A GM PLANNING BOARD

[Review] Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies

2009-09-15T02:48:01Z

It's actually hard to do a fulll length review of any game chadu has written, because once you get the basic PDQ system, the rest is just setting material.

(Not that there is anything that is "just" setting material. But discussions on that are mostly opinion - one man's "Star Wars" is another man's "Manos: The Hands of Fate.")

BUT . . .

This game uses the PDQ# system, designed for more involved combat, more storytelling, and more focus on specialized traits ("Techniques") to help further individualize the characters. And it's all stuff I like.

So I purchased this game at the end of May, and its been a few months. That's because I've had the opportunity, since mid-June, to run a campaign of S7S every other week. Rather than talking about how I THINK the game will work, I can talk on how the game DOES work. Or at least how my application of it is working.

First disclosure - I'm not using the S7S setting. I read it, and it was interesting, but it didn't inspire me for anything. I'm not sure why. So instead I use the 7th Sea setting - which I can now expand by using a different rules set. I can't even go into detail about what didn't inspire me, because it's not that I hated the setting, or that any one thing turned me off. I was just . . . overwhelmed? Maybe? It's a good setting, and one day I'll probably use it.

The basic mechanics are much the same - you have Fortes (your traits), and to do most basic actions, you roll 2d6 and add the rating of your Forte. The core rules only allow one Forte at a time (though there are options for using more), but now characters have techniques. These let you modify the dice rolls in different ways - adding +1 to your total, for example, or rolling an additional die and taking the higher numbers. (You can only ever have two dice total at the end of a die roll, but you might have rolled 5 dice to get the highest two.)

The thing is - the players are encouraged to narrate their successes and failures, and doing so can earn them Style Points if they do it in an entertaining fashion. (I need to remember to do this more in my game.)

Style Points act like techniques, but once you use them, they are gone. They have some other effects - world definition, for example - but at the end of the session, they go away. There's no benefit to keeping them - I happen to like any game that encourages you to use your points, rather than hoard them.

Fortes are encouraged to be broad, and if you want to focus more, take a technique for it.

Unlike most PDQ traits, Techniques can't be injured or failed - they are either "yes" / "no" kinds of things. Most of them have to be tied to a Forte, but the end result is that a lot of techniques don't make you tougher - they can't take damage. (In standard PDQ, your injuries apply directly to your traits. Take three points of damage, and you have to lower three points of Fortes. It still works that way.)

So, overall, I like it. I've made some house rules (I give everyone one Training Point per session, with additional ones coming from failures of important dice rolls in the game.)

The dueling system is a bit hazy - I'm still trying to figure out how to explain it to my players, and I'm still working on a bit about minions. (And my game is soon going to have ship to ship combat, which I'm also unprepared for.)

But this is another good investment. The group I'm running for seems to enjoy the game immensely, and it other than getting them into a new mindset, it's been easy enough for most of them to learn.

Go get this.

Rich

[Actual Play] Houses of the Blooded

2009-06-08T18:20:52Z

Please bear with me, as I don't write these often, and because I'm running this game at GOCon, I'm not going to go into too much detail in regards to what happened plotwise. I'm probably going to use the same set-uo, but I don't want to influence potential players.

Houses of the Blooded is a narrative control type of game - you don't roll to see if you succeed in an action, you roll to see if you get to narrate the outcome of your action. I reviewed it in October. Since I have a lot of problems with this approach, I was pleasantly surprised by reading through the book back then. Now, having run it once, I feel justified in my original opinions. The game resolves a lot of my issues with narrative control.

I ran this because I've never run a game of this type, ever before. I've used some tricks from it, in other games, because I like the effect you can get with them. But running a full game like that was something I had never done.

So I sat down with myself, and four experienced players (none of whom have an actual LJ . . .), and decided to see what happened.

Borrowing the format from seannittner, I'll just go over what I felt rocked, and what could have gone better. I'm just adding "proposed changes" after that.

What Rocked
1. Everyone liked the aspects system, and we got some interesting results. One player had a "Duellist" Aspect with the Tag "Doesn't look for flanking attacks." I really liked that one.

2. I was kind of worried about whether or not we could reach some kind of operatic tragedy - which is, to some degree, the goal of the game. It didn't have to just be tragic, it had to be tragic at an EPIC level. I shouldn't have worried. The group not only didn't save their host from a slow (and most likely painful but quiet) death, but one of them had to kill his own brother in their attempt to get some kind of victory in regards to what they faced.

3. As an addendum to #2, the player who had to kill his own brother apparently liked how that turned out. Granted, they added a lot of the facts that brought them to this point (they as in the group, not just this one person), so I shouldn't have worried too much.

4. I probably interjected a bit more than I should have as the narrator/GM, but I took the role to help them get a good story, rather than to dictate it to them. I built on the ideas they put forth, and tried to make help them make various clues and leads into something more coherent. (Not that they weren't coherent, but better clarity made reaching the end point easier.)

5. Players picked up the Wagers aspect easily, both in adding detail to the game and as a way to gain more Style Points.

6. Everyone agreed that we might want to play another game with these same characters. Which was awesome.

7. They came up with an interesting premise for a poison ("the horn of this animal is an aphrodisiac" that I helped expand to ". . . if prepared properly. Otherwise, it's a poison.") They build more upon that ("The outside layer - after the enamel - is the aphrodisiac. The inner part of the horn is the poison. You need to know what you are doing to harvest the aphrodisiac properly.")

8. The players kept having good ideas, which is part of why I interjected as often as I did - I liked everything they had, and trying to help them tie it all together was just too cool of an idea.

What Could Have Gone Better
1. I need to re-read the initiative system / duel system. Right now, looking at the Strike Bid, we can't figure out why ANYONE would actually want to win that. (It's not that it's bad, its that it doesn't seem to have any big effect on the game.) I could be wrong - as I said, I need to re-read it.

2. Character creation took 2 1/2 hours. Not necessarily bad, but it's an hour longer than I want to have during my convention game. (See below, though.)

3. A "Mass Murder" moment (mass combat) messed up the two premiere fighter types that were designed, though it ended the way it should have. (A group of peasant/hunters jumped the PCs for . . . well, they had a reason . . . and it was a 10 peasants vs. 3 Ven battle. The Ven were victorious, as it should be, but the peasants hurt them pretty bad.) I should try to make sure to avoid that in the future.

4. We (and by "we," I mostly mean me) kept forgetting to establish intent before the dice rolls, and I think in some cases we were all still trying to use old style dice roll conventions. Hey, most of us were old school gamers, even though most of us there are proponents of attempting this new style of game. Also, in a few cases, I think established facts/results were outside the intent of the dice roll, but it didn't ruin the game.

5. I got too enamored with the "Scar" system - leading to seriously messed up PCs.

6. Some of the cooler aspects players had didn't seem to come up. Because I couldn't force them in any direction, things like "Ork Hunter" weren't as featured as I would have liked. (Once they grabbed the murder mystery to solve - the basic plot set up - they were off.)

Proposed Changes
1. For the Convention game, I'm going to pre-prepare certain things, like Holdings, Devotions, and the like. Have them set up on notecards or something.

