text:
Category: Theory
How does system matter?
There seems to be a mini-rash of "system matters" discussion happening at the moment. I've often found these discussions get lost in differing definitions – you can't agree whether system matters if you don't agree what system is. More importantly, different aspects of system matter in entirely different ways. So rather than debate whether it matters, I'm going to break down different aspects of "system" and consider what's important about them. This will be a multi-part series.
Here's a list of things I'm planning to talk about in this context. Possibly more will come up later.
Designer intent
Formal written procedures of play ("the rules")
House rules, mods and hacks
Written principles and implicit directions
Unspoken rules at the table
Play culture
Let's start with designer intent. You might think this is not part of system (and I pretty much agree) but it obviously shapes many of the other items on the list above, specifically the formal procedures, written principles and implicit directions.
A designer can have a greater or lesser focus on specific themes, a specific type of experience they want you to have, or particular styles of play that they favour. The important thing to say here is that designer intent only matters to the extent it's communicated to actual or potential players. This can be done through the rules, through the background material, through guidance, through the game art, even through marketing or interventions on social media.
But let's face it: in most cases, people will only have take in what's in the game book. Anything else, no matter how important, is likely going to be missed by most of your target audience.
Regardless of how it's communicated, it doesn't matter what you meant when you designed your game, only what the players understand. This isn't a philosophical point about the nature of meaning, but a practical point about the nature of game design. Of course different audiences will take different meanings from what you say, and with the variety of game culture that's out there it is very likely that someone, somewhere is going to misunderstand what you intended.
In fact it's even worse than that, because (in my experience) many people don't properly read the rules at all. They skim, they grab the printouts and run, they make assumptions or ignore rules they don't understand. This is one of the things that makes playtesting important, because you don't know how people outside your circles will read (or not) your words.
Game design is communication. Communication is messy and imperfect. No amount of playtesting can eliminate misunderstandings. You aren't designing a car, where the systems interlock and perform in exactly the way you imagined; you're designing practices for humans, and humans never perform the same way twice.
Anyway, that's a long and rambly way of saying that design intent is hella important, but ultimately once you put the game out there in the world, no longer matters.
So what does matter? Well, let's get our teeth into what most people probably think of when they hear the word "system": the rules.
Here I like to talk about procedures. A procedure is a structured way of doing something. It takes an input, and turns it into an output, according to a fixed, mechanistic formula. Or in the case of roleplaying, it more typically takes many and complex fictional inputs, turns them into fewer and simpler mechanical components, futzes around with them (in a structured, mechanical way) to generate mechanical outputs, which in turn are translated back into fictional outputs.
Still: the distinction I'm making when I talk about procedures is that they're mechanical. No matter how complex your rules, the procedural parts of them can be boiled down into simple if-then statements. That's not all there is to rules – we'll get to principles and directions, later on – but it's an important aspect of "rules" that dominates many people's thinking, perhaps because everyone is familiar with rules from other contexts like board games and wargames.
But it is worth pausing to note that in a roleplaying game, you cannot activate a mechanical procedure without first making a fictional interpretation. Even something simple like an attack roll requires you first to recognise that someone has attacked someone else in the game's fiction. You have to interpret the fiction to do that. "I hit him with my sword", cool, make an attack roll. "Did I mention my sword is made out of marshmallow", oh, uh… I guess not then. So, as I'll discuss in a moment, clearly rules are important, they matter, but they only function as filtered through the human and fictional medium: your brain and the brains of the other people at the table and the stuff they're trying to imagine together. (Maybe we'll get back to that later.)
The key thing about procedures is that they are fixed. Once you've decided that it's time to make an attack roll, you must roll a d20, and if it equals or exceeds the target's AC, you must roll damage and subtract it from the target's hit points. If the target's hit points reach zero, they die.
Seems pretty hard-edged, and with examples like that we can all clearly see that the rules are going to matter. If the rules say that short swords do d6 damage, and a normal human has d8 hit points, we can see that humans will typically last a lot longer than if short swords do 2d6 damage and a normal human has d4 hit points, or if we skip damage rolls altogether and just say that a successful hit roll kills the target.
All this is deciding is how quickly we go from "roll initiative" to "everyone is dead", but it will make a huge impact on the play experience. Would you want to start a fight if one successful hit roll will kill you? That will feel a lot differently than if you and your buddies each get 50 HP while your opponents get about 10. And that's without even getting into whether the game includes rules for fighting in the first place.
So one way in which the rules matter is that they compel you to change the fiction, and they compel you to do it in particular ways. If your game rules say that one successful hit roll = death, you're compelled to play a game where fighting is really dangerous, and so we either won't have very much of it, or we'll have a lot of people dying. If your game rules say that player characters have tons of hit points but NPCs don't, we're compelled to play a game where fighting is pretty safe for PCs, which is very different.
Compelled? Well, yes. If you use the rules as written. We'll be coming back to house rules, play culture and all sorts of ways in which you can ignore the rules. But enough to say here: obviously if you ignore the rules then they don't matter. Rules only compel you if you let them. Still, something isn't really a rule at all if you don't obey it, right? As long as you're following the procedures to the letter, they really fucking matter.
One other way in which the procedures of play matter is that they generally cover only specific types of thing, not everything you could possibly do. D&D Basic*, the ancient and revered forefather of the biggest fish in the roleplaying sea, didn't have any skill system. If you wanted to, I dunno, deceive a guard, there weren't any rules for that. You could houserule it, you could make something up on the fly (and we'll get to the ways in which a game can actively encourage you to do that, or not). But it wasn't in the book, and that meant that deception was only a part of play if the group decided to make it part of play. Unlike stabbing things with swords, which was explicitly and formally coded into the game.
Now obviously many people put deception into their D&D Basic game. This may have been an inevitable consequence of the narrowness of the rules in that game, the massive gaps it left, and the incentives of play: obviously someone was going to want to lie to a guard at some point. Obviously someone would need to come up with a way to do that. And so a thousand house rules were spawned, and eventually D&D 5e. But meanwhile, there wasn't any fixed way to handle deception, and very probably many games didn't have it in at all. And practically nobody ran D&D without fighting in it. Because, amongst other reasons, that's what the rules were focused on: fighting, not lying.
So that's two ways in which the procedures of play matter: they fix certain ways of doing things by making them mechanical; and they channel you towards doing certain things rather than other things. Those are pretty big impacts!
Next up, we'll think about some things that modify the procedures of play, and some things that aren't procedures (as I've defined them) at all.
This article is supported through the Black Armada Patreon
*Ok, it wasn't called D&D Basic** back then, and many people don't call it that now. Probably it wasn't even the first, because once it was chainmail or whatever. The point stands.
** I'm told I should head of pedants by saying I'm referring to the original edition of the game, circa 1974. Honestly, I'm not even sure. If that version didn't have skills mechanics, great, it's an example of what I'm talking about.
