Hybrid Gaming

I just thought about this topic recently given how RPG topics of late somehow point to some innovation or other in terms of game mechanics or fluff content. It was a thought that was niggling in my mind when I recalled an old issue of Videogaming Illustrated in the 80's. That magazine was published during the height of old school consoles like the Atari 2600, Intellivision, Colecovision and PC gaming was still in its infancy with machines like the Apple II, Commodore 64 and Sinclair computers. Arcade gaming was pretty much a mainstay even till now but the current generation gaming consoles have games which port over from its arcade machine siblings. I read an article in that magazine, unable to recall that particular issue, there was a way to use console games to support, augment or assist visualization for a tabletop RPG, whether it be an off-the-shelf RPG system or a homebrew. The article mentions how an enterprising GM would use the console game as an alternative to task resolution via die rolls or as interactive aid to get the player more immersed into the setting of the game as well do the needed resolution.

That article was back in the late 80's. Fast forward now to 2005 or soon-to-be 2006. The current generation of console games are pretty much interactive and a game unto itself to grab the imagination and attention of the player as compared to before since imagination doesn't fill in the blanks compared to its cruder ancestors. The thought of adding a new generation console game into the presentation process would be either a enhancement or a distraction, depending on how the enterprising GM would intend for the use of the game in question, whether it be for visual references, to better illustrate the task involved for the campaign or just adding a touch of fun for it. Its just quite a thought to ponder. It might also bring some life back to some of those old games gathering dust somewhere in your own home. It is an avenue t further interactivity to be considered.

Diceless RPG

What is diceless rpg?
“Diceless” is roleplaying without the use of any sort of dice or randomizers such as cards. They are “minimalist systems where the GM decides on the results of actions without the help of randomizers, tables, or explicit quantified mechanics.”There are already diceless systems out on the market, among them is the well known Amber Diceless RPG.

What I find interesting about them is their way of dealing with situations you would normally use dice. The most obvious is combat. It may be very descriptive or brief; it may involve a few game mechanic or none at all and sometimes a bit of railroading. But the way it’s done or presented is sometimes dependent on the spirit of the specific game world, its mechanic, game reality and the individual GMs style. Here’s part of John Kims’s FAQ for a better explanation:

"2) Does it work?
Yes. There are plenty of people who have been playing without dice even long before the above systems were published. At least for these people, it can be just as exciting as diced gaming, and at least competitive in realism with many diced games. It generally results in much more emphasis on player and GM descriptions, and much less emphasis on rules.

3) How does the GM make decisions?
That varies with the system, the GM, the group contract, and so forth. In general, action resolution can be based on a great variety of input factors. What follows is an outline of some of the factors which can go into action resolution -

[A] Reality/Genre: This is just the GM's judgement of what is the most reasonable outcome given the understood "reality" of the situation - including genre and setting-specific laws (like magic). This is actually the most common form of resolution in any game - if a character tries to walk through the woods, the GM just says it happens.
[B] Mechanics: This is game-mechanical constructs (which may represent the genre-reality, but which are more than just a general understanding).
Note that this does *not* have to involve dice. CORPS and _Vampire_ both use some diceless, mechanical action resolution. Spending Plot Points (or Hero Points, Willpower, etc.) is also a mechanic.
[C] Description: In this case, _how_ the player describes his character's action has a big effect on the outcome. This involves the player heavily in the action -- but it also tends to emphasize player skill rather than character skill (i.e. if a given player is very good at describing combat tactics, then his character is better at combat).
[D] Plot: As _Theatrix_ describes it, "Does the plot require a given outcome?" The GM sets up a plot beforehand, and if a given result is required for the plot to work, he chooses that result. This is the factor most often associated with "railroading".
[E] Drama: This is a free-wheeling sense of drama or comedy/fun, as mediated by the GM. For example, a chandelier swing in a swashbuckling game may naturally succeed because it is dramatically appropriate. It has nothing to do with the written plot, but it fits.
[F] Meta-game: This is a catch-all category for concerns of the GM and players. A gamble may succeed because it is getting late in the evening and people want to go home. Certain issues may be avoided because some players find them offensive. A PC may disappear because the player can't show Etcetera.
[G] Group Consensus (from Sarah Kahn): This is a sort of combination of Reality and Description resolution, in which the entire group combines efforts to determine what the "expert swordsman's" best strategy really would BE when the player of the swordsman knows nothing of combat. It is often use to counteract the problems of "description" resolution. It often takes the form of "he who knows the subject best is empowered to define the reality."
[H] Dice: Technically dice will not be used in a "diceless" game, but I included them to be completist, and to show how they are just one among a large number of factors. Dice can be used as additional input into any number of resolutions. Mechanics often call for die rolls, but a mechanicless game can also use dice to represent random factors (The rule being, say, "High good, low bad").