2. Stealing from Mortal Coil, I might put a bunch of Style Points in the center of the table (in a box or something) and tell the players "You can reward other players with one of these if you tihnk they did something cool." This is more because I like to involve players in the reward scheme as much as possible, and take some of the burden off myself. (Not that it's a terrible burden, I just get distracted easily.)

3. When I ran, I forgot how lethal the Mass Murder system was, and so I let the players spend Style Points to buy down injuries from that. I might keep that for the "Ven vs. Peasants" fight. "You can't hurt us because you just aren't cool enough."

That was it.

So now I feel ready for GOCon. For this game, at least.

Rich

GOCon

2009-05-30T00:10:55Z

GOCon 3 is on July 18th.

That is all.

Rich

KublaCon 2009 - Part the Second

2009-05-27T01:04:47Z

When I had last left you, dear readers, it was Saturday night. I had run a game that went fairly well, and spent the rest of the day relaxing and kicking back with the wife unit, and chatting with a friend I hadn't seen in about a year. (He went off to New Zealand for a while. He's headed back there in the next 6 or so weeks.)

Sunday AM started off bad for me - I had no trouble getting to sleep Saturday night, but staying asleep was a problem. Until, it seems, around 8 AM, where upon I could not seem to wake up. I almost missed out on Kevan's "Mutant City Blues" game.

This would have been a serious problem for me.

Still, I made it (only a few minutes late, IIRC), and got to play Abbie Sciuto from NCIS (albeit with super-powers - in this case, empathy and dream exploration powers. Pretty cool.) (Abbie is my favorite TV character above any other. For example, I really like Hodges from Bones, Mack from CSI: NY, and Captain Jack from Torchwood, but Abbie still trumps them all.) The plot was interesting, the characters were cool, and I had a lot of fun.

After that, I "made" it into a Spirit of the Century game. A game that I believe is forever cursed for me.

In the 1980s, when I was Mr. Rock & Roll Party Guy, there were certain bands that were cursed. Any attempt on my part to actually see these acts live were interrupted by things like dying cars, suicide attempts by ex-girlfriends, not getting tickets in time (very rare, since most of the acts I wanted to see you could buy tickets at the concert itself), mystery illnesses that would knock me on my ass for exactly 8 hours, or the like. By the end of the 1990s, I had finally seen all but one of these bands, and the one I hadn't I really have no interest in seeing live anymore, so it's all good.

My experience with Spirit of the Century goes like this:
1. Read the book. Really liked it.
2. Went to a Convention to play it last year, but the GM really didn't run SotC. He ran some variant of FATE, that I was less than thriled with.
3. Friend puts together a SotC campaign, and with the exception of the first session (which I forgot about but he reminded me in time to show up and make a character) I've never been able to make a session due to conflicts.
4. This time.

This time, the GM said she had forgotten all of her materials, and while she would take us through character creation, that would be it. :-(

Then, another Good Omens GM said he'd run a pick up game of SotC, which was cool of him. But, just as people finished their characters, Cil had to go eat, so I had to go with her - which ended that.

(I really wanted to play in either game, but esp. the other GO GM game because I've never had the opportunity to play in any of his games, ever, so this would have killed two birds with one stone.)

Anyway, after dinner, we went up to our room which we had let Kevan use so he could run his MCB game again. I wound up falling asleep (and apparently snoring loudly) - which I felt bad about, because I didn't mind people in my room. I had agreed to him using the room, so it wasn't like I was subtly hinting for people to leave. (I'm not that subtle anyway. If I wanted people out, it would have been "Okay, everyone leave." I like for there to be NO question.)

Kevan hung out for a couple of hours after his game. We talked about a variety of topics, while I waited for another GO GM to show up so that we could print out her material for the following morning. Kevan left around 1 AM, GM showed up around 2:30 AM or so (which was okay - I was up), and then I went to sleep.

That was my Con.

Ran once, played once, so all is balanced.

Now I'm working on GOCON. I might wind up running two games there - though one will be "Houses of the Blooded," so that work will be minimized.

Bookwise, the only new game purchase was "S7S" from ASMP/Evil Hat Productions. I got a World of Darkness supplement (Immortals), another copy of the Wild Talents Essential Edition (since mine has gone on walkabout, and it's only $10), and a D&D4 book. I also was given some ideas for some problems I've been having with one of my games. That all worked out.

I had fun. Which is how I hope to spend the rest of the year, as far as gaming is concerned.

Rich

[Convention] KublaCon 2009, mid-Con report

2009-05-24T06:49:05Z

So it's Saturday night. My official event (a Trail of Cthluhu game based on "O Brother Where Art Thou"[1]) ended . . . 9 hours ago? Something like that.

It went well. I always begin each game I run worried that I'm going to suck - and in fact, I can think of a few games I've run where I did, indeed, suck, so having that thought just forces me to be better. Or at least to try harder.

I think I've now run the most humorous Cthluhu based RPG in history - the idea wasn't to be funny, and in fact, the plot was quite serious. (An insane sorcerer named Vernon Waldrip contacting ghouls to take over the politics of Mississippi, and then using them and his magic to get his hands on the seven virgin daughters of one Ulysses McGill so that he can sacrifice them in a ritual to summon Yog-Sothoth to the world. The PCs have to deal with this while being chased by one of the Masks of Nyarlothotep.) Still, with good players, and almost every NPC talking in a lazy southern accent, and the laughs just began.

I realized afterwards that I accidentally lied to the players twice at the beginning of the game. I promised them they wouldn't encounter any of the Elder Gods (not true - Narly was after them the entire time), and then I promised they probably wouldn't lose any Sanity (in ToC, Sanity isn't lost too often - it's stability that goes away.) And by the end of the game, about half the group lost at least one point of Sanity (and some lost two.) Whoopsie. Honestly, not my intention.

Of course, Elder Gods iz serius bizness.

(On the other hand, they didn't have to fight any Elder Gods. Narly took off when things got boring, and the goal of the game was to STOP the bad guys from summoning Yog-Sothoth, not to fight it off once it arrived.)

I used Ghouls in mist and Byakhee alwyas just out of sight. And ghouls in flesh suits that let them resemble normal people. (I love horror. What can I say?)

I also picked up the Hardcover for "Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies" (there's some money for you there, chadu.) ;-) We'll see if it's what I'm looking for. I do promise that a review will follow soon.

Funny anecdote:

Once again, Good Omens haters abound. Or at least they are here.

I never hear them directly. I always hear OF them. I dunno - maybe I'm scary? I'm hoping tomorrow to run into some of them incognito to see if I can get the story out of why we are so bad. (Yeah, it's manipulative. I'm a bastard. It helps the world work.)

What I always hear at Cons, though, is something akin to the following:

"I just tried my first Good Omens game this Con. Holy crap, it was awesome. I'm gonna go look for more." (Or some variation on a theme.)

I never claimed we're good or better or 'quality.' I've just claimed that we work together in a loose enough way that we're all comfortable. I'd rather let our brainwashed minions do the praise part for me. ;-)

But - here's what gets me the most:

On July 18th of this year, we're having our third annual "Good Omens Convention." (aka GoCon.) A local gaming store in Oakland lets us use their space, we have a dozen games split up between two sessions, and the charge to get in is (fanfare) canned food. We donate the food to the Oakland food bank. There is no money involved.