Author Josh FoxPosted on December 20, 2019 December 20, 2019 Categories Articles, TheoryTags designer intent, game design, procedures, RPG theory, system mattersLeave a comment on How does system matter?
Push and pull mechanics
A popular mechanic which crops up in a lot of excellent games is Conditions. A Condition is a problem that's affecting your character, like "broken leg", "on fire" or "suspected traitor". The idea is that the GM will hit you with trouble when your Condition would be relevant, or penalise you when it would get in the way. But this doesn't work as well as you might think.
The trouble is, Conditions hardly ever get used. Why? Because they require the GM to Push them into the game[*]. In other words, the GM has to remember that the Condition is in play and bring it to bear on the game's fiction and/or mechanics. This requires the GM to divert their limited attention and make a decision. I found this out to my cost in recent playtests of Last Fleet, where a whole bunch of Condition-type mechanics just never seemed to bite.
There are various ways you can increase the salience of these GM-Push mechanics, to help avoid them disappearing into the general cacophony of demands on the GM's attention. Taking a mechanic off the player's character sheet and putting it onto the GM's reference sheet where the GM can more easily see it, for instance. Or better yet, put it in big letters on a nice, visible index card that sits in plain sight right in front of the relevant player. But even so, that's just greasing the GM's cognitive wheels a little. You're still putting the onus on the GM to turn those wheels.
But there's two ways you can restructure your mechanics to make them work without needing a GM push:
Turn them into a Pull mechanic
Turn them into a Player-Push mechanic
Let's start with Pull mechanics. A Pull mechanic is automatically activated in fixed circumstances, drastically reducing the cognitive demands of the mechanic. For example, where a Condition relating to an injury generates work for someone to apply it in the fiction, a simple Harm or Hit Points mechanic are much easier to track.
You might think that sounds kind of boring: am I really recommending Hit Points as a mechanic? Well, it needn't be dull. The system of Marks in Night Witches is essentially a Hit Point system, but it's one where every time you take damage, something interesting happens. It's just that the interesting thing happens automatically. Whenever certain Moves are triggered, someone has to choose consequences which include taking a Mark, and when someone takes a Mark, the fictional or mechanical consequence is applied right away.
The other approach is to use Player-Push mechanics. The difference here is, you put the onus on the owning player to activate the relevant mechanic. A good example is the Conditions found in Masks: A New Generation. Although having the same name as the GM-Push mechanic mentioned above, these work differently. Each Condition is tied to a particular Move or Moves in the game, and creates an automatic penalty each and every time that Move is used. The penalty itself is a Pull mechanic: whenever you use those Moves, the penalty applies, so no thought or judgement required. But removing the Condition is a Player-Push mechanic: if a player wants to remove the "Angry" Condition, they have to break something important, which requires them to choose that action. Now a player character's Anger can be applied to create interesting complications in scenes, but it's up to the player to choose when instead of the GM. And there's a clear incentive for them to do it, because as long as they've got that Condition they're continuing to take the penalty.
Another nice thing about Player-Push mechanics, by the way, is that they hand more power and narrative control to the players. That's usually a good thing in my view: it means they're more engaged with the game, and it means that the trouble that is created is something they're eager to get to grips with – after all they chose it.
You can even combine the two. An example is Pressure in my own WIP game Last Fleet. Pressure is used as a kind of Hit Point system, whenever a character takes harm but also when they take an emotional shock – a Pull mechanic that happens automatically when the rules say so. But players can also voluntarily Mark Pressure to get bonuses to rolls – a Player-Push mechanic that provides a clear incentive for the players to make trouble for themselves. Finally, when you get to 5 Pressure, you hit Breaking Point, forcing you to choose from a list of irrational or risky actions to take that will complicate your character's life. Breaking Point is another Pull mechanic: it kicks in without any decision needing to be taken.
There's definitely room for GM-Pull mechanics. In most games, part of the fun of being the GM is to exercise your attention and judgement to spot opportunities to make interesting stuff happen. You wouldn't get to do that as much if only a mechanical trigger or player decision enabled you to do it. But, in the interests of lightening the burden on the GM and ensuring your mechanics actually come into play instead of sitting unused on someone's character sheet, consider using Pull and Player-Push mechanics instead.
As a coda to this, I took three distinct GM-Push mechanics in Last Fleet and converted them over to a mix of Pull and Player-Push mechanics. I'm really happy with how they bring into sharp focus elements that were previously relegated to a minor role or just plain didn't work.
[*] Ok, to be fair, in a lot of games other players can activate Conditions too, using another player's Condition against them. But the principle is the same – it requires someone else to think of the Condition and bring it into play.
Author Josh FoxPosted on October 22, 2019 December 20, 2019 Categories Articles, Designer Diary, Theory, TipsTags hit points, last fleet, masks, Night Witches, pbta, pull mechanics, push mechanics2 Comments on Push and pull mechanics
How I run investigation games (part 2: in-session)
Last time I wrote about how I prep investigation games. I'll talk a bit more about that here, but I also want to move on to talk about what I do during sessions.
My aim in running an investigative game is twofold:
Make the players feel smart
Make the investigation challenging
Those two aims seem kind of contradictory, but in a way they support each other. You cannot feel smart if the game hands you everything on a plate. You cannot feel challenged if the game is simplistic or handled entirely through dice rolls.
As discussed in a previous article, you can break investigation down into various components:
Leads (where should I look next?)
Imprints (what clues are there?)
Patterns (how do the clues fit together?)
Conclusions (what is my theory of the case?)
I want as much as possible of the above to feel like they were investigated by the players themselves, using their own brainpower, without running up against the perennial problems of analysis paralysis and the thing that seems obvious to the GM not being at all obvious to the players. I'm not going to pretend those problems aren't real – and more on how I tackle them below. But for now, let's talk about how I handle the components above.
My initial lead is always given away for free. That's a given: the game will be no fun if you can't get started.
From that point on, I follow a simple set of rules:
If a clue is obvious, you don't have to roll to find it
If a clue is hidden but you look in the place it's hidden, you find it without rolling
You can find any clue with an appropriate roll
Once you've got the clues, it's mostly down to you to figure out the logical leads, patterns, and conclusions
You can probably see for yourself how the above could easily lead to an investigation stalling. If the players don't look in the right place, or roll badly, or can't figure out the next lead, then everything grinds to a halt. There are three principal ways that I solve this:
Critical mass. I make sure there are enough clues available that it's unlikely they'll fail to find anything.
Keep some leads obvious. Signposting specific characters or locations as being of interest will ensure there's always a next step to follow (but there's always the potential to discover more)
Move the clock on. If the players are taking too long, then I look to the next event on my timeline and make it happen – so even if they get stuck, the story doesn't
The aim here isn't to make it impossible to fail the investigation. That wouldn't be challenging, and it wouldn't make the players feel smart. The aim, instead, is to make sure that they never get completely stuck – even if they're failing, they're moving forwards. So there's always enough clues to find something out, and there's always enough obvious leads that you have somewhere to look next.
