Too Long for a Comment....What is a Role-Playing Game

"RPG" isn't just some ubiquitous word we throw around to mean anything we want like "free love" ("If it's fun just do it!"). It has a distinct meaning, changing that meaning to "FUN!" or something else changes the word. People sitting around eating pizza and drinking beer while improving elves doesn't mean they're playing D&D even if it's a good time.

Hrm.  A role-playing game is a game in which the (or a) primary purpose of the game is to undertake the role of one or more characters within the game milieu, and to make decisions from the perspective of the character(s) so undertaken.  Because of this (1) rules that are dissociative (and thereby force the player to make choices from outside the stance of the characters) and (2) rules or set-ups that are railroady (and thereby force players to make decisions that the characters would not make, in some cases quite literally being forced to reverse decisions made from the character's stance because the GM does not like the outcome on "his story") damage the degree to which any game is a role-playing game.

But I am not about to say that, when Gary Gygax ran Steading of the Hill Giant Chief at GenCon, that he was not running a role-playing game, or that the players were not playing D&D.

2. "NPC" is only a word just like "dungeon" or "castle" or "monster". They are just props in a world. They don't create a story or a narrative on their own. They are only there because the players are interacting with them even if the DM controls their responses.

Erm....ugh.

They are there because the dictates of the fictional milieu require them to be there.  I am not engaging in games, like some computer games, where "NPCs" only exist to interact with the PCs.  In my games, NPCs have their own plans and motives, introduce their own threads, and change the milieu thereby.

Because I am attempting to simulate a "breathing world", I don't want the PCs to be the only, or in some cases not even the primary, movers for all that happens.  The world is not a vacuum, existing merely to cater to their whims.  I would find such a set-up boring at best.

If the DM decides to write a back-story for his game and decides to tell his players about it, there is no RPG narrative happening. There is one-sided narrative, but unless the players are driving that narrative into something by their interaction, it is not an RPG.

So, if the PCs decide to seek rumours, while the GM is telling them what they learn, it is not an RPG?  Sorry, but no.

Narrative driven by anything but the players is not an RPG. If they're not driving it, who is? The DM or a rule-book. Neither of which constitute the requirements for an RPG.

I call bullshit.  Sorry, but no.

OC:  "Sure!" says the player of the cleric character, "I'm moving over to the sacks now, sticking close to the lefthand wall."

DM:  "Just as the three are about in position to look down the passages, and while the cleric is heading for the rotting bags, the magic-user cries out, and you see something black and nasty looking upon her shoulder!"

LC:  "Hold on, Gary.  Are you trying to drive the narrative here, by introducing some kind of monster!?!  If you do that, this isn't a role-playing game!"

Absolutely not.  And this is more than "given them (the players) some props" - it is setting the context and consequences of choices.  And both context and perceived consequence drive the narrative as much as choices.  They are only "some props" if the players get told "There is a spider here" and then get to decide what it does (setting the context) and what happens as a result (determining the consequence).

Role-playing game narrative is driven by the mutual interaction of the players and the game milieu as devised by the GM.

And, yes, an RPG run without NPCs and without a DM is absolutely possible. It may not be a table-top RPG like D&D that requires a DM. But it qualifies as an RPG nonetheless.

A "storytelling" game maybe, but not a role-playing game.  You say,

The key is who is "driving" narrative? The players must do this and this alone for it to be an RPG.

I say, bullshit.  The qualifying element for a role-playing game is a primary purpose of the players to undertake roles, and to make decisions within the framework of the game from the stance of those roles.  Doing so requires context, and it requires consequence.  It requires, in fact, a volleying of narrative control from player (narrative control over character's choices) to GM (narrative control over the context in which those choices occur, and the outcome/consequences thereof).

Without those elements of GM narrative control, there is no PC "stance" that has any meaning - the players are simply writing a collaborative story.

There are storytelling games.  There are linear games.  There are role-playing games.  Too much loss of player agency creates a linear game.  Too much loss of GM agency creates a storytelling game.  The golden region between - where Player and GM agency volley and build off of each other - is where the role-playing game can be found.

And, certainly, that means that there is a border area where a game can be both a storytelling game and a role-playing game, or a linear game and a role-playing game.  But, in neither case would I make the claim that the game was a good role-playing game.

In conclusion, I agree with GaelicVigil that "RPG" isn't just some ubiquitous word we throw around to mean anything we want" but I disagree entirely that it means what GaelicVigil seems to think it means.  If it did, sitting around making up a story would be a "role-playing game", but playing D&D as described or played by Gary Gygax would not be.