Since this is the last major local convention before then, we have fliers to announce the event. And some schmucks apparently took umbrage at that. Here's the best part -

They were so offended, they threw out a bunch of the fliers we had.

For a charity event.

CLASSY!!

Is it wrong to kind of hope that one day, these guys need food from the food bank, and it winds up being food that we gathered?

To me, that would be pure, juicy, ironic justice.

Yeah, I'm a dick.

Anyway, more on the Con later.

Rich

[1] I still base games off of movies, more as tributes than actual events. Sometimes, it just seems obvious.

Villain Game

2009-05-18T10:22:51Z

We made my mom watch "Dr. Horrible" this evening. She likes Nathan Fillon, and likes Joss Whedon stuff more than she'd admit. (Well, she admits to loving Firefly and Serentiy, and she sure likes a lot of the Whedon crew in other things.)

It made me think about a villain game I've wanted to run - a long term villain game. Not quite as humorous as the inspiration.

Its a world where the heroes fight to maintain the status quo. Keep the rich wealthy, the poor confused, and corporations in power.

The characters - the villains - are more rebels against an actual conspiracy. They are painted as villains because they have to oppose the heroes in order to accomplish their goals of making a better world.

If the world sucks, and the so-called heroes are working to help keep it suck, then the villains are the protagonists.

Anyone think this game would work? Would it be fun? Or would people take the villain side too seriously?

(I mean, if you have to rob a bank to get money to fund your plan to bulid a better world, is it really immoral?)

I dunno. I get weird ideas.

And rarely are they good one-shots.

Rich

Gamer Tantrums - my turn

2009-03-17T10:47:39Z

Caveat: This is going to seem like whining and complaining. I offer apologies, and that I didn't intend for it to sound this way.

My introspection always sounds this way.

I've talked in the past on what I've dubbed "Gamer Tantrums," though I hate that word because it sounds like I'm dismissing what, in some cases, are valid concerns or complaints. (Not all cases, mind you, but there were some.)

In the past . . . three years? . . . maybe a little less than that, I've seen four or five cases of what I've dubbed gamer tantrums. They include three different outbursts that moved games to a halt, one iffy situation where I think a player intentionally sabotaged himself in game and then used that to further sabotage the game (even if not consciously, this was the result), and a GM who has quit running all of their games over a two year period of time (with no word to the players involved of what they could have done to help save the games they had enjoyed playing.)

So, yeah, that's five.

And it appears it's my turn. But true to style, mine is more . . . subtle.

And it bothers me.

I can't be bothered to go to most of the games I'm in. I actively don't want to go. (There is one exception, and this one baffles me. I'll get into that later.)

It's been growing worse and worse. (Some) People lay the blame at the feet of World of Warcraft, but all that's really given me is a thing to do when I don't go to a game or if one is cancelled. (Plus, I'm moving my main character, Yaaka, up to 70th level soon so I can go into the brand new stuff that I haven't seen yet. Yaaka is . . . well, he's several shades of awesome. Just ask him.)

Anyway, this habit of mine pisses me off because it's rude. It's disrespectful to the GMs, the other players, and I'm pointlessly wasting everyone else's time.

Even when I do go, 90% of the time I'm late. Really, really late. I just can't get myself to go.

And I figured out what the problem for me is - I'm not excited about the games anymore.

In the past, I've had characters who I believed in, cared about, and damn it in some cases I fell in love with them. They were (for me) works of art. Works of art that needed to grow and develop because they werent' complete. The last two I put this much care into were in games that ended abruptly, their stories unfinished, and never to be finished. And I don't want to go through that anymore. (In all honesty, it feels to me like they were friends of mine who were murdered. Overly dramatic? Perhaps. But they were fairly real to me, and then they were taken away without warning.)

So I don't try.

There's no point.

But now I miss the immersion that I almost needed to get the high that made the game fun for me. Everyone else says they are happier- I'm the odd man out. I'm not happier. Being a player has become (mostly) a chore I want to avoid rather than something I can look forward to. And that sucks.

I've been gaming for almost 30 years. The only interests I've had that long or longer have been listening to rock & roll of all kinds, and reading. I don't want to see it end.

And I do still enjoy running games. At least two of the ones I run are enjoyable. (Though I am still shaky on things.)

I know what I want, but the group that would allow me to do that doesn't do it anymore. (They've gotten onto the indie-game "Let's abstract everything, yeah!" bandwagon that has its purpose, but also separates me farther from my character than I enjoy.) Or they've jumped to the new D&D (which I do like, but I don't want to play what is now pretty much an overgrown wargame. I'm sure you can role-play in it, but no one I've spoken to does, actually.)

So I'm not sure what to do or where I'm going. I'm just sick and tired (again) of not getting what I want, and it's my subconscious that is telling me so.

I mentioned an exception.

I'm still not as into my character as I like to get, and in fact there are quite a number of things that happen in the game that piss me off (players speaking over each other and not letting people do what they are best at, for example. I'm not going to fight for the GMs attention, and if its that important to you to do everything, I'll let you fail. And then rub it in later that you fucked up because you didn't let the rest of your team do anything.) The thing is, I still fight to get past these things, and fight to be in the game, and I try my best to be there on time, and to not miss a session ever. (Though it has happened.)

But I do like my character. I figured her out, I know what she wants, what side she's on, and what her role is - she's the cunning noe, and the "outside the box" thinker. She's also fairly deadly when pushed, though she tries not to let herself get pushed. The game rewards being over the top, and the GM allows me to be underhanded when such is called for. Myself (and all the players) have had the opportunity to develop our characters in the ways we have wished, and the GM has molded the game around that, rather than in the other game I'm in, where I intentionally left myself open for GM guidance on how to build the character, and even after that it seems I can't do what needs to be done.

My only regret is fearing that the game will end soon. I'm having too much fun in it.

Conversely, I do know that when it does end, the GM will give it an actual ending and will make sure the characters stories play out.

So now that I've figured out why my bad habits have developed, I need to figure out what to do about them.

Before I alienate all my friends.

Rich

[Con Report] Dundracon 2009

2009-02-18T20:18:00Z

I don't care how they track which DDC it is, I do it by year. So nyeah.

This was an odd experience for me, for reasons I'll get into below. A lot of things coincided and this made the Con really stress-free for me.

First, we got our income tax return BEFORE the Con this year. This made figuring out how we were going to pay for the Con (and its myriad of expenses) not a stressful issue. Second, about two weeks ago, our idiot neighbors messed up my sleep/nap schedule, but as a result, I'd been going to sleep and waking up on a HUMAN schedule.

So while when I woke up on Friday AM with a lot of work yet to be done for my convention game, I just put my nose to the grindstone and had it all done by noon. Other than some details of the game, many of which I hold off on until the day of the game anyway. (I like some details to be fresh in my mind.)