Besides the variety of input, action resolution can be different in method or style of handling -- like how the results are presented. For example, even if two GM's use the same mechanics and die rolls: one might describe to players using only descriptive terms, and he keeps the character sheet and die rolls to himself.

4) Is this fair to the players?
Well, that depends. The advantage of diceless role-playing on this front is that it encourages greater feedback and communication with the GM. Yes, in principle, a diceless GM can shoot down whatever player plans he doesn't like by ruling that they fail. However, the idea is that it will be very clear to the players that he is doing this -- since the GM decides everything, he also takes all the blame.
Diceless play requires a large amount of trust in the GM -- but the theory is that it also makes it more clear when the GM has broken that trust.

5) Can it simulate "realistic" randomness?
Well, that depends on the GM and the situation. Theoretically, a die-roll can certainly provide a more statistically random sequence than GM whim. However, within the context of the game, there are very few runs of statistically-analyzable events.

The GM can take into account a wide variety of in-game factors for each individual decision which will differentiate them. Of course, unless he is a skilled expert in that field, common sense only carries you so far -- some of the choices will either be arbitrary, or be based on meta-game factors like Drama...
As an example: the PC's fire a volley of arrows at a distant enemy. The GM has to decide if they hit any vital spots, taking out some of the enemy. At a detail-by-detail level, the GM's choice is arbitrary -- but he can try adjust things to make sure that overall, the archers are about as effective as they should be.

Using dice is better able to simulate the randomness that often occurs in real world. However, the mechanics are only able to take into account a few of the relevant variables. In dice-using or diceless games, the GM can take into account far more of the actual (i.e. game-world) situation.

6) What difference does it make?
Well, I'll defer at this point to Alain Lapalme, who described in an article what he considered to be the diceless "paradigm shift" for him...
It is clear to me that I don't understand the dice/diceless paradigm shift (I used tothink I did, but I'm no longer so sure).
To summarize my views on the diceless shift:

1. explicit trust in the GM
2. can't hide behind bad/good rolls
3. forces players to take responsability for their actions
4. changes the player/gm communication style from mechanistic to more descriptive
5. increases subjectivity
6. changes the whole nature of combat

But of course this is different for every person..."

Gaming Style

You scored as Storyteller. You're more inclined toward the role playing side of the equation and less interested in numbers or experience points. You're quick to compromise if you can help move the story forward, and get bored when the game slows down for a long planning session. You want to play out a story that moves like it's orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film director. Storyteller 92% Method Actor 83% Butt-Kicker 67% Tactician 67% Power Gamer 50% Specialist 50% Casual Gamer 17% Law's Game Style created with QuizFarm.com

GMing Epiphany a.k.a. My Left Turn

It was during my friend Alex’s DC Heroes (now called Blood of Heroes) game that I experienced ‘my left turn’. It would change the way I conducted my RPGs. My friend’s approach was revolutionary - for me at least, that I rethought mine. I started to research stuff regarding storytelling approaches and how it could be applied to my current campaigns.

Marc introduced me to White Wolf’s Storyteller system and then later to an article about storytelling (also published by White Wolf). I was intrigued and excited about the ideas presented in those materials. A few more research into those and into diceless systems (more on them on an upcoming post) then I began implementing them into my campaigns; and I’m happy to say it was successful. My players enjoyed the new approach and so did I. It was, as they say a ‘turning point’ – a ‘left turn’.

