A general tip for the person hosting this week's RPG session: Have some alternative games ready. Last time, out of our group of 7 people, including the DM, only 3 came to my place. We usually play with at least one more person, so last time, not enough people came together due to scheduling conflicts. Three people were unable to come, one of them declined pretty much last minute. With too few players, what was to do now that we had gathered?
We didn't even tough D&D.
Instead I introduced my friends to Mahjong, we played some Settlers of Catan, lounged around, and finally played Wii. Our RPG session turned into a general games session. We still had lots of fun, people didn't come to my place for nothing, and our DM was able to save what he had prepared for when more people got together again.
Having alternative games - board games, a deck of cards, a game station - allows for people to gather, and still turn an afternoon into something worthwhile if things don't work out as planned. We were meeting to play anyway.
Qi
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Taking Attack Waves from Stargate SG1
Yesterday I stumbled upon a really cool idea in terms of encounter design. I had the TV running in the background, and some random episode of Stargate SG1 (I think) was running. It had something to do with time manipulation, so it was interesting enough for me to leave it on. The scene that sparked the awesome was somewhere near the end. For all those people who actually watch this series and know what I'm talking about, I'll try to say as little about the actual plot as possible.
Basically, the scene depicted a "depend the control point" type of encounter. The good guys stumbled upon a machine which needed to be calibrated and then activated for them to escape. They were being pursued by the bad guys, and as one person was working on the control board, the rest took up positions to fend off the attackers.
What made this cool was the way that the waves of attackers arrived; they came in small groups of about 5 or 6 goons using a teleporter (the teleporter with those rings, also seen in the original Stargate movie). So a bunch of them teleport in, they fight, and after a few seconds, the next group arrives, and so on.
This makes for an awesome setup, as it gets rid of a few drawbacks of the "traditional" method. There's no longer a huge storm of enemies entering through a chokepoint (such as a door) - if you used easy to kill minions, they would usually be shot down before they even get through, and if you use tougher monsters, too many of them might eventually overwhelm the party. With this method, you serve the players small bite-size groups of monsters. It's enough at one time to be a challenge for like three combat rounds, but not too many to wash over the characters. And after this wave is done (or not), you bring in the next small group. It's not as easy to position a tank to block entry to a room, which means that everyone will have to pitch in, and the party is no longer facing one monster at a time (which, with one-hit-kill minions, becomes boring very quickly).
So there you have it, an easy way to alter a defensive encounter by pitching small goups against the pary, one at a time.
Qi
Basically, the scene depicted a "depend the control point" type of encounter. The good guys stumbled upon a machine which needed to be calibrated and then activated for them to escape. They were being pursued by the bad guys, and as one person was working on the control board, the rest took up positions to fend off the attackers.
What made this cool was the way that the waves of attackers arrived; they came in small groups of about 5 or 6 goons using a teleporter (the teleporter with those rings, also seen in the original Stargate movie). So a bunch of them teleport in, they fight, and after a few seconds, the next group arrives, and so on.
This makes for an awesome setup, as it gets rid of a few drawbacks of the "traditional" method. There's no longer a huge storm of enemies entering through a chokepoint (such as a door) - if you used easy to kill minions, they would usually be shot down before they even get through, and if you use tougher monsters, too many of them might eventually overwhelm the party. With this method, you serve the players small bite-size groups of monsters. It's enough at one time to be a challenge for like three combat rounds, but not too many to wash over the characters. And after this wave is done (or not), you bring in the next small group. It's not as easy to position a tank to block entry to a room, which means that everyone will have to pitch in, and the party is no longer facing one monster at a time (which, with one-hit-kill minions, becomes boring very quickly).
So there you have it, an easy way to alter a defensive encounter by pitching small goups against the pary, one at a time.
Qi
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Diary of Sessions
We had our second D&D sessions yesterday, and I have begun to find many things to ponder over concerning RPGs. But the most striking right now is about keeping a diary of sessions. To those who don't know what it is: It's basically a summary of what happened (in play) during a session, so that people can remember plot and details, and it's easier to catch up for players who were missing. Sometimes the GM does this, but seeing as how the GM is already busy with making adventures, this task is better given to players.
In my many years of gaming, we've never had a diary of sessions. In fact, that idea never really occurred to any of us. This time round, however, it was one of the first points to be discussed, right along with character creation. Players will volunteer and take turns to write a summary, either in character or not, and give it to the rest of the group.