Teletubby Space Rangers…...Or, All Players Are Not Created Equal........Or, Don't Be A Weed

Want to buy this costume for yourself?
www.buycostumes.com
Used without permission. 

One of the most poisonous memes to raise its pestilent head in recent years is the idea that all players, or for that matter, all GMs, are equal.  It’s cool, and it’s inclusive, to note that there is not One True Way, but this doesn’t mean that All Ways Are Equal.

I know – and if you’ve been doing this for any length of time, I would hazard that you know – that there are some players who make the game a joy to run.  There are some players who make the game better for everyone else at the table.  There are some really excellent players out there.

And there are players who peek behind your screen when you go to the bathroom, buy and read the module you are running, question every decision you make, and complain if anything doesn’t go their way.  There are players who want to be in the spotlight every moment of the game session, there are players who want to “get” the other players (not just their characters), and there are players who want to bring a Teletubby Space Ranger into a carefully crafted 17^th Century game setting and seem unable to understand why you are saying no.

Most players fall between those extremes, of course.  As do most GMs.  That’s cool.  But, just as the GM should try to improve herself – to be more than “just good enough”, so should each player.  When you sit down at the table, no matter what you sit as, player or GM, you need to ask yourself, “Am I making the game better for everyone?” 

If the answer is “No”, then you had better ask yourself “Why not?”

If you’re running the game, the odds are good that you are making the game better just by running it.  If you are not making the game better for everyone at the table, the odds are good that it is because one or more players at your table don’t belong there.  If you want a nice garden, sometimes you have to get down on your hands and knees and pull out the weeds.

If you are a player, not only should you strive to make the game a better experience for everyone, but you should also strive to make it more fun to run.  Why?  Because if it is more fun to run, your GM will keep coming back.  Or keep inviting you back.

Don’t be a weed.

You will hear a certain segment of the player population claim that their fun is more important than the GM’s, or the other players’.  You will hear a certain segment of the player population claim that the game should revolve around them, or that the GM is simply not being “creative enough” if he says No to a Teletubby Space Ranger in a 17^th Century European game.  There is, in fact, a certain segment of the player population that will claim that the GM should always say Yes to player propositions.

Pay attention to who says that.  They are letting you know that they are weeds.  And, yes, a weed might be cultivated into a worthwhile addition to your garden.  And some weeds have other good qualities that make them more like wildflowers.

But at least you’ll know what you’re letting yourself in for when you invite them to the table.

And if, as a player, you discover that your GM is a weed?  Quietly and calmly excuse yourself from the table and find a new GM - or better yet, run your own game.  The world can always use new GMs.

Further Thoughts

I was thinking about the Angry DM's open letter, and especially about the comments he left to my response on this blog.  For some, good-enough is enough.  So be it.  But, I'd like to point out a few things that have, the more I have considered them, tasted more sour in my mouth:

(1) You are Special:  You know what?  Scott is right.  You are special simply because you take on the GM's roll.  But.......Do you remember how we decided it was a good idea to tell every kid that they were special, not because of their achievements, but because we wanted them to feel good?  How did that work out for society?  Yes, you are special.....but you are special because of what you do, not because of where you sit at the table.  The less you do, the less special you are.  So, do something good.

(2) There is No One True Way:  You know what?  There is no One True Way.  But......."Some folks just want to sit and laugh and have a good enough, fun enough game" implies that there is a scale.  The use of the word "just" and the phrase "good enough, fun enough game" implies that there is something that is not "just" good enough, not "just" fun enough.  Which leads me to

(3) The Value of Striving:  Let us suppose that you "just" want to have a "good enough, fun enough" game.  Cool.  My rule of thumb is, if you can get a single player to play, you should always play the game you want the way you want.

As I said in the comments to the previous blog post, obviously, if good enough is good enough, you can be a lazy GM. You can half-ass it. I was in grade school when I was first running games. I could be a lazy student. I could half-ass it. I could be a lazy student, and even get halfway decent marks.  At the same time, though, I wouldn't claim that doing "good enough" was getting full value from the educational opportunities afforded to me.  Maybe I might have then, but I have grown in the intervening decades.

Play the game you want the way you want. But.......if you don't push yourself, you will never get full value from the opportunities afforded to you. If you don't want those opportunities, that's your call. But there is a difference between striving and not striving.  There is a difference between a game that is just good enough, and a game that soars.