Superhero Types

Found this item on my usual websurfing rounds. This is with regards to the kinds or classifications a hero is tacked under, usually in role-playing game conventions. I copy the relevant section taken from Wikipedia.com's entry for superhero.

In superhero role-playing games (particularly Champions), superheroes are informally organized into categories based on their skills and abilities:

• "Brick": A character with a superhuman degree of strength and endurance and usually an oversized, muscular body, e.g., The Thing, The Incredible Hulk, Colossus, Savage Dragon
  
• "Blaster": A hero whose main power is a distance attack, e.g., Cyclops, Starfire, Static
  
  
  
  • "Archer": A subvariant of this type who uses bow and arrow-like weapons that have a variety of specialized functions like explosives, glue, nets, rotary drill, etc., e.g., Green Arrow, Hawkeye
    
  • "Mage": A subvariant of this type that is trained in the use of magic, which partially or wholly involves ranged attacks., e.g., Doctor Strange, Doctor Fate
  
  
• "Martial Artist": A hero whose physical abilities are mostly human rather than superhuman but whose combat skills are phenomenal. Some of these characters are actually superhuman (Captain America, Daredevil) while others are normal human beings who are extremely skilled and athletic (Batman, Black Widow)
  
• "Gadgeteer": A hero who invents special equipment that often imitates superpowers, e.g., Forge, Nite Owl
  
  
  
  • "Armored Hero": A gadgeteer whose powers are derived from a suit of powered armor, e.g., Iron Man, Steel
    
  • "Dominus": A hero that uses a giant robot to combat villains, e.g., Big Guy, Roger Smith of Big O and members of the team Super Sentai; common in Japanese superhero series
    
  
  
• "Speedster": A hero possessing superhuman speed and reflexes, e.g., The Flash, Quicksilver.
  
• "Mentalist": A hero who possesses psionic abilities, such as telekinesis, telepathy and extra-sensory perception, e.g., Professor X and Jean Grey of the X-Men, Saturn Girl of the Legion of Super-Heroes.
  
• "Shapechanger": A hero who can manipulate his/her own body to suit his/her needs, such as stretching (Mister Fantastic, Plastic Man) or disguise (Changeling, Chameleon)
  
  
  • "Substance oriented Bodychanger - A shapechanger who can change his/her body into the equivalent of a mass of a substance that can have variable density such as sand or water. e.g., Sand, Husk.
    
  • "Sizechanger": A shapechanger who can alter his/her size, e.g., the Atom (shrinking only), Colossal Boy (growth only), Hank Pym (both).
    
  
  

These categories often overlap. For instance, Batman is a martial artist and a gadgeteer, and Superman is extremely strong and damage resistant like a brick and also has ranged attacks (heat vision, superbreath) like an energy blaster and can move quickly like a speedster.

The above mentioned item kinda pigeonhole the kind of hero one creates for an RPG or moreso for a comicbook project. Of course, it makes sense in terms of streamlining the concept of the character. It prevents or cuts down the occurences of making the idea of swiss-army knife heroes or jack-of-all-trades heroes which can put a serious crimp to whatever the GM has in mind for such a player in terms of complications, opposition and traps. Of course some heroes with slight overlaps are possible based on the earlier mentioned heroes Batman and Superman.

It is an interesting look into the conceptual outline of creating a hero in terms or abilities with or without the semblance of powers in the mix.

Merits of good and/or great gaming people

Looked around for some usseful stuff to post and reflect on in the matter of things RP related. I came across this item when reading it off from another blog. I backtracked it back to the actual forum item where it came from. Its located here.

Now, technically speaking, this is about good/great groups, not good/great players. But really, it all comes down to the players (if one counts the GM as a specialized player), so this got me thinking about the differences between good players and great players... Those bits of extra effort great players put into gaming that contribute to the overall experience.