No, I didn't write the first one, my turn has yet to come, but I can only advise groups who don't keep a diary of sessions to try it out, for two great reasons: You remember what you did, and it helps the roleplaying a lot.
The first summary was written by the player of an elf ranger, in the form of a letter to his mother, sharing with her his travels since he left home, mostly about our first session. This letter was wonderfully written, the player got lots of compliments for it, and it even gave our GM the motivational boost he needed to create a good adventure for yesterday. It's also great inspiration for my own character, to give him an even more in-depth personality.
The summary also helped on a more technical level, however. After clearing a goblin-infested mine, two of the rescued miners apparently mentioned a grim looking human dealing with the hobgoblin leaders of the raid. Truth be told, try as I might, I could not recall that detail ever being mentioned at the gaming table. I did not know of that man's existence until I had read the summary. I blame it on the time (4 am) of when we ended our first session. Or I was in the kitchen while this detail was being discussed. But the summary helped me get onto the same page as everybody else, and so when the man was mentioned again yesterday, I knew whom we were talking about.
So really, if your group isn't using a diary of sessions yet, you should at least give it a try, see how it goes. It adds a lot of depth to gaming, and seeing as how there are usually one or two weeks in between sessions, the pressure is not too big. If you don't like it, no loss. I certainly enjoy having one.
Qi
In my many years of gaming, we've never had a diary of sessions. In fact, that idea never really occurred to any of us. This time round, however, it was one of the first points to be discussed, right along with character creation. Players will volunteer and take turns to write a summary, either in character or not, and give it to the rest of the group.
No, I didn't write the first one, my turn has yet to come, but I can only advise groups who don't keep a diary of sessions to try it out, for two great reasons: You remember what you did, and it helps the roleplaying a lot.
The first summary was written by the player of an elf ranger, in the form of a letter to his mother, sharing with her his travels since he left home, mostly about our first session. This letter was wonderfully written, the player got lots of compliments for it, and it even gave our GM the motivational boost he needed to create a good adventure for yesterday. It's also great inspiration for my own character, to give him an even more in-depth personality.
The summary also helped on a more technical level, however. After clearing a goblin-infested mine, two of the rescued miners apparently mentioned a grim looking human dealing with the hobgoblin leaders of the raid. Truth be told, try as I might, I could not recall that detail ever being mentioned at the gaming table. I did not know of that man's existence until I had read the summary. I blame it on the time (4 am) of when we ended our first session. Or I was in the kitchen while this detail was being discussed. But the summary helped me get onto the same page as everybody else, and so when the man was mentioned again yesterday, I knew whom we were talking about.
So really, if your group isn't using a diary of sessions yet, you should at least give it a try, see how it goes. It adds a lot of depth to gaming, and seeing as how there are usually one or two weeks in between sessions, the pressure is not too big. If you don't like it, no loss. I certainly enjoy having one.
Qi
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Getting Back Into the Game
I've met with a couple of people yesterday for D&D. We decided upon house rules, group composition, created characters, and are going to play soon. This means that after a long hiatus, I'm finally getting back into actually playing RPGs. Next to being a lot of fun, it might give me more stuff to write about.
I'll be taking a break from my normal job as a GM, and play a character, but actively playing is bound to bring up some situations worthwhile for this blog.
Qi
I'll be taking a break from my normal job as a GM, and play a character, but actively playing is bound to bring up some situations worthwhile for this blog.
Qi
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Hitpoints in Games
Words can't describe I much I am opposed to hit points when they are badly implemented in a game. When I look through a new game, the very mention of hit points (or whatever alternative name they may have in individual systems) usually puts me at unease straight away. This is usually because of flawed resource balancing; player characters can have many different resources, based on the system, such as action points, spells, mana, endurance, potions, money, or the prevalent hit points.
A game usually grinds to a halt (or at least a pause) when these resources run out, depending on how important said resource is for the continued adventuring. Of all of these, hit points are usually at the top - if they are low, characters must find a way to replenish them (which can use up other resources), and if they run out, it usually spells out the end of the line for that character. And player.
So hit points become the game's most important resource, and all other resources are geared towards protecting them, such as healing spells or health potions. Throw in what many systems do - determine the amount of hit points randomly - and you get a game where players are more concerned about conserving hit points than they are about actually playing.