Equally, my aim is to create a potential dividend from being smart, from being lucky, and from being quick. Players who get lucky on the dice find more clues; players who think their way around those clues and ask good questions discover patterns and start to reach conclusions; and those clues and conclusions can enable them to get ahead of my timeline. Those who move at the minimum pace enabled by following the obvious links, probably find themselves fighting for their lives at the finalé, having left a trail of murders in their wake. Those who leverage luck and judgement may be able to save some lives and catch the perpetrator unawares.
What this means is: being open to the players failing – so that another person is killed (or whatever consequences I established in my timeline happen); but also being open to them wildly succeeding, so that my villains fail and their plans are completely foiled. The critical mass of clues and obvious leads means that I'm hopefully leaning towards success over the medium-term, with occasional frustrating blocks that make that success more satisfying when it comes.
I cannot overemphasise how important it is for failure to come with consequences. If they get stuck, then those consequences mean that the game doesn't get stuck; instead of their next lead being a witness they want to investigate or a place they want to investigate, the next lead comes in a body bag. And of course, this also means that when they succeed, they'll know that it was earned, because they know what happens when they fail.
Very occasionally this means the players fail utterly. The villains complete their plan entirely, and escape. That's great. It means there's now a future recurring villain, who the players really want to take down, because they feel responsible for not catching them the first time. As long as things didn't grind to a halt during the session, so there were always fresh leads to follow and tense pacing created by my timeline events, then failure is ok.
One last thing: do not let things drift towards out of character discussion of clues. To a degree all theorising is out of character, since you don't actually have the skills, knowledge and brainpower of your characters. But try to keep people talking as their characters, because that will help to reinforce the sense that any frustration they may be feeling is fictional, it's part of the story. They're not sat on your couch feeling worn down by the investigation, they're stood in a dark alley looking at a corpse and wondering when the next one will show up.
Author Josh FoxPosted on August 13, 2019 August 23, 2019 Categories Articles, Theory, TipsTags clues, GMing, investigation, mystery, RPG theoryLeave a comment on How I run investigation games (part 2: in-session)
Author Josh FoxPosted on July 9, 2019 July 9, 2019 Categories Articles, Theory, TipsTags GMing, hard moves, MCing, Moves, soft movesLeave a comment on Breaking down hard moves
How I run investigation games (part 1: prep)
A really juicy mystery, with the cool feeling of piecing together clues and coming to the correct conclusion, is one of my favourite things in roleplaying. It's also something that I feel isn't well delivered by existing RPG systems. Here I'm going to talk about my approach to building a mystery and enabling real investigation.
This isn't the first time I've explored this terrain. Back in 2013 I talked about how mysteries are like stones falling into a pool, creating ripples. And I went on to talk about how investigation isn't just about clue detection, but about deduction and reaching conclusions. But I stopped short of talking about how to construct a satisfying mystery, which is what I want to do now.
Just for the moment, let's assume I have an ok system that will cover the business of discovering clues, and an ok premise that make sure the players want to investigate this mystery. I may come back to these later, but let's imagine they're solved problems for the purposes of this article. Let's also assume I'm running something that has a substantial investigative focus, so there's more than just one simple mystery to solve.
I then create my mystery in a number of fairly discrete steps:
Decide what the fundamental driver of the mystery is. Something like "There's a cult trying to summon a demon through a series of ceremonial sacrifices", or "House Rukh are planning to assassinate the governor and take over the planetary government"
Generate from this driver a series of events. These can be past events which the players are (presumably) going to be investigating, or future events which the players are (presumably) going to be trying to avert.
For each past event, I generate a footprint, that is, a set of clues which are out there waiting to be discovered by the players.
The footprint breaks down into physical clues and witnesses, which are obviously investigated in different ways. Each of these is amenable to assigning a location and/or time. I'm also thinking about the ways in which the players might discover the clues, though I'm leaving myself open to other ways as well.
For future events, I generate a timing and/or trigger, some consequences, and (in case the players don't find out about it until after it happens) a footprint, exactly as for a past event.
For instance, let's look at the cult example:
For events, I decide that the cult has already sacrificed two victims. One of them was pursued through a particular district in the city in the night, and then murdered in a junkyard. The other was killed previously and more quietly, in their apartment.
The pursuit generated some witnesses along the route it followed – people who heard screams for help and some who looked out of their windows to see a group of figures pursuing the victim.
Both the murders generate a corpse, some messy bloodstains, perhaps a footprint. They also include the identity of the corpse – for the junkyard murder that may not be obvious, while the apartment victim (if the players discover it) is in their apartment so probably can easily be ID'd.
The junkyard murder will be reported, which is the trigger for the players' investigation. The apartment murder will likely lie fallow for a while, but might show up later.
I also create three future events: a near miss where someone is cornered by the cult and nearly killed, but escapes by jumping out of a window; and a murder that involves an initial kidnapping and the victim being brought to a specific site for the final sacrifice. Perhaps the near-miss will report in to the authorities and the players can find out about it that way. Perhaps the kidnapping will be reported, perhaps not.
At this stage I might also add in some kind of link between the various murders, be it geographical (the locations form a shape on the map, with the final sacrifice in the middle) or social (the victims are all highly religious people, say), or whatever.
If the final sacrifice is completed then the demon will be summoned and a whole new set of events will be generated after that (but I don't bother thinking about that right now, because I'm expecting that the players will stop the sacrifice happening and/or kill the demon after it's summoned.
Once I've planned all this out, I'll review what I've got to make sure there's enough there to give the players a fighting chance of cracking the mystery, but not so much that they'll solve it in five seconds flat. I can add or remove witnesses and clues until I think I have got that right. Of course, my future events ensure that, no matter what happens, the players will have something to do. If time passes and they haven't made progress, the next event happens.
I'll then break the information down into a number of components I can use:
A timeline of events
A list of locations with clues that can be found there
A list of characters with motivations, information they might have and any key abilities
Once I've got all that in place, the game more-or-less runs itself. The players move from location to location as prompted by clues and/or a future event becoming a present event. Perhaps they discover clues which help them to get ahead of the timeline, perhaps the timeline runs ahead of them and they're forced to confront a scary situation unprepared.
I'll talk in a future article about how I use this prep in practice.
This article is supported through the Black Armada Patreon.
Author Josh FoxPosted on June 17, 2019 June 17, 2019 Categories Articles, Blog, Theory, TipsTags clues, investigation, mystery, prep, RPG theory1 Comment on How I run investigation games (part 1: prep)
Is it ok to fudge rolls?
I was bodding about on Twitter recently and I came across this:
Three opinions I always get yelled at about on the internet:
1. D&D is not perfect.
2. The GM rolling dice and ignoring the results is a violation of the social contract of RPGs
3. Marginalized people deserve to see themselves represented in games.
Every damn time.