Anyway, Cil and I made it to the hotel by 2 PM, registered, got lunch with otherdarkmeat and brazenleo, loaded up the room, and then Cil went off to hang out with her friend Lisa while the rest of us hung around and bs'd. Even the power outage didn't really affect us, though there was a brief moment where we all thought it was something I had done. (I had put my hand on the lamp in our room the exact second before the power outage. I honestly thought it was just our room, as did apparently everyone else. I forgot who looked out the window and saw that it was the entire area.)

I fell asleep around 10 PM, and woke up around 6 or 7 AM.

Saturday
Cil and I got up, showered, and went for breakfast. I wanted to hit the dealer's room at 9 AM, but it wouldn't open until 9:30. This made me hit my 10 AM game at . . . 10. Normally, I'm there 15 minutes early, but this one time I REALLY needed to pick up somethign for my game, so I HAD to go in there. (Because of one of the character sheets, I needed little tracking beads or crystals. It was for Werewolf, and it would make tracking the fluctuations in Health so much easier.)

To my surprise, half of the sign-ups didn't show, and I had only one drop in. This made me less than happy, but fortunately seannittner showed up to fill in a fifth spot, even though I could have run the game with just four players. It was nice having five, though.

The plot involved the Pure, a werewolf going through his first change, and a group of Hunters who go after the wrong Werewolf pack. Apparently, the players had fun, which is all I worry about. But for my money, the high point was the player reaction to hearing one of the hunters say "Scorched Earth, Go!" (This was their name for the "Controlled Immolation" tactic that Hunters learn. They set the death raging pack Alpha aflame, which led to a bunch of other fun.)

After that, though, it was Valentine's Day, so Cil and I went out for dinner. Then came back to the room and passed out.

Sunday
I only registered for one game, and got into it. It was 4 PM Sunday.

I spent time helping otherdarkmeat with his characters for his Scion game. I also checked in on Matt G's event, to make sure he had everything, and also checked in on Tony's event, but I couldn't get his attention - I don't even think he was aware that I was in the room. (This is one of the Good Omens services - the GMs look in on each other and make sure that you have enough players, and to see if you need anything, like a drink, food, or even dice or other such things.)

Spent about a half-hour writing up characters fro the event I got into. Wound up not needing them - the character I wound up playing was really close to one, and the other I had written up was even closer to one the GM had. (I was worried, at first, when I saw "Characters may be provided by GM" in the event description.)

However, I was off my game during this, and couldn't seem to get back on it. Part of that was that some players really ticked me off (I'm hard to play with, that way) by randomly picking fights and such. But we made it through. The story was interesting, though the ending didn't quite gel for me. The GM/ST is good, but he definitely runs for a different type of player than I prefer.

Somehow, I made it until midnight, and then I went back to the room and passed out.

Monday
Checked out, and then hung out with seannittner while he waited for his ride. Talked about how our Cons were going, and about gaming in general. I got some new ideas, some new insights, and in general had good talk. (I like talking things like this over with people who also like to talk it over.)

OVERALL:
Mostly picked up stuff for games I run - a World of Darkness book (Slashers), two Shadowrun books (Unwired and Feral Cities), and the updated Wild Talents mini-book. (I want to encourage companies to release more $10-$20 books like this.) I also picked up a book on game philosophy that was pretty much a waste of money for me, since very little in there was new to me, and I got my hands on a copy of "Mutant City Blues." (GUMSHOE police game, in a world with super-powered individuals.) Oh, and I picked up a bestiary for Call of Cthulhu, a book of fiction, and a CD by "The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets". (Still not sure how I feel about them, though some songs definitely clicked with me.)

So it was a good Con, and a good start for the 2009 Convention cycle in the Bay Area.

Next up: KublaCon.

GamerQuest 09

2009-02-17T20:14:50Z

Anyone reading this live in the Bay Area and available on Sunday nights? And perhaps interested in playing in a mixed New World of Darkness game?

The game runs from 6-10 PM on Sundays, and we end pretty close to the 10PM time.

There's a premise, and it allows for almost any character type except the more hardcore Hunter groups. (I'm normally not a big fan of mixed WoD games, even in the new setting, where they tend to be more balanced. As long as you don't begin to worry about splat [x] being "more powerful" than splat [y], and can fit a character into the premise, this should all go fine.)

I need 1-2 more players.

If you are interested, leave your e-mail address here and I'll give you more details.

Rich

Theory: The Death of Gaming

2008-12-30T17:00:06Z

2006 was a contentious year within the group of people I normally game with.

Yes, that year is right. I'm talking about two years ago, and what I see as th beginning of the end of what could have been something great, and wound up being something sad and petty.

In 2006:
I quit the game I had been in for the longest period of time, when I realized I no longer cared about it.

Three player tantrums (and that's not quite the right word in all cases, but lets go with that for now) ground three sessions of games to a halt, and in two cases led to the end of that game. (In the third, I was the GM and basically said "That's it. This never happens again. Fix this shit now.") (There was a fourth tantrum, in my game again, but I just ignored the person and continued running the game. I see it as an attention gathering outburst, to this day, and I will never reward emotional blackmail like that.)

Conversations began about different approaches among Indie games, and what affect they could have on the landscape.

Now, two years later:
There seems to be three distinct camps that have formed down here.

The first camp I'll call the Old Guard. They are very traditional. There is a GM (who may have one of many names for his role), and the players only get to really control their characters. Maybe.

The second camp I'll call the New Guard. The whole indie game approach - which for the purpose of this entry refers to any game that reorganizes and redistributes the duties of the aforementioned GMs. They prefer more player driven games (not a bad idea) but a lot of the literature has an anti--GM vibe that makes me uncomfortable. (And, to be fair, I'm taking into account EVERYTHING I've read by the group of developers that people tell me I should read - comments in forums, blogs, etc. all apply.)

(In truth, the only game that didn't give me the anti-GM vibe was "Houses of the Blooded." Part of that might be that John Wick writes well, so what he seems to intend comes across more clearly. The idea that my whole opinion could come from bad writing does amuse me.)

Third camp I'm going to call the Middle Guard. It's made up of me, and maybe two others. (Well, one for certain, and maybe one or two others.) Right now, I think the middle guard is the most experimental and 'cutting edge' group, because it's the attempt to merge the good parts from the New Guard with the good parts of the Old Guard, to create something everyone could enjoy, if they just listened. There's also a concern with what we see as the "Lazy GM" syndrome - some people who go to the New Guard because they want to be 'in-charge' but don't want to do any work. Which seems counter to the whole New Guard stance, but the phenomenon is cropping up out here.

And that's the problem.

No one is listening to anyone outside of their guard. So to speak.

The Old Guard and New Guard quit listening to each other earlier this year. I try to listen to both, but give up whenever the discussion seems to be more about semantics and strict interpretations, and not about how to make games more fun for everyone involved. So I know I quit listening.

I still speak to both guards, but really, it's only the middle guard where I see a free exchange of ideas. Anything is open, nothing is taboo, and rather than wondering if we should do something, we spend more time wondering HOW we could do something. It's more encouragement - bad ideas will end themselves. Or at least that's the assumption.

Now I need to figure out what I can do to save gaming. Because it's going to come from the Middle Guard.

At least locally, to save gaming, within the circle that is currently split.

We'll see what I can think of.