Now, this can be used to great effect if the game does not deal with combat, and wants to make it very clear that every armed confrontation has to be very carefully thought about, but games like Dungeons and Dragons thrive on combat - it's chapter on combat rules is longer than that on "adventuring" rules. And this is where my dislike comes from: An all-important resource with a randomly determined amount which runs how I play.
However, after avoiding hit points for a long time, I've gotten back to thinking how to deal with them, and to come up with a design idea. And this is where games like Dragon Age helped me out: Regenerating hit points and disabling. In Dragon Age, when a character's hit points fall to zero in combat, they are not immediately killed, but only disabled - still alive, but unable to undertake any action. As long as there is still a party member with a positive amount of hit points left, there is still hope. And when the fight is won, the hit points start regenerating, and fairly quickly at that.
Why not implement something of a similar nature in PnP games? Hit points only matter when in combat - and when combat is over, they fill up to their maximum again. To this end, it is a refreshing resource, which does not require careful management, and other resources like healing spells are not wasted outside of combat. To this end, hit points really become a counter as to how long one can stay in combat while getting injured, instead of how long one can adventure before needing to rest yet again. It reduces down-time without giving characters ridiculous amounts of recources (something DnD 4E seems to have done), allowing the action to continue. And if you do need to show injuries or so, throw in a wound system and combine it with the hit points.
It works in CRPGs, it should definitely be worth a try in PnP.
Qi
A game usually grinds to a halt (or at least a pause) when these resources run out, depending on how important said resource is for the continued adventuring. Of all of these, hit points are usually at the top - if they are low, characters must find a way to replenish them (which can use up other resources), and if they run out, it usually spells out the end of the line for that character. And player.
So hit points become the game's most important resource, and all other resources are geared towards protecting them, such as healing spells or health potions. Throw in what many systems do - determine the amount of hit points randomly - and you get a game where players are more concerned about conserving hit points than they are about actually playing.
Now, this can be used to great effect if the game does not deal with combat, and wants to make it very clear that every armed confrontation has to be very carefully thought about, but games like Dungeons and Dragons thrive on combat - it's chapter on combat rules is longer than that on "adventuring" rules. And this is where my dislike comes from: An all-important resource with a randomly determined amount which runs how I play.
However, after avoiding hit points for a long time, I've gotten back to thinking how to deal with them, and to come up with a design idea. And this is where games like Dragon Age helped me out: Regenerating hit points and disabling. In Dragon Age, when a character's hit points fall to zero in combat, they are not immediately killed, but only disabled - still alive, but unable to undertake any action. As long as there is still a party member with a positive amount of hit points left, there is still hope. And when the fight is won, the hit points start regenerating, and fairly quickly at that.
Why not implement something of a similar nature in PnP games? Hit points only matter when in combat - and when combat is over, they fill up to their maximum again. To this end, it is a refreshing resource, which does not require careful management, and other resources like healing spells are not wasted outside of combat. To this end, hit points really become a counter as to how long one can stay in combat while getting injured, instead of how long one can adventure before needing to rest yet again. It reduces down-time without giving characters ridiculous amounts of recources (something DnD 4E seems to have done), allowing the action to continue. And if you do need to show injuries or so, throw in a wound system and combine it with the hit points.
It works in CRPGs, it should definitely be worth a try in PnP.
Qi
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Kurt Wiegel from Game Geeks
I know that I am very late at discovering this, seeing as how I've been playing RPGs for so long, but better late than never.
I was recently shown a video on YouTube about a GM reviewing D&D 4E. Checking a bit further, I found that there was a whole series with more than 90 episodes behind it. In every episode (between 3 and 6 minutes, usually), Kurt Wiegel reviews and introduces one RPG book, seemingly randomly chosen, from any kind of system, be it a core rulebook or a supplement.
This series is a true blessing to anyone who is like me; somebody who loves RPGs, but doesn't really know what's out there, nor has the money to buy lots of books. After watching 25 episodes, I've not only learned a great deal about different genres and settings, and what kinds of different systems there are, but have also found one or two which are really interesting for me, and worth checking out. At the very least, I've been able to search for specific systems which offer freebies or previews.
So really, this series is absolutely wonderful, and is there to give a quick rundown of the various different games out there on the market. Anyone who doesn't quite know what system to play, or which books to get, or is simply interested in the kinds of RPGs available, 'Game Geeks' is a great place to start.