You are more likely to reach good enough while striving for greatness, than you are to reach greatness while striving for good enough.

Running the game makes you special.  Running the game well makes you more so.  Pushing yourself, and striving for greatness, makes you as special as you can be.  Don't just pat yourself on the back.  Be special.  Be that GM that players go out of their way to play with.  You can do it.  All you have to do is pull up your metaphorical pants and give it your best shot.

But, Scott is dead right about this too - the best game you can run is the game you want to run.  What you run and how you run it?  That's up to you.  Bring your best game to the table, and the players will appear.  It might not be today, it might not be tomorrow.  You might have to post a message on a few walls (including real walls) so that the potential players know about it.  But they will appear.

And if someone else would rather play a game about Teletubby Space Marines fighting dinosaurs around Uranus?  Well, they can run that game.  That's the beauty of the whole thing....if they love it, and they strive to run it well, the players will appear.

Worth Reading, With Caveats

Scott Rehm posted an interesting open letter to Dungeon Masters here:  https://plus.google.com/113196639040063517758/posts/SX8LCNzKUFU

It is worth reading, and there is much of it that I can agree with.  The overall sentiment is, in fact, one with which I wholeheartedly concur.  There were, of course, a few points at which I was forced to twitch an eyebrow.

First off is this:

GMs will argue endlessly about the best way to do this and that. They will argue about "yes, and..." and failing forward and binary rules and simulationism and player agency and binary outcomes and this will be good and that will be bad and the other is the only way to get players invested. And those arguments are so much noise and fury that signify nothing. They don't matter. They are window dressing. They are bullshit. And the more passionately you argue for one over the other, the more full of bullshit you are.

Obviously, I disagree with this.  A lot of arguments about the best way to GM are, obviously, only so much bullshit.  But experience has taught me that the way in which I run a game matters.  It has also taught me that running a game well is a transferable skill.

What I mean by that is simple:  My own GMing has changed over the years, mostly for the better, although at times for the worse as I attempted to put certain advice to the test.  I ran a game in 1980 well enough to keep a great many players at my table; it does not therefore follow that my game was the best it could be.  GMs, like anyone with a skill set, improve by practice, by experiment, and by discussing their trade with others.

We all have our own strengths and weaknesses.  Doing our best job means that we will exploit those strengths while shoring up our weaknesses.  What works for me might not work for you, and vice versa.  My particular weaknesses, for instance, might prevent me from feeling easy about using a better method for some GMing task I set out to accomplish.  It doesn’t follow that my doing it my way is better than if I set out to overcome my weaknesses and master a new task.

I would not be half the GM I am today if I were not exposed to the “bullshit” of GMs arguing endlessly about the best way to do this and that.  Yes, you are special for GMing.  Yes, you should feel proud of what you are doing.  Also, Yes, there is room in your GMing for improvement, and Yes, paying attention to some of that endless arguing may be of assistance in so improving.

In fact, the whole letter may seem to be both encouragement, and advice of the type Scott calls “full of bullshit”. 

That's the thing. You can't be a lazy GM. You can't half-ass it. The longer you are at it, the more likely you are going to face one of those choices. Even if you manage the workload, even if you find all the tricks to focus only on the parts of the game you love, eventually, there is going to be a human conflict at the table and you will have to be the one to resolve it.

I would prefer to read this section as “Yes, other GMs will have ideas – some of them good ideas, and some of them terrible ideas.  It might be a good idea to pay attention to them, but if any one of these ideas damages your love of GMing, whatever benefit you might gain isn’t worth it in the long run.  Always take the advice of another GM with a huge grain of salt.  A grain of salt too heavy for you to lift is not too large.”

And then I would agree.

But I would also argue that, to GM well, you must also always strive to improve.  You can’t be a lazy GM and expect to also be the best you can be.  Your love for the game will atrophy.  The bullshit matters.

I have been called a terrible, awful DM. I have been called that by other DMs. Because I am railroady. Because I keep a tight leash on world building. Because I am old fashioned and old school and don't believe in player agency over the narrative.

When I think of the word “narrative”, I think of the actions that occur in the game.  When I think of the word “railroad”, I think of the GM usurping the ability of players to make choices within the context of the game.  Scott clarifies this in the comments section,

With regard to "player agency over the narrative," this refers to games in which the players decide things about the game world outside of the decisions their characters make. In a traditional game, a player exercises their free will by deciding what their characters do in response to a given situation. They declare the action their character takes - no more, no less - and the DM responds to that. Player agency refers to the practice to allowing the player control over things other than their own characters.

