything long term with this incarnation of the girl next door, but I'm happy to have her back. And I'm sure she'll mature more wisely this time.
(Style 3, Substance 4)
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
The Three Biggest Lies in Roleplaying (article)
The best lies have a ring of truth to them. Something that seems right which disguises the lie so well that it makes it hard to argue against.
Take Fonzie. Everyone says that Fonzie is cool, and it's easy to fall for the lie. After all, he rides a motorbike, has immaculate hair, and can control a jukebox with his fists. Everyone knows that Fonzie is cool.
It's a lie. Fonzie isn't cool. His best mates are Potsie and Ralph Malph. Schoolkids. Fonzie himself is a high school dropout and is now a mechanic (honest, but not a dream occupation). He's always got a different girl, which makes me wonder why they don't hang around. And the only thing more pathetic than living with your parents is living with your teenage mate's parents.
So keep that in mind; a good lie always seems to be true. And the three biggest lies in roleplaying all seem true, in their way.
Lie #1: "It's only a game." AKA "We're all here to have fun."
This is usually said for the right reasons. Nobody wants to see somebody getting angry and upset because of roleplaying. If your character has died, it's unacceptable to have a tantrum in your buddy's kitchen. That's far from cool. So someone will say, "Hey dude, it's only a game. Chill out."
And they'd be right in that regard. I'm never going to advocate immaturity.
But keep in mind that roleplaying isn't just a game. It can be, if that's all you want. But it can be so much more. Roleplaying can (if done in the right way) be art. Or education. It can be a powerful immersive experience drawing on literary conventions. It can, at times, change your life.
It doesn't HAVE to do that. Some people only want their entertainment to be fun and light. But others are happy to go further.
Roleplaying can be an artform, not just a game. It can be like TV, literature, film, or theatre. These aren't always "fun and games". I didn't find Breaking Bad, 1984, Requiem for a Dream or The Laramie Project "fun" experiences. But they enriched me.
The best times I've had in roleplaying have been when it becomes more than a game. When we've been emotionally and intellectually affected by the stories and characters we've created together. This isn't always fun but it is incredibly satisfying, and at such a stage there's no sense of competition. It's art. And a very unique form of art at that.
We shouldn't be afraid of letting roleplaying become more than a game.
Lie #2: "It doesn't matter what system we use as long as we're all enjoying ourselves."
I've already covered the second part of this statement in the previous point. It's the first section that's more important.
The person saying this just wants to roleplay. And that's great. They're happy just to get into the experience and aren't fussed about what conventions are being used, and that openness is fantastic.
But it does matter what system you use. It matters what conventions are being applied. Because these create the structure for your mutual experience and form the borders of your creative agenda.
Whether you are playing D&D, FATE, Burning Wheel, Call of Cthullu or a systemless game, the structure of the system (or lack of it) will affect how each player (and GM) interacts with the experience. It puts restrictions on the fiat and malleability of the storytelling. And it encourages certain behaviour.
I watched a 5th ed D&D review recently where the reviewer made a great observation. He mentioned that many people (myself included) criticesed 4th ed for lacking roleplaying. He said that he didn't previously put much weight on that argument because he felt that there's as much roleplaying in any game as the participants want there to be. You just ditch the rules and start roleplaying. You don't need rules to roleplay.
But then he read 5th ed and saw how a game can encourage you to roleplay. 5th ed (NB: at the time of writing, the new Player's Handbook is about to be released) has stuff like character goals ("Avenge my father") and backgrounds ("I used to be an alcoholic") and other things like that which encourage you to roleplay. Suddenly he saw how the rules of a game can aid, assist and promote roleplaying.
Different games will encourage different styles of roleplaying. Running Microcosm is a totally different experience to running Hackmaster. Wraith is different to Deadlands, as Pendragon is different to Legend of the 5 Rings, as PDQ is different to Warhammer Fantasy.
If it doesn't matter what system you use, then why not use a better system? Don't be satisfied with a poor fit.
Lie #3: "You can't make a proper judgement on a game until you've played it."
This is the "fair go" argument. It's usually used against people who have read a game and disliked it, so don't play it. After all, games are usually different in practice than in theory.
It's a fair argument in its way, but it's rarely true. I've played a lot of systems and I've been more likely to be underwhelmed by something in play that looked good on paper than impressed by something I expected would be crap.
The way a game system presents itself gives a very clear indication of what the experience will be like. Hell, even just looking at a character sheet will tell you a lot about the experience. If the sheet has a list of ten different combat skills with ratings between 1 and 10, a picture of a human form with different sections to track wounds, and three different boxes to track ammo types, I'm pretty sure that this is gonna be a combat heavy game and it'd be a good idea to get some dice out from the kit. On the other hand, if it just has a list of personality quirks and sections to write down opinions about various characters, I'm gonna be playing a different kinda game (see Lie #2).
I don't need to sit down for three hours and play a game to confirm what I already know from reading the rulebook. The book itself will give me a pretty good idea as to what experience I'll have.
In one of the earliest incarnations of D&D, all weapons did 1d6 damage. That might seem odd, but then keep in mind that if you were using a two-handed weapon you could only attack every other round. There's no advantage. Do you really need to sit down at a game table to confirm that something is wrong there?