Qi
I was recently shown a video on YouTube about a GM reviewing D&D 4E. Checking a bit further, I found that there was a whole series with more than 90 episodes behind it. In every episode (between 3 and 6 minutes, usually), Kurt Wiegel reviews and introduces one RPG book, seemingly randomly chosen, from any kind of system, be it a core rulebook or a supplement.
This series is a true blessing to anyone who is like me; somebody who loves RPGs, but doesn't really know what's out there, nor has the money to buy lots of books. After watching 25 episodes, I've not only learned a great deal about different genres and settings, and what kinds of different systems there are, but have also found one or two which are really interesting for me, and worth checking out. At the very least, I've been able to search for specific systems which offer freebies or previews.
So really, this series is absolutely wonderful, and is there to give a quick rundown of the various different games out there on the market. Anyone who doesn't quite know what system to play, or which books to get, or is simply interested in the kinds of RPGs available, 'Game Geeks' is a great place to start.
Qi
Friday, January 23, 2009
Humans in Race Descriptions
Being able to choose from various races for a player character is a common feature in many RPGs. And more often than not, one of these choices are humans. Humans are often the "default" race, having no special bonuses or penalties, and being the middle ground between various extremes that other races personify. The general idea behind this is that since the players are humans themselves, they would know how to play a human, right?
Well, that might be good and well for playing, but for design, it doesn't help one bit. In order to make other races enjoyable, they should be "different" from humans. But when humans aren't characterized properly, what is "different"? This is where my thoughts are straying at the moment, so I'll try and piece together a list of common human behavior, from which other races can then be abstracted.
Humans are Curious
Let's face it - humans love to explore new things. It's the reason Marco Polo went to India, Columbus went to America, Magellan went around the world, and Neil Armstrong went to the Moon. It's the reason there's so much tourism in the world. But it's more than that, as well. Why do we read books on various subjects, study things in university out of our own volition? Because humans are curious. We love to learn new things, gossip, and research on new scientific frontiers. People don't spend millions of dollars on CERN just for the heck of it, or spend years with certain animals to learn their behaviors. Which brings up the next point.
Humans are Passionate
We are able to pour our heart and soul into something we do. This, coupled with curiosity, has enabled us to invent and discover all these amazing things over the centuries - steam engines, light bulbs, cars, semiconductors, programming languages, iPhones. And much, much more. We can have a lot of determination with things that are dear to us, be it studying a certain subject, caring for a certain person, writing a novel, conducting a scientific experiment, or helping out in poor areas of the world. Sometimes, this passion is just filled with a "feel good" result, but sometimes, there are ulterior motives.
Humans are Greedy
Humans love having stuff; kids want toys and chocolate, adults want houses, cars, money. Some want nice furniture, others would like a nice computer, yet other need a HiFi system, and some want to get millions of dollars as bonuses. Money is a powerful motivator (in fact, it's the reason a lot of people go to jobs), and the more the better. I'm not going to say that it has turned people into materialists, because we might have been this all along, but it has certainly made money accessible. The current economic crisis is partially the fault of greed and materialism, without looking at the thin ice we were standing on.
Humans obey Authority
In the Milgram Experiment, it was tested just how much humans are willing to ignore their own morals for orders given by an authority figure. The result was that most participants were willing to go so far as to "kill" another person, because they were told to do so. A less extreme scenario would be soldiers obeying orders, or workers obeying their bosses. Of course, sometimes, obeying orders has ulterior motives, such as keeping one's job, and yet humans elect a person to lead them every few years, and then listen to that person. Well, sometimes they do. It shows, however, that, sometimes, humans need a leader.
Humans conform to Society
Humans tend to live with other humans, and living together has unspoken, unwritten rules that people tend to follow. I'm not talking about laws, I'm talking about etiquette. Humans tend to put up a certain façade when dealing with other humans, because that is what is "expected". However, this can be a cause of the next point.
Humans like Individualism
Humans want to be themselves, do things they like to do. This is sometimes caused by pressure from "society", and it is sometimes frowned upon by it. Other times, such display of individuality, and the change it can bring, can be very refreshing. It's what caused different styles of art, in different fields, to emerge, or, again, what made some people make strange inventions or discoveries.