Please note that this is not what I mean, nor have ever meant, by “player agency”.  Nor, if the GM allows the players to make whatever choices their characters should rightfully be able to make, does this meet any reasonable definition of “railroady” in my book.

Everything else?  It’s a good post, and one well worth reading.

Just don't get so carried away slapping your own back that you forget to improve yourself a little, every chance you get.

The Squid is on the pfsrd..

http://shop.d20pfsrd.com/collections/mystic-bull-games/products/in-the-prison-of-the-squid-sorcerer


Your players have ransacked dungeons and slain mighty beasts, rescued the helpless and thwarted the sinister plans of demons. But they have never seen anything like the strange items, blasphemous rituals, or horrors that await within these pages.

Lurking herein are twelve short encounters for the Dungeon Crawl Classics roleplaying game.

Judges can use these scenarios as one-off’s or as jumping-off points to further wierd pulp adventures. Each encounter includes a unique monster, and the book is packed with treachery, novel twists, and horrible predicaments.

Whether it’s the Squid Sorcerer, Umbo the ape witch, or Malagok the Creator Beast, these encounters recall a tradition pre-dating orcs and elves when the pulp fantasy realms were just weird..

Getting Lucky in DCC

Some House Rules about Luck

In the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG, character Luck is intended to go up and down based upon the circumstances of play.  In general, Luck goes up due to rewards given by the judge, and goes down as it is used up by the players to modify rolls.  The judge can also penalize Luck, but, because players rely on it, and it is generally lost forever when spent, bonuses tend to outweigh penalties.  This is true even in the official published adventures, where Luck penalties tend to be temporary where they exist at all.

The thief and halfling classes, however, regain spent Luck, which means that, if they gain bonuses as do the rest of the PCs, pretty soon their Luck will be absolutely phenomenal.  Unless the judge sets a cap, the player can have Luck that reaches well beyond the 18-20 range.

What to do?

Permanently Burning Luck – The Carrot

In my game, it is now a house rule that a thief who permanently burns a point of Luck automatically gains the maximum roll on his Luck Die. 

A halfling who permanently burns a point of Luck gains a +3, rather than a +2, bonus to the roll.

Luck is Fickle – The Cattle Prod

In my game, it is now a house rule that any character whose permanent Luck is 16+ or 5- at the end of a game session must roll 1d20 and compare the result against his permanent Luck.  Permanent Luck is the Luck score that most characters have, and that a thief or halfling can recover Luck to reach.

If the result of the d20 roll is greater than the character’s Luck, supernatural forces help the character, granting a point of Luck in game terms.  The character gains a point of Luck.

But, if the d20 roll is under the character’s Luck, the character loses a point of Luck.  Supernatural forces, Karma, or the perversity of the cosmos simply work against him.

If the character rolls exactly his Luck score, there is no change if his Luck is between 8 and 19, but if his Luck is 7 or less, he gains 2 points of Luck.  If he Luck is 20, he loses 2 points of Luck.

A character whose Luck is between 6 and 15 at the end of a game session need not roll, but can choose to do so if the player wishes.  In any event, only the raw, unmodified die roll is considered.

It pleases me to announce that In the Prison of the Squid Sorcerer: Twelve Pulp Weird Encounters for the Dungeon Crawl Classics Roleplaying Game is now available for purchase.  You can find it here.  

This product includes two scenarios of my own design (Mermaids From Yuggoth and Icon of the Blood Goddess) as well as ten kick-ass scenarios that I did not write.....but several of which I wish I did!

Herein, you will find a ton of pulp adventure goodness, both to use as-is and to expand upon in your own adventures.  Because more than one of these short scenarios suggests, to my mind at least, ways to expand into further scenarios.

Did I mention that the intros are written by Harley Stroh and Michael Curtis?

I am very happy with the way this product turned out, and I hope you will be, too!

Reviews:  http://www.rpgnow.com/product_reviews_info.php?&reviews_id=88482&products_id=111964
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=26023
http://www.tenkarstavern.com/2013/03/mini-review-in-prison-of-squid-sorcerer.html
http://irontavern.com/2013/03/12/review-in-the-prison-of-the-squid-sorcerer/

Are You A Writer?

Are you a writer?  Know a writer?

Anyone considering sending work to Random House should read this.

Another post worth reading

Another post worth reading:

http://frothingmug.blogspot.ca/2013/03/time-time-time-see-whats-become-of-me.html