— adam koebel (@skinnyghost) April 8, 2019
Reading through the comments I saw a lot of pushback against point 2. People saying "But it sucks if some random roll means I get killed by an orc in the first encounter." "Some players don't like it when they die, it isn't fun." "It's ok if I got the threat level wrong, so I'm just correcting my mistake." "You shouldn't have rolled the dice if you weren't ready for that outcome." And so on. This got me thinking about why people fudge dice rolls at all.
Now as I see it, the answer is pretty straightforward. People fudge dice rolls because their chosen game isn't giving them sufficient discretion in decision-making. They rolled the dice, and what they rolled means they are forced to either implement a fictional outcome they didn't want, or fudge the roll.
When this happens, it is probably because the game is premised on a simple linear process:
Someone makes an attack -> roll dice -> inflict damage (or not)
See how that works? As soon as the GM picks up the dice, they're committing to possibly inflicting damage on you. Maybe it will kill you. But that's all that can happen. They can't knock you out, they can't take your stuff and leave you tied up. They can't leave you beaten but humiliated. And that's just thinking about possibilities relating to us fighting. We haven't even got started on how they can't reveal a terrible secret that will leave you crushed and sobbing, or have a totally different threat raise its head.
My point is, I think a lot of people are playing games with what you might call ballistic mechanics. You get to choose whether to pull the trigger (i.e. roll the dice) but once you've done that, you have no choice in where the bullet hits (i.e. what the outcome of the dice roll is). You can solve the problem by cheating – by ignoring the die roll – or by using a system that fires smart missiles instead of dumb bullets.
There's plenty of games out there which continue to give you choices after you've rolled the dice. A failure doesn't have to imply a mechanically fixed outcome. If you're reading this and wondering what games I mean, one good avenue to google is Powered by the Apocalypse or Forged in the Dark, both of which give real, hard consequences to dice rolls – but in a way that gives you interesting choices rather than automatic pre-defined outcomes.
Even D&D (which I assume is what we're all thinking about here) doesn't need to be implemented like that. I mean, come on. It isn't like you haven't used house rules or not-technically-RAW "roll a d20 and I'll tell you what happens" for umpteen other things. So why be a stickler about the attack roll? Why not say that on a hit, the orc disarms you, then headbutts you into unconsciousness. You wake up in chains. Hard consequences that generate more fun, instead of snuffing out interesting possibilities.
So if I'm so keen on interesting outcomes, why not just fudge the roll and do it that way? Well, like the Tweet said, this is about social contract. If you're playing in a group where the expectation is that successful attack rolls lead to hit point loss and hit point loss leads to death, then you're playing with fire if you don't enforce that. You're essentially saying "your choices were meaningless; you thought you were risking death to achieve your goals; you thought there was a point to me rolling these dice; but you weren't and there isn't. You might as well stop recording your hit points and stop rolling the dice because the real decision-maker is me, the GM, and I'll ignore the dice when it suits me." The whole point of systems with dice rolls is to create risk and drama and make choices meaningful.
The same applies to games where hit point loss and death aren't automatic consequences of a roll, by the way. Just because I can opt to have you KO'd and captured by the orc instead of killed, doesn't mean its all just arbitrary GM fiat. I have to abide by the fact that the dice were rolled, so something bad happens. I can't just shrug my shoulders and say "nothing happens". If I do that, I'm equally guilty of denying you the fruits of your decisions as the GM who refuses to inflict those hit points because they think it wouldn't be fun.
But I think that a lot of groups in their heart of hearts don't want a social contract like the one we see in D&D, RAW. Dying at an arbitrary moment because of bad dice rolls is not everyone's idea of fun. I think that's why we see so much fudging going on – because people don't actually like what the rules tell them they must do. The point is, you're breaking the social contract if people thought hit point loss and death was a possibility but it actually never was; but you can have a different social contract if you want. You have to ask yourself in advance whether you want arbitrary death or not. You have to talk to your group about how you play the game, and get their consent.
"Hey, I'd like to play some D&D, but I'm not really into the whole 'one bad roll and you die' thing, so I'm using a different set of rules. Ok?"
If you do that, then you'll get the outcome you wanted – you remove arbitrary "un-fun" death from your game. But you get it without having to cheat people out of meaningful choice, and waste time rolling dice when you have no intention of enforcing the results of your rolls. Everyone can engage with the encounters you present, knowing what's on the table and what isn't.
Author Josh FoxPosted on April 9, 2019 April 9, 2019 Categories Articles, Blog, Theory, TipsTags dice, Dungeons and Dragons, fail forward, Fudging, pbtaLeave a comment on Is it ok to fudge rolls?
Indie games aren't all about narrative
I hear a lot of people saying that indie games are more focused on narrative or story. This is said in implicit (or explicit) contrast with traditional games, which are more… I don't know… gamey? It often flows from the said people having read and (IMO) misunderstood GNS theory. So here's the thing: it isn't true. Or at least, it's an extremely partial view of the indie market.
Let's start with those last two words – indie market. I use them advisedly: "indie" isn't a design school or a brand. It's just stuff that's independently published, meaning creator-owned. So indie games includes some stuff which is part of the OSR, or "trad" gaming. Yes, there's some definite trends visible in the indie market that are different from those in the mainstream market, and so it's not entirely unjustified to talk about "indie design". The point is, #notallindiegames, let's not pretend they're all the same.
With that said, there is definitely a chunk of the indie games market that could be justly called "games focused on narrative". My own game (with Becky Annison) Lovecraftesque fits into this part of the market. It aims to emulate the structure of a Lovecraftian tale, and it bakes that structure directly into the rules of the game, at the level of the scene. The rules literally require you to play through a series of scenes in which clues are gradually revealed, before playing through a rapidly accelerating scary sequence, followed by a terrifying finale. Similarly Fiasco has story structure baked into it. There's plenty more where they came from. These games have "story" in their bones, and you know when you play them, at a high level, what kind of story you're going to tell.
But a lot of indie games that are not at all like this still get painted with the "narrative" brush. A prime example is the Himalayan range of indie game design, PBTA, and that's what I'm going to focus on now- though I think it's true of wider indie design.
PBTA (well, most PBTA anyway) does not at all do anything to bake narrative structure into the game, except perhaps at the very high level of the GM's prep. In fact PBTA is, to my eye, extremely similar in structure to more traditional games: each player focuses on one character, using their abilities and skills as the main mechanical interface with the world, but also interacting with it through straightforwardly roleplaying a character, with outcomes adjudicated in a fairly freeform way by a GM. Yes, there are differences – what is traditionally regarded as GM advice is baked into the rules, each player skill/ability has its own custom rule, and so forth – but at a structural level it isn't really that different from (say) D&D.