Humans need to Belong
What I mean is that humans can't stand isolation. We look for many things to supports us - family, friends, religion, clubs, jobs. It's good to feel like being part of a group, to feel like one really matters, perhaps even to have a higher purpose in life. Social contacts and familiarity are important, because it is a drive to keep going, and it is a secure net we can fall into when things go very wrong.
Of course, these seven points are generalizations, and not every human will have all of these characteristics. But I do think that they give a fairly good picture of how humans are in general. Things I didn't add are aspects like creativity, the explicit need for a religion, or a fear of change, as I think that there are enough people on both (or more) sides of these aspect so that they are no longer general.
With these seven things in mind, we can now create races which are "different" in more than just looks and stat bonuses.
Qi
Well, that might be good and well for playing, but for design, it doesn't help one bit. In order to make other races enjoyable, they should be "different" from humans. But when humans aren't characterized properly, what is "different"? This is where my thoughts are straying at the moment, so I'll try and piece together a list of common human behavior, from which other races can then be abstracted.
Humans are Curious
Let's face it - humans love to explore new things. It's the reason Marco Polo went to India, Columbus went to America, Magellan went around the world, and Neil Armstrong went to the Moon. It's the reason there's so much tourism in the world. But it's more than that, as well. Why do we read books on various subjects, study things in university out of our own volition? Because humans are curious. We love to learn new things, gossip, and research on new scientific frontiers. People don't spend millions of dollars on CERN just for the heck of it, or spend years with certain animals to learn their behaviors. Which brings up the next point.
Humans are Passionate
We are able to pour our heart and soul into something we do. This, coupled with curiosity, has enabled us to invent and discover all these amazing things over the centuries - steam engines, light bulbs, cars, semiconductors, programming languages, iPhones. And much, much more. We can have a lot of determination with things that are dear to us, be it studying a certain subject, caring for a certain person, writing a novel, conducting a scientific experiment, or helping out in poor areas of the world. Sometimes, this passion is just filled with a "feel good" result, but sometimes, there are ulterior motives.
Humans are Greedy
Humans love having stuff; kids want toys and chocolate, adults want houses, cars, money. Some want nice furniture, others would like a nice computer, yet other need a HiFi system, and some want to get millions of dollars as bonuses. Money is a powerful motivator (in fact, it's the reason a lot of people go to jobs), and the more the better. I'm not going to say that it has turned people into materialists, because we might have been this all along, but it has certainly made money accessible. The current economic crisis is partially the fault of greed and materialism, without looking at the thin ice we were standing on.
Humans obey Authority
In the Milgram Experiment, it was tested just how much humans are willing to ignore their own morals for orders given by an authority figure. The result was that most participants were willing to go so far as to "kill" another person, because they were told to do so. A less extreme scenario would be soldiers obeying orders, or workers obeying their bosses. Of course, sometimes, obeying orders has ulterior motives, such as keeping one's job, and yet humans elect a person to lead them every few years, and then listen to that person. Well, sometimes they do. It shows, however, that, sometimes, humans need a leader.
Humans conform to Society
Humans tend to live with other humans, and living together has unspoken, unwritten rules that people tend to follow. I'm not talking about laws, I'm talking about etiquette. Humans tend to put up a certain façade when dealing with other humans, because that is what is "expected". However, this can be a cause of the next point.
Humans like Individualism
Humans want to be themselves, do things they like to do. This is sometimes caused by pressure from "society", and it is sometimes frowned upon by it. Other times, such display of individuality, and the change it can bring, can be very refreshing. It's what caused different styles of art, in different fields, to emerge, or, again, what made some people make strange inventions or discoveries.
Humans need to Belong
What I mean is that humans can't stand isolation. We look for many things to supports us - family, friends, religion, clubs, jobs. It's good to feel like being part of a group, to feel like one really matters, perhaps even to have a higher purpose in life. Social contacts and familiarity are important, because it is a drive to keep going, and it is a secure net we can fall into when things go very wrong.
Of course, these seven points are generalizations, and not every human will have all of these characteristics. But I do think that they give a fairly good picture of how humans are in general. Things I didn't add are aspects like creativity, the explicit need for a religion, or a fear of change, as I think that there are enough people on both (or more) sides of these aspect so that they are no longer general.
With these seven things in mind, we can now create races which are "different" in more than just looks and stat bonuses.
Qi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)