Rich

Clarification of an earlier post

2008-12-22T02:17:42Z

I thought I was clear, but now I can understand how people missed this. On re-reading it, I wasn't as explicit as I could have been.

The post about killing was only questioning the killing of other human beings. I know some answers still stand, but there's lots of topics I wasn't trying to cover with this:

Killing goblins, orcs, and kobolds in D&D, for example. Or killing vampires in Buffy (or Werewolf, though that can be made more questionable.)

The question also isn't really about killing in combat that you didn't instigate.

I guess it's the specific thing about people going out to kill someone, or actively refusing (or getting angry when offered) non-lethal alternatives.

I guess I can buy the escapism thing, but I dunno - I was just hoping for something bigger than "It's all for fun."

Player Characters as Psychopaths

2008-12-20T08:35:37Z

This has become an interesting topic of conversation between Matt Gaston (who is LJ-less) and myself.

I'm not casting aspersions on anyone, not criticizing anyone, and in fact this has very little (if anything) to do with anyone I run games for at the moment.

Why are players always fixated on killing things?

Recently, I've noticed that I've been making characters who have a problem with killing. They draw the line between things like killing in active combat (for the most part) and killing outside of combat. I also understand that a lot of this is my own morality - I've got a huge problem with taking human life, for any reason.

I created, in a pulp game, a "Mr. Scorpion." He's a trained thugee assassin, but he's sworn to never take another human life. He uses his skills and training to incapacitate his foes, and leaves them for the police if they are important enough.

Lizzy - my Loki-daughter Scion character - has no problem killing inhuman things. Some of her group beileves she has no problem killing humans, so she acts like they are right, but she's only ever killed 2-3 people (in the game), and that was in an attempt to ground their helicopter. (Scion is a big, over-the-top action game. So when she shot the helicopter with her dwarven-crafted BFHG [1], the copter exploded.)

Lyric, my mystic pure hero character, is really angered by cold blooded killing. She's taken one life, and she doesn't even know for certain that she killed the guy. (She did. She just didn't look into it.) In her defense, the guy was trying to kill her older brother at the time.

Brimstone, my Shadowrun Ork Black-Magic Shaman, is more than willing to kill. But at the request of one of his friends, he tries to avoid killing as often as possible. (Though he teases that he's always just a hair away from killing "a whole bunch of mu-fuckas") And he is reckless - hopping himself up on meth before combat and using explosive ammunition for cover fire - but he doesn't directly kill, unless his friends are threatened.

But this all goes back to -

Arch-Magus Belladonna.

At one point in the game, back when she was "Briony Goldmane," I was getting bored/frustrated by what I saw as several players moving in on my territory. I had set Briony up to be the healer and the "big powerful magic" person in the game - though her big magic worked because she was slow and cautious with it (ritualized). Other mages moved in who found other ways of doing the big magic, but not as safely, and then they started carrying around a magic item that healed all wounds, perfectly, and instantly. Nothing left for the character to do.

Matt, the GM, suggested I look into religion for the character, and after much thought, Briony became a priestess for the goddess of Joy and Celebration.

This religion was kind of evangelical pacifist in its approach to life. Not only was it wrong for the priests and adherents to kill, but it was also important that they stop other people from killing. (Though killing for food, for example, was perfectly acceptable.)

The philosophy started to cause some tension among the PCs, and once, in character, Briony told them how to get around it:

"If you're going to go kill someone, don't invite me along - I'm fine with that. Also, don't tell me what you are going to do, and don't tell me what you just did when you get back. If I don't know, I can't preach."

Apparently, thsi was not acceptable to some players, who began to get really nasty in and out of character. And I was baffled as to why. I thought I gave them a great way to do what they wanted, without me interfering or scolding. But this was "ruining the gamje" for at least one player.

So why?

Why is killing so important to people in RPGs?

I'm not talking about monster-slaying, or demon/vampire hunting - that I understand as part and parcel of the genre. I'm talking about taking the life of other sentient beings that are close to whatever race you are and that are not defined in the setting as monsters. (So vampire slaying in Buffy the Vampire Slayer doesn't count. Canon defines Vampires = Demons; Demons = Human Hating Monsters. There are exceptions, but this is the rule.)

I'd like to know why this is so important to people, or necessary to the genre. Or have I just played with messed up people all my life.

Epilogue:
I really pissed off a player in a game I ran a few years ago by quipping "There's a word for people who like to kill other people. It's called sociopath." I think she dropped out of the game shortly after that. I still don't feel bad that I said that, though.

Footnotes:
[1] BFG = Big Fucking Gun, normally a big, automatic rifle type thing. BFHG = Big Fucking Hand Gun, like a .50 cal.

[Review] Houses of the Blooded; D&D 4E

2008-10-02T00:35:10Z

This is going to seem like blasphemy to some, but there's a reason I wanted to review both games at the same time. The D&D review is going to be short, but keep in mind I never review something I don't like.

Also, at this point in time, I have yet to actually play either game. All my comments come from reading the rulebooks and applying my own thoughts to it.

The reason I wanted to review both at the same time is because HotB was written as a response to D&D 3/3.5. It was mentioned on wickedthought's blog, and it's mentioned in the rulebook itself. But, also, it seems that both games are very good at doing what they are supposed to do. (You have no idea how many RPGs I've seen that actually fail at this - in the long view, White Wolf's EXALTED fails, because you can't have a high action, high excitement game with that many rules or dice rolls.)

DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, 4th Edition

I was skeptical. Like most gamers who have been in the hobby as long as I have, I started with D&D. Within two years, my friends and I had moved on to Champions, Villains & Vigilantes, and Call of Cthulhu (and Rolemaster. Argh on that one.) I went back once, with 2nd Edition, and then that was it.

The 3rd edition was interesting - it did a lot right, but was way too convoluted. (More rules do not make for a better game. They don't necessarily make for a worse game.) I liked Feats, for example. I just wished there was an easier way to gain them. I had never played 3rd edition (or 3.5), but I did buy a lot of the supplements - both from WotC and from other companies.

I wasn't going to buy 4th Edition. I had had enough.

Then I paged through a friend's Player's Handbook, and realized I needed to read this.

Things have been simplified. Feats come more often. Any aggressive action is now a dice roll on the part of the aggressor.

I've said what I like about this earlier. Wizards who always have at least one spell to cast. Warriors who can only use "the Maneuver" every so often. Interestingly defined class roles. Skills being 'Yes/No' rather than a complicated rating system that seems to never let you be as good as you think you should be. No need for class charts. Standardization of basic modifiers.

Yes, D&D 4th is more like an MMO than before. It's the completion of the circle.

It's been years (like, over 15) since D&D inspired me for anything.

Now, this is mostly a game of tactical combat. Sure, you can roleplay with it (and I am positive that if I set it up for my regular gaming group, they would). But it now admits that it is primarily a combat game.

And it does that quite well.

Beyond this, it's D&D.

HOUSES OF THE BLOODED

I should start by saying that the copy I used for review is the hardcover version. I had enough faith in John Wick's game writing skills that I knew I would not regret this decision. (Regardless of whether or not you like him, he writes well. And he designs games well.)