The point is, "the story" is something that only exists after the fact. You play the game, you play your character, the GM describes the world and plays their NPCs, and only after you've done that can you look back and say what the story was. Just like traditional games. There's no "narrative" in this narrative game, or no more than any other RPG.
So why does PBTA often get described as being a narrative game? I mean, partly it's a branding thing. It's part of the "story games" movement, which is strongly identified with "narrativism". It's probably partly because the rules of a PBTA game engage directly with the "fiction", and are typically designed to never be more than one step away from re-engaging with "the fiction", either.
But "the fiction" isn't story. The fiction is just the game world, from the places in that world, through to the characters, the situations they find themselves in, the minute details of their exact position as described by the words you speak at the table. A character walks into a bar, two pistols cocked, and challenges the bartender to a duel: that's the fiction. That character is standing next to a honky-tonk piano as she does it: that's also the fiction. The honky-tonk is playing "baby elephant walking" and its middle C is slightly flat: also the fiction. None of this is story per se. None of it would be out of place in a traditional RPG. And probably this character will next roll to taunt or manipulate or intimidate the bartender, and possibly later to shoot at him with those pistols, and that will all be mechanically fairly similar to what happens in a traditional game. And again, not story.
I think it all comes back to the decision to describe one of the three prongs of GNS as "narrativism" or "story now". Narrativism isn't (as I see it) about focusing on "the story". It's about playing to engage with human issues, in such a way that it's more likely to make a compelling story. But "the story" per se still arises from micro decisions that you make during the game. "Story now" is so called because you get straight to the interesting bits of a story, not because you in some sense consciously try to generate a story. I'm aware that like everyone else I'm no doubt misinterpreting goddamn GNS; but no RPG theory article is complete without that, is it? The point is, narrativism isn't about turning roleplaying into story writing, and by the way (most) indie games are mostly not especially narrativist except to the extent that they empower you to play that way if you want to.
So what? Isn't this just a tedious argument about semantics? Probably at some level it is. But I think probably some of the holy wars of the roleplaying community – the imagined conflict between OSR and indie and trad, for instance – are rooted in these wrongheaded ideas about indie. And I think the idea that indie games are "about story" makes them seem kind of intimidating and highfalutin to players who are used to D&D. The truth is, they are different from traditional RPGs. They do play differently – otherwise they would be the same game. But they aren't a fundamentally different "story-focused" thing, so if you've heard tales of scary story games, those tales are wide of the mark. Maybe it's worth giving them a try.
Author Josh FoxPosted on August 26, 2018 August 26, 2018 Categories Articles, Theory, WhingeTags indie games, indie RPGs, narrativism, OSR, pbta, story games, story now, trad2 Comments on Indie games aren't all about narrative
How to be a great RPG player
I'd like to talk a bit about how players can contribute to making a roleplaying game as much fun as possible for everyone. The headline is: Don't expect your GM to make all the effort, or to make the game fun for you. Roleplaying isn't like going to a movie – your contributions are as important to making the game fun as the GM's contributions. Don't show up expecting to sit back and watch. Get stuck in!
I've observed that people often like to talk about how to achieve GM mastery, or how you (the GM) can best entertain your players and meet their needs. Such things are the fodder for countless articles. And that's completely valid! In a GM'd game, the GM is often a really key person, and it's important that they do everything they can to make the experience great for everyone. But guess what? It's not only the GM's job to do that. You can and should do things to help to make the game enjoyable for everyone (including the GM, and including yourself).
What things can you do to make the game better?
1. Look out for what the GM is offering you, and SAY YES. Come up with a reason why your character is interested in what's on the table. And I don't mean sarcastically saying "oh, I guess we're meant to go to the dark dungeon, I bet that will be fun". I mean genuinely looking for reasons to engage with what the GM puts on the table. That doesn't have to mean doing exactly what the GM expected you to: engaging with the game could mean finding a clever way around a problem or turning an expected enemy into an ally. What it definitely doesn't mean is turning around and walking away from a situation.
2. Look out for what the other players are interested in and engage with that too. Look to make connections with them. Take an interest in what they're doing. In some games that might mean reacting strongly, creating intra-character drama. In others it might mean being a supportive team player. Still others might be adversarial in nature. You can probably tell what kind of game you're in, but if in doubt, ask – discuss it with your group, and then engage in a way that works for the game. Bankuei's same page tool could be handy here.
3. If you find the above hard, then it might mean you need to talk to the group about it. A roleplaying game should ideally get you excited, and make you want to leap in and engage with the story and with the other players' characters. If that's not how you're feeling then maybe you're in the wrong game, or maybe there's something you want from the game you're not getting right now. But be prepared to listen and think about what you could do, before you start making demands on others. It's your game too.
4. Look for opportunities to involve the other players in whatever you're doing. It's fun to have the spotlight – share it with your friends! Ask another player's character to help you. Ask their advice. You'll be helping to enthuse another player and improving the game too.
5. Get comfortable improvising, and throw yourself at the story. Don't worry about what might go wrong, get stuck in! The GM is constantly making stuff up to make your game feel real and cool. You should do this too. If everyone has to wait while you think or debate the exact right thing to do or say, that's… sorry, but a bit boring. Your first thought is probably good enough. And you know, if you realise a couple of seconds later you said the wrong thing, you can always ask for a do-over (but only do it if you really need to). GMs, be nice – if you jump on the first thing a player says and use it to hurt them, you are hurting your game. Everyone will want to spend hours thinking and discussing the best action to take, to avoid getting kicked. Don't make them feel like every moment is a trap waiting to spring on them.
6. Pay attention. Listen. Focus on what's happening at the table. Chatting to someone outside the game, checking your phone, zoning out – they all kill the energy at the table. Learn to enjoy watching the other players. You'll get more from the game if you know what they're doing anyway, because you'll know how to engage with what they're doing, and how to push their buttons in fun and interesting ways.
7. Cut down on the funny remarks. Ok, take this one with a pinch of salt, because after all we're here to have fun, and table banter can be fun. But unless it's in character, table banter isn't the game, and ultimately is a distraction from the game. So by all means make jokes, but don't overdo it. Especially don't make fun of other people's characters or ideas – you'll kill their enthusiasm.
8. Tell the other players what you're enjoying. Tell them their plan was awesome. Tell them you enjoyed their characterisation. Pump up their enthusiasm! And do the same for the GM, it makes a big difference. Plus all of this helps the group to learn what each other like – and supply it. It will make your game better. The other half of the coin is talking about what you're not enjoying: but keep this to a minimum, because it's better to encourage than criticise. Major on what's good, because if the game focuses on that then the bad stuff gets edged out anyway.
I'm sure there's more I could write here. The bottom line is, GMs don't turn up to run a game, to spoon-feed entertainment to you. They turn up to have a fun experience with the other players. Just one attentive, giving, engaged player makes a HUGE difference to the fun the GM has – a whole group is basically GM heaven. And great players improve the game for the other players too. Be that player.