Then I thought that listing some of the differences between the two could be a fun mental exercise. So that's what I'm doing here.

Note that this isn't about bad players; those are easy to spot, and there are all kinds of articles delineating the differences between bad and good players. Nor is this really about GMs, since there's likewise plenty of articles/threads enumerating the different species of GM that roam the world of gaming. I'm specifically looking at good vs. great players.

In addition to the above, this is what I've come up with so far, after about 30 minutes of off-and-on musing:

A good player will think about what his character would do before he acts.

A great player will think ways to make his character realistically take actions that benefit the game.

A good player will seek out opportunities to get his character involved in things.

A great player will seek out opportunities to have his character help others get involved.

A good player will avoid doing things that makes the GM's job more difficult.

A great player will look for ways to make the GM's job easier.

A good player will make an effort to learn the rules.

A great player will remember that the rules must sometimes be broken for purposes of flavour or story.

A good player will seek out ways to build his character's story.

A great player will know when to let his character’s story end.

A good player understands that winning means having fun.

A great player understands that winning doesn’t mean much unless everybody wins.

The above mentioned list pretty proves some things which players should aspire or improve as time progresses from lessons learned in the many campaigns and game systems experienced. I know that enough from experience. Feel free to ponder on these things. I'll have more stuff to put on here when I have time. Ciao.

My first left turn

I was running an post-atomic holocaust game called Gamma World (2nd Ed as of its printing and acquisition) back in high school. It was going ok for a bit while I was churning out my own creations. Though the campaign was slipping fast as a greased pig in terms of attention that I had to think of something to jump-start the floundering campaign of sorts.

This link will provide the inside track as to what revitalized the campaign though on a radical vector away from its parent setting.

That particular departure later became the Twilight Empires as my friend, former gamer and fellow creator Vincent is now developing as a publishing project. I offered the suggestion of creating a sidestory project set in that universe.

That particular left turn spawned a small number of left turns as to the GM experience is concerned during its span in high school. I'll elaborate more next time as more of those epiphanies or enlightening moment in my gaming career.

Disposable Campaign

Once upon a time, the guys and I wanted to play RPG. But I was saddled with the concern that if we get the campaign off the ground I would be left hanging again later due to poor attendances (this from the people who requested me to GM!?) I was hesitant because every time I get to GM, I usually do an extensive preparation and research before I consult the players of what characters they want; of course the type of game has already been agreed upon. My friend Marc posed the challenge to keep everything simple and be able to throw it away at a moments notice, just in case people don't attend regularly or not attend at all.

So how do you do it? The concept was simple really, get concepts or ideas that you are already very familiar with - enough for you to generate the adventure - and run from there. Prep time is shorter to almost none compared to starting one from scratch. Anyway that's it for now, I've hit empty. I hope to be able to post more after I'm done with work.

Why The Left Turn??!!!!

For those who stumbled onto this blog, let me explain the story and genesis of this blog.

It is a collaborative project borne from the piqued interest of my high school friend after I showed him a blog which happens to be like a RPG campaign developer's diary. That item was set the wheels in motion for me to create a similiar endeavor and for this one since my friend wants to take a shot at this.

As to the left turn, it was actually a reference from the metaphor discussed in a gaming article I read from rpg.net. The left turn that was discussed refers to a radical element or diversion to a pre-existing campaign structure or flow to keep the interest in the campaign going. It can either be inspired genius or just downright coincidental.

I recall a radical left turn in my campaign which was set in a post-apocalyptic radiation filled wasteland and that left turn catapulted the campaign into creative overdrive into a science fantastic space opera setting. It was one of the left turns I have looked back upon from time to time. There were other left turns I encountered as a GM and a player.

My gaming career has its share of left turns in the roles of GM and player. Some of these left turns can be so moving in terms of the result of the experience itself or the result created from it.

I intend to go through another set of left turns as I endeavor to the campaign I'm going to helm after being away from the GM and player's chair.

The status of that particular campaign would discussed in another upcoming blog, coming to a browser near you soon. ;)