I was intrigued by this project back in 2006(?) when it was first announced in his blog. I tried to follow the design notes and the like, but since I couldn't cobble together a play test group fast enough (as in "let's test this game I'm reading about," rather than "let's be an official play test group"), at best I could read them.

Enough background.

One of my litmus tests for any RPG is "Do I think about making a character while reading the rules?" The answer was yes. So thats a good thing.

HotB (and yes, I'm going to use the abbreviation, because typing the full name repeatedly would aggravate my carpal tunnel) is a game based on the idea of narrative control - a successful dice roll doesn't mean you succeed, necessarily, just that you get to narrate the results. Including your own failure. If you fail, the Narrator gets to narrae instead - including possibly your success.

Why would you do that?

Because this is a story-telling game, and always succeeding is boring.

Not good enough?

Well, if you do an interesting enough job, someone will probably give you a Style Point, and those are better than any dice roll.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The basic mechanic is that you get a number of dice equal to your attribute. Other things will add dice to the pool. (Nothing removes dice, as far as I recall, but if something does, it's a very rare occasion.) You roll, try to hit the magic number (always a 10), and if you do, narrative control is yours.

There are complications. If you have a lot of dice, you can take some out of the pool and use them as "Wagers" - which means you get more information to put into your narration. (A basic success means you get to describe one thing about your narration - wagers make this more detailed.)

Everything works on this basic mechanic. Everything. And that's good - you only need to learn one system. Some systems are a bit more complex (combat, for example), but nothing is overwhelmingly different.

HotB is also Aspect Based - meaning that you have a list of things that describe you and can contribute to your dice pool. (For example, you might have "My sword comes out faster than my words," which could give you a bonus for the first "beat" of combat.) Each Aspect has an Invoke (how it helps you), a Tag (how it helps others against you), and a Compel (how it might force you to act). And you can create any Aspect you'd like - though if the narrator rejects one, you can rework it. (There's an entire sub-chapter on this subject.)

Style Points are the currency of the game. You start with a few, they are supposed to be handed out like candy, and you can only keep a certain amount between sessions. And when you spend them, they are gone (or given to another player.) Oh, you can also give them to the Narrator or to certain NPCs, if you'd like.

What do they do?

They refresh aspects. (You can only Invoke an aspect every so often. Style points spent let you do more.)
They let you Tag or Compel other people's aspects.
They let you define more about the world.

And that's just the beginning.

The world - I have to honestly say I'm not too keen on the one presented, but I don't feel that has to be the end all/be all of the game. The general idea I like - you start out as nobles, so you have all the money you would ever want. Part of your character creation involves defining your holdings and your vassals. (And this is all very well presented.) And, to it's benefit, the world isn't that strongly designed - part of the game is that the players get to decide how things work, through dice rolls and style points.

(One thought I had while reading this - ever wanted to play A Game of Thrones? This is probably the perfect system for it.)

This is a rare case where I don't have any true complaints about the system, just some things I would have liked to have seen (but can create on my own if I really really want them.)
1. A way to gain more aspects beyond aging or taking injuries. (Or being a screw-up.)

Really, that's it.

The game does have some punitive measures in it (warning bad players, taking Style Points from them, or writing "Dolt" on their character sheet as a new trait), which I can't see using (except for the first two, in that order).

I'm also not thrilled with the implied PvP aspect of it, but then again, I haven't played it. Maybe it's loads of fun. I don't think so, but that's just from other bad experiences in other games.

Those two complaints are minor, and the PvP doesn't have to be mandatory, either. So all is good.

I strongly suggest checking this game out. And if you are in the Bay Area and want to play, let me know. I want to play as well.

I Survived ConQuest

2008-09-02T06:40:16Z

CQ 2008 is over.

Overall, I have mixed feelings, and rather than do a day by day breakdown, I'm going to do my thoughts:

THE GOOD:

My game went well, as did all the Good Omens games, from what I've heard.

Picked up three books - an early released book for Hunter, the originally planned to be but now isn't last book for Changeling, and a $10 copy of Unhallowed Metropolis. (If I run it, having two copies is helpful.)

The hotel is nice. I got to park so close to my room that all I needed to do to pack up the car was step out the back door and walk maybe 20 feet.

There were nice restaurants all around - well, not nice, but familiar and within two blocks. (IHOP, Togos, Round Table).

Saw Kara and her husband and their spawn.

Got to play Sons of Liberty - a fun game, but the standard rules seems to encourage the game to be played more like the card game Speed than an RPG or Story-Game.

THE BAD:

There was some shenanigans with group names being removed from titles of games. My two big problems with it were: a) my particular group, Good Omens, has worked hard to get a generally good reputation. and b) none of us were contacted in advance (and in fact we found out by happenstance), and normally people do things secretly like that when they know they are doing something somewhat unethical or shady. (Shady is a better word.) (For reference, I point to the secrecy enacted by the Bush Administration in regards to torture, surveillance, and the like.)

Room numbers for games weren't listed in the program, and when I couldn't find where my game was, I was pretty much treated like an idiot by the staff.

The program was a piece.

I realized I'm getting sick of "Story Games" that have decided that no rules lead to better stories. (I realize part of the issue is that I do read every game I can to look for good rules to steal for other games, but that's beside the point.)

I'm also getting sick of Prima-Donna GMs, and I don't care what group they are with. Or not with. Some of them are Good Omens GMs, and that's depressing.

THE AMUSING:

At the end of my Mage game, I discovered that my main villain had no offensive ability. He had everything he needed to set his plot in motion, but in actual combat? Not so good.

Ever since meeting him casually, I've been baffled by the couple that is deirdremoon and tronpublic. However, after a conversation he was in on Sunday night, it now makes perfect sense.

I mentioned a game idea to Cil, and now I think she's hooked, and that she's got at least one other player hooked.

Overall, I'm concerned about the bad. Last year, CQ made some great strides 'forward,' but this year it's like they took a step backwards. I was less than impressed.

Rich

An Experiment

2008-07-27T21:39:16Z

This month, for my monthly Shadowrun game, I decided to try a technique from wickedthought.

The bane of Shadowrun is planning. I'm all for having a plan, but as both a player and a GM, I'm of the opinion that if 1/4 or more of the allotted game time is spent planning, the fun has been ruined.

So I let the players design the run.

I gave them the basic mission - freeing a geisha from what was essentially slavery in a Yakuza run brothel - and then told them they get to decide what they want and need to do to succeed. Every time they put up a complication - a situation where the outcome wasn't automatically going to end up in their favor - I put a die into a bowl. These became bonus dice they could award to each other.

I also told them that every fifteen minutes, I would get a die that I could use to alter what they had planned. (The premise, I told them, is that every roll they would normally have to make to get information, regardless of source, succeeds. But not all information gathered will be accurate.)

In just under an hour, we began going through the run. The complications they had and the alterations I had made turned it from a cake walk into a real run, and overall I think everyone had fun.

A few rough spots, but that's the first time any of us, ever, had used a technique like this.

I plan to use it again.

Rich

Many Thoughts

2008-07-21T11:47:09Z

I'm very close to writing my reviews of Houses of the Blooded and D&D4. The problem is it's hard to read HotB as a pdf, since I don't take a computer into the bathroom with me, nor do I have it in any of the other places I keep books.