By the way, if you're still thirsty for more, I cannot recommend these two articles enough: Play to lift up, 11 ways to be a better roleplayer.
Author Josh FoxPosted on April 8, 2018 April 8, 2018 Categories Articles, Theory, TipsTags play to lift up, players, roleplaying, roleplaying tipsLeave a comment on How to be a great RPG player
PBTA – Moves overload
Part of the job of a game designer is to consider the level of cognitive burden and handling time required to run a game, and pitch that at a level which works for the intended audience. I have been noticing recently how that counts in spades for PBTA.
The player-facing side of most PBTA games consists of a series of Moves, each of which has some sort of fictional trigger, and then mechanical steps you execute whenever that trigger occurs, which in turn feed back into the fiction. It's the first of these – the fictional trigger – that makes cognitive burden a particular challenge for the PBTA designer.
The reason is that, because each Move has a fictional trigger, and because that fictional trigger is (typically) a fairly specific circumstance occurring, you have to constantly scan the fiction as it develops to check if that trigger has happened. Most PBTA games take as fundamental "to do it, you have to do it" and "if you do it, you do it" which is PBTA-speak for "if the fictional thing happens, the Move is triggered" (and vice versa, though I'm less interested in that here). This means you can't just wait for someone to decide they want to use a particular Move and call it out – their actions in the fiction may mandate that Move.
Take a typical example from Night Witches "when you act up (by acting like a hooligan, by acting like a lady, by acting like a natural born soviet airwoman). This Move requires you to notice when someone is acting outside their normal social boundaries, and then decide whether that acting out fits with either of the three categories (if not, it doesn't trigger the Move). So it's a fairly complex, nuanced decision you have to take. You could miss a moment where the Move should have triggered, if you don't pay attention.
All of this is therefore inherently cognitively burdensome, and the designer must therefore consider in each case whether that level of burden is worth the benefits delivered. Sometimes a complex, nuanced Move is worth it, sometimes it's better to go for something simpler than might not be as precise.
Of course, it's not just the complexity of individual triggers (though that is a factor), it's the sheer combined weight of all the triggers that have to be considered. You could write a PBTA game with 100 basic Moves, but nobody could play it; they'd constantly fail to notice when they were triggering Moves, even if they were fairly simple.
This leads me to some critique of PBTA games I've played recently. They're games I like and have enjoyed, and which are pretty popular, so hopefully it's clear that I'm not going for a take-down of anyone's game here. I'm using them as examples of an issue which needn't be fatal to a game, but which I find difficult in play.
The first example is Sagas of the Icelanders, a game which attempts to emulate the eponymous stories of the early Icelandic settlers. In doing so, it imposes some quite restrictive roles on the characters, specifically relating to their gender. If you play a man, your Moves are focused on physical feats and (rather more complex) defending your honour and attacking the honour and dignity of other men. If you play a woman, your Moves are focused on influencing other characters (particularly, but not exclusively, men) through reason, emotion and sexual attraction. (The way this is set up creates a focus on male characters that is interesting but not the focus of my critique.)
Whenever a character takes action in Sagas, like every PBTA game, you have to mentally compare what they did to the Moves to see if one was triggered. Of course, you first have to focus on the correct set of gendered Moves, since actions that would trigger a Move for a man won't necessarily do so for a woman, and vice versa. So gender introduces an element of complexity up-front. But – particularly for women – the specific triggers are quite nuanced. You can raise your voice and talk sense, but only to player characters. You can goad to action, but only aimed at a man. And because of the very specific and culturally relevant triggers, many things that intuitively feel like Moves aren't. All of which is fine, but kind of hard work to parse in play.
Next example is Urban Shadows. Urban Shadows has Moves which are somewhat more intuitive (for me) than the likes of Sagas, which is a plus. Many of the Moves only trigger in fairly well-defined contexts (more on this in a moment). However, it has a lot of Moves. The Urban Shadows Basic Moves sheet has 15 Moves on it, not counting the rules on advancement. That is a lot of mental checks to go through every time someone does something! It's a lot of possible mechanical triggers to remember, full stop. [Edit: discussion elsewhere has reminded me that the theoretical limit of human short-term memory is seven items, plus or minus two.] On top of that, there are four different triggers for advancement, and a trigger for corruption, that you have to keep an eye on. Again, this is fine, but kind of hard work.
So what can you do about this, if you're designing a game? Well, the obvious stuff is:
– Keep your Moves simple, with straightforward, intuitive triggers that don't require a lot of thought to judge.
– Try to keep your Moves list as short as you can. This in turn means…
– …focus on the Moves that really matter for the game you're trying to write. Don't waste your players' mental space with Moves that aren't all that important – PBTA lets the players and MC negotiate the fiction pretty well even if a Move isn't triggered.
Another trick is to try and group your Moves by the context in which they occur. Apocalypse World, for instance, has Battle Moves. Including them roughly doubles the number of Moves in the game, taking it from a pretty simple half-a-dozen Moves up to more like a dozen. But you only have to think about the Battle Moves if you're in battle. If nobody has any weapons out, you needn't waste any brain space thinking about them. Similarly, Night Witches divides its Moves into day and night Moves, and in almost all cases you therefore only have to think about half the potential Moves at any given moment.
You might think that the Sagas approach is kind of like grouping Moves by context. Well… I don't know what to tell you. That's not how I experience it. Two characters are having a conversation, one of them starts to talk sense, and then I realise that person is a man, so the "talk sense" Move doesn't apply. That small mental effort, repeated several times a session, is burdensome in a way that "am I in a battle right now" isn't.
None of this is to say that you can't write a game with complex, nuanced Moves. With lots of Moves. With Moves that only apply in specific circumstances that require a bit of thought to judge. All of this is permissible, and can be good design. But it is a cost that you are making your players pay to play your game. Make sure you've chosen punchy Moves that deliver something worthwhile, so that it's a cost they'll be glad they paid.
Author Josh FoxPosted on November 4, 2017 January 1, 2018 Categories Articles, TheoryTags apocalypse world, game design, Moves, Night Witches, pbta, roleplaying, Sagas of the Icelanders, Urban Shadows6 Comments on PBTA – Moves overload
Some thoughts about GMless gaming
I'm a big fan of what is sometimes called GMless[1][2] gaming. I get things from it that I don't get from GM'd gaming (whether I'm GMing or not). But there are also problems I or others in my group have experienced with GMless games, sometimes bad enough that it makes the experience unenjoyable. I'm going to use this post to talk about the good stuff and the bad stuff, and some things I like to do in my GMless design to mitigate the bad stuff.