Occasionally, but not very often, a game will surprise you. Something that looked bad will actually be kinda awesome. But just because the Fonz has the occasional good line doesn't mean that he's gonna move out of the Cunningham attic any time soon.
Take Fonzie. Everyone says that Fonzie is cool, and it's easy to fall for the lie. After all, he rides a motorbike, has immaculate hair, and can control a jukebox with his fists. Everyone knows that Fonzie is cool.
It's a lie. Fonzie isn't cool. His best mates are Potsie and Ralph Malph. Schoolkids. Fonzie himself is a high school dropout and is now a mechanic (honest, but not a dream occupation). He's always got a different girl, which makes me wonder why they don't hang around. And the only thing more pathetic than living with your parents is living with your teenage mate's parents.
So keep that in mind; a good lie always seems to be true. And the three biggest lies in roleplaying all seem true, in their way.
Lie #1: "It's only a game." AKA "We're all here to have fun."
This is usually said for the right reasons. Nobody wants to see somebody getting angry and upset because of roleplaying. If your character has died, it's unacceptable to have a tantrum in your buddy's kitchen. That's far from cool. So someone will say, "Hey dude, it's only a game. Chill out."
And they'd be right in that regard. I'm never going to advocate immaturity.
But keep in mind that roleplaying isn't just a game. It can be, if that's all you want. But it can be so much more. Roleplaying can (if done in the right way) be art. Or education. It can be a powerful immersive experience drawing on literary conventions. It can, at times, change your life.
It doesn't HAVE to do that. Some people only want their entertainment to be fun and light. But others are happy to go further.
Roleplaying can be an artform, not just a game. It can be like TV, literature, film, or theatre. These aren't always "fun and games". I didn't find Breaking Bad, 1984, Requiem for a Dream or The Laramie Project "fun" experiences. But they enriched me.
The best times I've had in roleplaying have been when it becomes more than a game. When we've been emotionally and intellectually affected by the stories and characters we've created together. This isn't always fun but it is incredibly satisfying, and at such a stage there's no sense of competition. It's art. And a very unique form of art at that.
We shouldn't be afraid of letting roleplaying become more than a game.
Lie #2: "It doesn't matter what system we use as long as we're all enjoying ourselves."
I've already covered the second part of this statement in the previous point. It's the first section that's more important.
The person saying this just wants to roleplay. And that's great. They're happy just to get into the experience and aren't fussed about what conventions are being used, and that openness is fantastic.
But it does matter what system you use. It matters what conventions are being applied. Because these create the structure for your mutual experience and form the borders of your creative agenda.
Whether you are playing D&D, FATE, Burning Wheel, Call of Cthullu or a systemless game, the structure of the system (or lack of it) will affect how each player (and GM) interacts with the experience. It puts restrictions on the fiat and malleability of the storytelling. And it encourages certain behaviour.
I watched a 5th ed D&D review recently where the reviewer made a great observation. He mentioned that many people (myself included) criticesed 4th ed for lacking roleplaying. He said that he didn't previously put much weight on that argument because he felt that there's as much roleplaying in any game as the participants want there to be. You just ditch the rules and start roleplaying. You don't need rules to roleplay.
But then he read 5th ed and saw how a game can encourage you to roleplay. 5th ed (NB: at the time of writing, the new Player's Handbook is about to be released) has stuff like character goals ("Avenge my father") and backgrounds ("I used to be an alcoholic") and other things like that which encourage you to roleplay. Suddenly he saw how the rules of a game can aid, assist and promote roleplaying.
Different games will encourage different styles of roleplaying. Running Microcosm is a totally different experience to running Hackmaster. Wraith is different to Deadlands, as Pendragon is different to Legend of the 5 Rings, as PDQ is different to Warhammer Fantasy.
If it doesn't matter what system you use, then why not use a better system? Don't be satisfied with a poor fit.
Lie #3: "You can't make a proper judgement on a game until you've played it."
This is the "fair go" argument. It's usually used against people who have read a game and disliked it, so don't play it. After all, games are usually different in practice than in theory.
It's a fair argument in its way, but it's rarely true. I've played a lot of systems and I've been more likely to be underwhelmed by something in play that looked good on paper than impressed by something I expected would be crap.
The way a game system presents itself gives a very clear indication of what the experience will be like. Hell, even just looking at a character sheet will tell you a lot about the experience. If the sheet has a list of ten different combat skills with ratings between 1 and 10, a picture of a human form with different sections to track wounds, and three different boxes to track ammo types, I'm pretty sure that this is gonna be a combat heavy game and it'd be a good idea to get some dice out from the kit. On the other hand, if it just has a list of personality quirks and sections to write down opinions about various characters, I'm gonna be playing a different kinda game (see Lie #2).
I don't need to sit down for three hours and play a game to confirm what I already know from reading the rulebook. The book itself will give me a pretty good idea as to what experience I'll have.
In one of the earliest incarnations of D&D, all weapons did 1d6 damage. That might seem odd, but then keep in mind that if you were using a two-handed weapon you could only attack every other round. There's no advantage. Do you really need to sit down at a game table to confirm that something is wrong there?
Occasionally, but not very often, a game will surprise you. Something that looked bad will actually be kinda awesome. But just because the Fonz has the occasional good line doesn't mean that he's gonna move out of the Cunningham attic any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)