I've encountered this recurring theme, recently, among GMs, and I'm wondering where we went so wrong. I know my own personal style has become somewhat laissez-faire - I present the situation, and then let the players run with it. I have no pre-planned solutions, a few scenes that I think are important to have happen, but those are such that I can improvise them whenever I need to.

I guess that bothers some people. Feh.

My viewpoint is simple - the players aren't here to listen to my story. They are here to make their own. It doesn't matter what game I'm running. The biggest introduction and GM control I'll keep is the opening of the plot. Everything else is open.

Anyway, there seems to be this resurgence of self-important GMing. Lots of people are doing it - "Pay attention to me." I've encounterd it no less than in at least four conversations with different people over the past two weeks.

There's lots of talk about "table rules" - how dice are rolled, what activities are allowed during a game, etc. Some people seem to be bothered by any player who is not staring intently at the game as it happens, which I think is a load of insecure crap. You can't read books, use a laptop, write, doodle, or do anything else but pay attention to the GM. Or you get cut out, or otherwise penalized.

Why?

I know me. I know that left to my own devices with nothing to do during a game (which happens a lot more than you would think), I get disruptive. So I like to have my distractions. If I'm needed, I'm always willing to put the distraction down and get back into the game. But I'd prefer to use the distraction than cut in on anyone else's fun. It's just polite.

But apparently not.

I dunno. It bugs me. For several reasons. I know I can multi-task, better than most. Not perfectly (because no one can), but I can do enough with some small attention paid to what I'm working on, and some other bit of attention paid to what else I'm working on. (That made no sense. Sue me. It's 4:40 AM.)

I think a great GM is the one who lets you have fun and doesn't try to pressure you into making one decision; and even if they have surprises (which I do have), they don't come out like punishments.

SPEAKING OF WHICH, I'M NOT PERFECT
A bit of an embarassing moment while running my Mage game last Sunday.

The game is a bit odd, dealing with a big release of the Abyss into the Fallen Realm (aka Earth.) Humans are starting to believe again, and monsters are finding it harder to hide themselves. (It's plot oriented, mind you.)

The PCs are on a quest to gather some magical swords, which had been scattered throughout the country.

They picked up one sword with little difficulty, and Cil looked and said "That's it?"

And before I could stop it, my mouth said "That's it. You guys walked right past the plot. No big deal, I have another."

I still regret saying that. The players eventually took that plot, but I felt like I forced it on them - what was meant as a "ha-ha" kind of statement came out really harsh and judgemental. Dang it all.

Eh, I didn't see any complaints, but I still feel like a royal ass for saying those words. In the wrong context, they're uncalled for.

Rich

Game Reviews

2008-07-05T08:59:20Z

I was originally going to post a full review of D&D 4th, but then the pdf of Houses of the Blooded got released to a bunch of us who did pre-orders.

But reading on a computer screen is always slower, so I'm now lugging through that thing. I like what I see so far.

And I thought it would be appropriate to eventually review both of them, back to back, on the same day.

So you'll get to see it.

Wait for it.

Rich

Thoughts on D&D 4

2008-06-27T12:02:40Z

Around 1992 I had grown sick of D&D. Maybe a little before then. I tried to run it in 1994, but that wasn't meant to be.

When 3.0/3.5 was released, I thought it had some nice touches (feats, skills, new multi-classing rules, a more intuitive combat system (in regards to Armor Class, at least), and so on and so forth. But it still had a lot of what I had grown sick of.

So far, there are things I really like about 4e.

1. Spell-casters not running out of spells. Sure, you might not have your most powerful spells available, but you always have a useful spell to cast.
2. Simplified basic rules.
3. Minions. No one can ignore them (which is one of my favorite bits - I hate running rpgs and having people ignore the minions to go after the big bads entirely.)
4. Everyone gets cool stuff as they advance. And while it might not seem realistic for everyone to have things they can only use once a day, or whatever, it works well for balancing things.
5. Humans are more kick-ass.
6. No more saving throws. Everything is an attack. (So the saving throws become target numbers that the person using the poison / spell / whatever to successfully get you.)
7. No more randomization in character creation. While I kind of miss it, it's a relic that is about time to go away.
8. Simplified skills that kind of make sense.

I'm still reading the Player's Handbook.

Oh - and I like little touches like "The Fighter's Challenge" - it might be too MMORPG for people, but it also seems to be like a lot of fun. (And fun is what it's all about, right?)

Now, dont' worry - I haven't been taken over by the WotC/Hasbro Borg. It's still not my favorite game system (I'm not sure I have one), but I think this is a much better re-design than the 3.0 change. And this makes me want to pull out some old modules andrun them in the new system. Just to see.

Who knows.

Rich

Reviews?

2008-06-22T23:44:47Z

Just some brief observations, actually.

I looked through the Hunter: The Vigil demo yesterday, and it hasn't changed my opinion much. That opinion is - it's cool, but it doesn't need a whole game line. The previous incarnation of Hunter did, but most of what I've seen so far can be done with like maybe 25 pages of rules and some previous World of Darkness books.

Conversely, I've been slowly going through D&D 4E. It looks intriguing, at the very least. (Isn't that odd? I'm more positive about D&D than I am about a White Wolf release? WTF?)

Speaking of which, I've been looking for a good system for running a LONG TERM (read - weekly sessions, for about a year) fantasy game. Here's the limitations:
1. One player is pretty much against D&D, True20, and Savage Worlds. (The latter disappoints me, because I think SW is really good).
2. Another player is against the ORE (read Reign).
3. I'm against Storyboard (too hard to balance for the long term) and Burning Wheel (since reading it in places got me annoyed with the author.)

And I'll NEVER be able to explain Rolemaster/HARP to half the players. Because it's that convoluted.

Currently, I'm looking at adapting "Shadows of Yesterday," though I'm open to anything.

What I need is a) adaptability; b) ease of play; c) a dynamic game.

(Which is why I would really want to use Savage Worlds . . .)

Suggestions?
Rich

KublaCon - back and alive, but still stressing

2008-05-27T01:05:00Z

Just a pre-comment - yes, I'm stressing, only because Cil and I have begun our "spring cleaning" immediately after coming home from the Con. Not because we want to, but because we have to. (Long story.)

At this point, I envy Sisyphus.

Anyway, my story for KublaCon begins the night before, as I'm calmly printing out the character sheets for my Saturday AM game. (Unhallowed Metropolis - Steampunk Survival Horror.) As I printed the last character sheet, around 2 AM (because I'm a night owl), my brain reminded me:

"YOU FORGETFUL JERK!! YOU HAVE A SECOND GAME THIS CON!! YOU'VE DONE NO PREP WORK FOR IT!!"

Which was true. I knew I had no chance I would finish it that night, so I didn't even try. Instead, I made sure to pack the books I'd need.

Unfortunately, I was up until 6 AM. Not doing anything important, just not sleeping.