This is the good shit
So why do I like GMless gaming? The main reason is simply that I love focusing in on one character, creating and developing them, advocating for them and pushing them along whatever journey they turn out to be on; but I also love getting my hands dirty creating and developing a world and situations, using those situations to create problems and opportunities for others and portraying more than one character. Some GM'd games allow me a bit of both[3], but it's unusual for a GM'd game to scratch both itches at once. By contrast my best GMless experiences have given me both in spades. It's a particular issue for campaign play, where I'm effectively committing to stay in one role for a long time – this nearly always leads to frustration that I can't switch roles.[4]
There's more, though! A big part of the fun of roleplaying, for me, is when I create something or do something and then others input to that in unexpected ways, and my own creation ends up going somewhere I couldn't have planned or better yet boomeranging back and hitting me in the face. And while this does happen in GM'd games – everything the GM says or does can prompt unexpected action by a player, and vice versa – with GMless games I can literally create something and have someone else run off with it and make it part of something I had nothing to do with. A character I created could end up played by someone else, could literally hit my character in the face. The potential for creative interaction in a GMless game is particularly rich.[5]
Issues with GM'd play
There's also an issue that can arise with GM'd play where the fact of one person having a superior position in terms of information and mechanical power leads to the rest of the players becoming kind of passive. At the extreme, it can lead to a sort of spoon feeding, where the GM is responsible for all the fun, and the players are only there to react to what they create. Many GM'd games have tried to break out of this in various ways (see footnote 3 below for examples) but it is devilishly difficult to create the mindset of active contribution once it sets in. In fact, it can be extremely difficult to get a group into GMless gaming, once they've got into this mindset – something I'll discuss later.
Indeed, GM'd play can create a lot of pressure for the Chosen One who must turn up every week with ideas and energy. There's no rest for them. A player can sit back and be a bit passive on a given session (or even over a whole campaign, if they're so inclined). As long as they haven't ended up in the role of group leader (which has some similar issues), they can engage or coast and the game mostly copes. This can be a plus for the individual and for the group, since the game doesn't fall over if one person is wiped out. But by contrast if the GM is exhausted or not in the mood (or worse, burned out), the game cannot proceed. It dies. So many games have met this fate – I can't imagine anyone who has played a GM'd game hasn't experienced it. GMless play carries risks of its own in this regard (see below) but it doesn't rely on one person to be awesome all the time.
Problems with GMless play
Alright, that's my two big positives for GMless gaming, and my two big negatives for GM'd gaming. But I've said that I have had problems with GMless too – let's talk about those. Let me say right now that some of these issues aren't exactly new blinding insights, and there's lots of tools out there for dealing with them, which I'll talk about as we go.
Direction, energy and structure
There's a big one around direction, energy and structure. Sometimes in the absence of a GM there's nothing to stop the game kind of meandering or stalling. There's several ways this can happen. One is on a scene-by-scene basis, where nobody really has an idea for what a scene should be "about" or where it's going, and so it just fizzles. But then, on a story level, a bunch of energetic scenes may not really add up to much, and the overall arc of the game becomes frustrating or boring. This is I think a particular problem if a group includes players who aren't used to being in a GM-like role, who tend to play passively and not want to push things in any given direction.
On the other hand, the opposite can happen. One person might be so pushy or definite in their ideas that they take over every scene and become de facto GM. Or two or more people may be trying to do stuff at the same time, creating a different type of lack of direction. And one way that this can spill over in the opposite direction is where people feel the only way to effectively contribute to the game is to fire exciting things at each other, in an escalating pattern that is sometimes called Going Gonzo.
Direction, energy and structure problems generally come from two things: a lack of common creative ideas, and a lack of structure in the game design itself. This can easily lead to meandering or chaotic play, and if players aren't listening to each other and simply pushing their own ideas, it can also lead down the path of Gonzo. Fortunately there's lots of approaches to help deal with this:
For the group, discussing and agreeing what the game might be about before the game, and perhaps during as well. Things like Microscope's palette are simple tools to get yourselves on the same page.[6] Caerllion introduces the neat idea of a Lodestone which tells everyone broadly what the story is going to focus on.
For the individual, actively listening to others' contributions and responding to them, as opposed to waiting for them to guide the scene to wherever they might be headed or trying to jump in and provide some impetus of your own.
For the designer, avoiding an entirely freeform approach to the game's design, but helping to provide nudges towards the particular kind of play you want to see in your game. This can take many forms: you can create specific types of scene which help the players to focus on a particular kind of action; you can structure the overall arc of the game; you can provide prompt lists so people don't draw a blank; you can mechanise the way that players contribute, constraining what they can do; and more besides. What you're trying to do here is make sure that nobody comes to a scene without a clear focus, and perhaps give them a menu of approaches to reduce the risk of drawing a blank and reinforce the tone of the game.
(When it comes to introducing structure you have to be careful, of course, that you don't remove all the interest from the game. There has to be player input to the action, else why play at all? The best structured games exert a light touch and leave a lot of undefined space where player creativity steps in.)
A particular approach I'm fond of is to explicitly call out who is responsible for the direction of a particular scene. I'm not saying someone has an idea and then railroads everyone else into following it (though you could do that). But in every scene someone – mandated by the rules – is responsible for framing a difficult situation, or introducing adversity, or preceding the scene with a question which everyone is trying to answer, or similar. This avoids diffusion of responsibility and reduces the risk of meandering; and as long as this responsibility rotates, it can help prevent one person taking over.
Mysteries, secrecy and black boxes
By the way, a particular subset of direction issues arises from the Black Hole problem, where someone creates a mystery or black box of some sort and then neglects to resolve it. For example, I introduce a character who is clearly up to something, but I refuse to make it clear what that something is and seem to be hoping someone else will make the decision for me. The bottom line here is that you shouldn't do this, and not doing it needs to be a part of every GMless game's guidance. It can be ok to introduce something and ask someone else to define it for you, but this does generally require you to explicitly ask them to do so, not simply expect them to guess that you're hoping they'll do it. So, it's ok to have a mysterious stranger carrying a black box – but then you either need to decide what's in it and make that true, or ask someone else what's in it and be guided by what they say.
Related to the above is the general problem of secrecy. If I want to play a game with a mystery in it, one that is genuinely mysterious, it necessary to have a person who owns that mystery and secretly knows what's really going on? You might think so, because otherwise two people with conflicting ideas might unknowingly undermine each other, and anyway how can something be really mysterious unless I have no part in defining that mystery? Having ownership of mysteries is not a bad idea – and it doesn't necessarily require a GM, you could just make it clear when you introduce your black box that it's yours, you know what's in it, and everyone else should defer to you in matters black box-related. But it is possible to have a mystery that nobody owns without it not being mysterious. Lovecraftesque does this – at the end of every scene, the players individually and secretly "leap to conclusions" about what happened in the scene, so that everyone has their own pet theory about what's in any black boxes that may have been introduced. And because only one person is Narrator at one time in Lovecraftesque, there will always be moment-to-moment consistency about what the black box seems to be. This does require you to pay attention in every scene, so that your pet theory remains consistent with everything that has happened! But I would argue that's a good thing.