Cil woke me up at 7 to drive her to BART, and when I got home, once again, I couldn't sleep. I tried. I really did. Finally, around 1:30 PM, I got up, began to pack up the car and take care of business, and then ran to the grocery store and OfficeMax. Purchased a printer, some other stuff, food, drink, and then drove to the hotel. I got in around 4:45 PM, got my room, checked in on the Good Omens games I knew were running, went out to dinner, and then did some last minute work for my Saturday AM game.

And had crappy sleep for about 8 hours.

Got up, and prepared to run Unhallowed Metropolis. It was fun - my playtest was really bad (in my opinion), but the actual game went a lot better. Part of it was that I re-tooled my plot, and made sure that the clues led somewhere. The players seemed to have fun.

After the game, went out for food, and then went up to my room and prepped my game for Sunday morning.

This isn't a problem for me. I've improvised entire games before when covering for cancelling GMs. (In 2002, at an early KublaCon, I was approached by the RPG coordinator and asked to fill in because a GM no-showed. I warned the players that I'd use a different system, but they were cool with that. It's good to know I can do that.)

(Maybe that was 2001?)

So putting together a game in 6 hours? Not a problem. I had internet, I had a computer, I had a printer, and I had my source material. I had to purchase a few PDFs, but that's okay. Using the original comic book (Jesus Hates Zombies) and printing out a few pages for player background, it was easy.

The next morning, I got to the room and found something like 4 or 5 players wanting to crash the game, and only one no-show. I tried to whittle the crowd down by warning them:
1) One of them would have to play Jesus Christ.
2) One of them would have to play Jesus' pet zombie, Lazarus.
3) I was a liberal nutjob Christian.
4) It wasn't your standard All Flesh Must be Eaten game, as I've adapted lots of cinematic unisystem stuff into it.

There was another warning, but none of it worked.

Eventually, we chose the player to take the open seat - I forgot how, it was either because he looked like Jesus or because he was the first one there.

I think the game went well - it could have gone better (I have high standards for myself, never forget that), and it could have been about an hour longer (though we did get kind of a late start on the actual game), but overall they put the clues together without being hit with a clue-stick, and only waited around for verification of their suspicions. (Basic story - a demon in a church had created "fake" zombies during the middle of the zombie apocalypse, and was using them to terrorize a town. His goal was to get all the people into the church, because it was 'safe,' and then bargain for their souls until he had netted all of them.)

Oh - the cast of PCs:
Jesus H. Christ (from Jesus Hates Zombies) (complete with "Big-Ass Anime Sword" that Buddha gave to him.)
Laz (from Jesus Hates Zombies ) (Jesus' Zombie buddy)
Jesse Custer (from Preacher)
Joan Girardi (from Joan of Arcadia)
Sarah Bailey (from the Craft - Robin Tunney's character)
Bethany Sloane (from Dogma - the last scion)

In the end, they saved the day, banished the demon, and hopefully realized they had a good base of operations now for the rest of their "save people" campaign.

So after that game, Cil and I went out for lunch, then fell asleep while eating lunch, so we went to the hotel room for a "nap" that took about four hours. (I put nap in quotes only because four hours is not a nap. Four hours is sleeping.)

Hung out with Sean N. for a few minutes, went down to Greg M's. Mutant & Masterminds game, hung out with Jen M (his fiancee), and with Jessie, Sean's wife, and then went up to our room. Cil went to sleep, I played a bit, and then we woke up, packed up, and came home.

I didn't get to play anything this Con, but that didn't bother me. The games I ran were fairly fun, and that made up for it. My games purchased were "Reign" and "Aeternal Legends." (Expect reviews soon.)

Next Con is "GO-Con" (in July - the official "Good Omens" RPG convention, at Endgame in Oakland) where I'm running a World of Darkness: Innocents game, and then ConQuest, where I'll run a street level "Mage: the Awakening" game. And then I need to figure out if I'm running at the October Endgame mini-con.

I'm probably going to avoid running two games at a Con anymore, unless one is a game that doesn't require much updating. Having to fully prep two new games was really draining.

Rich

The Dork Side

2008-04-15T22:55:12Z

That's me.

As a super-hero in City of Heroes.

A Natural Tanker with Willpower, Fire Melee, and Speed.

:-)

Rich

City of Heroes / City of Villains

2008-04-15T14:47:26Z

I just got addicted to CoH and CoV. I play on Guardian and Justice servers (but am wiling to go to other servers as well.)

On Guardian, I have the following characters:

Arthur Guin (Magic/Tanker - level 9) - big bald guy in a leather jacket.
Sham Haine (Scientific/Scrapper - level 9) - huge panther guy with claws and regeneration
Machina Ex (Mutation/Blaster - level 12) - electrical blaster who I really want to raise up to level 14 so I can get flight.
Gaia-Child (Magic/Defender - level 10) - healer, teleporter, psionic.

And on Justice, I have the following:
Asphyxiatress (Mutant/Corrupter - level 7, IIRC) - dark bolt stealthy character, and currently my only villain
Blak Bird (Technological/Defender - level 6 or 7) - archer and martial artist
Thraka (Technological/Blaster - level 5) - Basically, a Shadowrun Ork with an automatic rifle, some hi-tech grenades, and a love of shooting gangsters.

So if you see any of those, say hey. Plus, I'd love to team up with people I actually know.

Rich

Lesson for the day

2008-04-10T01:42:31Z

I've been playing "City Of Heroes" recently.

Blasters? Totally rule.

I tried recreating one of my Aberrant characters (Machina) and she became an electrical blast/controlling Blaster. So far, I zoomed up to 7th level, and I've burst through at least three missions without one trip to the Hospital. (The 4th mission - with the Clockworks - sent me there.)

Rich

On the Trail of Cthulhu

2008-03-23T12:23:14Z

I've been so inspired by the Trail of Cthulhu RPG that I put together a spreadsheet that will translate characters from Call of Cthulhu to the GUMSHOE system, based loosely on the ideas put forth by Kenneth Hite in the Appendix.

I even got the always doomed Harvey Walters in there. Plus people like Randolph Carter, Inspector LeGrasse, and Dr. Henry Armitage. (Plus, the chance to use Herbert West is just too cool to pass up.)

I've had one idea already for a campaign set-up - two players make characters based on Nick & Nora from the Thin Man series. Imagine the fun of those two and their various contacts investigating the Mythos. I'd probably give them a bonus on their Stability checks if they had a drink in hand. (You have to watch the Thin Man series to understand.)

It beats my original idea - Encyclopedia Brown, Sally, Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys, and some other teen sleuth against the Mythos.

Anyway, I think I need to start running Trail of Cthulhu.

Rich

Fscking Exalts

2008-03-21T15:57:19Z

I always said I would never run Exalted, unless I could create a new world for it. I hated hated hated hated hated the world they created for it. (Especially the 'details' that seemed to be based on who could be more shocking with each and every book.)

The other reason I never wanted to run Exalted is that I wanted someone else to run the high powered games. I ran Aberrant. I ran Mage. I still run Mage. Sometimes, people run super-hero games, and otherdarkmeat has run Aberrant and is now starting to run Scion. gothboiblinkie ran Exalted. But me being able to play in those types of games on a regular basis have been few and far between.

Anyway, we'll see. The idea could work.

Rich