Role hopping
Another problem which seems to be more major for some people than for others is the issue of hopping between roles, so that you feel a lack of connection or commitment to any one of them. A particularly important subset of this is a feeling of not being able to "immerse" in a character, because you're too busy trying to think about things outside of them. It seems as though there can be a conflict of interest – and a difference of mental attitude – between advocating for one character and guiding the "story"[7] or the broader elements of the game world, which can prevent people from really getting into either one.
This, it seems to me, is a challenge that hasn't quite been answered by any one game as yet. However the approach we took with Lovecraftesque, and which I'm taking with my game Flotsam, is to avoid it by making role changes much more structured and well delineated. In other words, I don't ask you to play your character and be the GM at the same time – I ask you to do both roles, but at different times. In this way you can dedicate yourself to one job at a time. Flotsam attempts to make this flexible, by giving you permission to step outside your character and make GM-like contributions, but also making sure there's nearly always at least one person who is on point as GM, who will deal with any GM-like contributions when they're needed, so that you have permission not to do it when you're focusing on your character. Flotsam is being playtested at the moment, so it remains to be seen how successful I've been there. Another possible approach to mitigate the problem is to make parts of the game off-limits to GMly intervention, safe spaces for "pure" in character interaction where you can focus on being your character. Indeed, When the Dark is Gone applies such an approach to an entire game (I suspect it may also be a common approach in LARP, where GM interventions pose other problems).
Too much like hard work
A final problem to mention is the "everyone awesome, all the time" problem. The problem with everyone being GM is that the issue I identified earlier on, of constant pressure on the GM, applies to everyone. I'm expected to contribute to every scene, I have to be always creatively ready to pick up what others create and build on it. This can be exhilarating! It can also be exhausting. And it means if anyone comes to the game not really ready to contribute, then the game may stall. If a lot of the group are tired or feeling passive, then it can start to feel like a GM'd game where one person ends up taking the reins. It also can be off-putting for many groups who aren't used to the pressure of being switched on for a whole session, or simply don't want to have to be. This may explain why a lot of GMless games are designed for one-shot play: short, intense, and over before you get too tired.
I think this last is chiefly a problem for us game designers. We need to find ways to design our games that allow people to step back and take a break. Don't create a setup where everyone is always on. (Or maybe do, but then make it a one-shot and/or encourage breaks.) You can do this by not having a fixed requirement on who is involved in a scene, so that those with the energy pick it up and get involved, while those who are tired spectate; or you can do it by having a fixed requirement by making sure that it rotates around, leaving everyone with quiet periods they can just watch and listen. Again, in Flotsam I'm trying to design a system that lets people switch in and out in a fairly flexible way, choosing how actively they want to be involved – we'll see how well it works in practice.
I'll just finish off by saying that a lot of these problems can be solved on a group-by-group basis through a culture of listening, give and take, common ideas about what's fun and so forth. Some groups may be so good at this that these problems don't even arise. That's great – but not every group has this, and it can be challenging to develop such a culture. As a game designer I want to help everyone to get a good experience from my games by providing tools which reduce these problems regardless of what group they're in.
Ok! That was long. I'd love to hear about other people's experiences or approaches to cracking some of these problems. Please do give your views in comments.
[1] "GMless" is sometimes replaced by the word "GMful", which I believe to be interchangeable with "GMless", and merely a way of emphasising that in a GMless game, everyone gets to be GM. I have also seen "GMful" used to mean a game where the GM role exists but different people occupy it at different times.
[2] As far as I'm concerned, any game that doesn't have a single person who has primary responsibility for describing the world, playing the bulk of the characters (except for the "player characters") and generating any adversity required for the game, is at least partly GMless. Sometimes that's because the role exists but rotates, sometimes it's broken down or structured and handed out amongst the group, sometimes it simply doesn't exist.
[3] Games like FATE have mechanics that give me temporary ability to narrate stuff outside my character, PBTA games usually include a bit of co-authorship for the world in the form of question-asking, and arguably most GM'd games at least give you some creative input on stuff outside your character such as key NPCs connected to them.
[4] GM burnout being a good example – though that is also caused by the pressure that a highly GM-led gaming approach tends to heap on the GM.
[5] There's a whole set of ways in GM'd gaming where you can create stuff that literally never interacts with anyone else. The secret backstory nobody ever finds out about. The mega-plot that nobody knew was happening. Even the notorious cases where the plot is a railroad, with the players forming a passive audience to it. I'm not going to say this can't happen in GMless gaming, but the whole setup makes it pretty obvious to all concerned that if you didn't say it out loud, it hasn't happened yet, so secret plot and backstories could get nixed by someone else any time; and railroading is essentially impossible. Good!
[6] These same tools are useful for ensuring a consistent genre and tone as well – which can potentially be a problem, but in my experience much easier to solve.
[7] I put "story" in quotes there because I don't buy into the often-promulgated idea that GMless games mean everyone just focuses on the story and everything else is secondary. This is not how I play GMless games at all! It is true that I sometimes take individual decisions differently "for the good of the story" but it's very much not the main approach. I dedicate myself to the fictional situation and push it forward, while actively trying to get my contributions to engage with what others are doing, and I don't particularly worry about "is this making a good story". For me, story is something that doesn't happen in any given decision or moment, and it's something that one only really needs to pay attention to when things are going wrong.
Author Josh FoxPosted on September 25, 2017 June 10, 2018 Categories Articles, Theory, TipsTags flotsam, flotsam rpg, flotsamrpg, gmful, gmless, lovecraftesque, microscope, roleplaying, space askew, story games, when the dark is goneLeave a comment on Some thoughts about GMless gaming


Seeking the best favor rings with good quality and affordable price from DHgate Canada site. We provide a variety of cheap open rings for girls supplied by reliable sellers around the world. It's our pleasure to provide an online platform and connect you and screw lock rings that is on sale. Enjoy your options across our presentations and find the good bronze base rings from ca.dhgate.com with free delivery to Canada.


Happy New Year fellow seekers! Wishing us all a safe, healthy, and successful journey in 2019.
A new year is always a time for new energy. So as I seem to suggest often in these blogs, once again this is a perfect time to think about what you wish to manifest in your life. I like to write down a list of at least 10 things. When writing be sure to keep it in the positive. Write what you do want, not what you don't. It is a nice idea to tuck this list away somewhere and revisit it in say June, 2019 or next December.
Time seems to be moving faster, at least it feels that way to me lately. There is a message here about slowing down, listening, becoming aware. The one thing that always helps with this is getting in contact with our breath and meditation. A reminder to begin a practice in 2019 if you do not already have one. Or if you do, to recommit to that practice.
Wishing you a New Year filled with love, peace, and prosperity.


The SPT SD-2202S is a counter top dishwasher. So yeah, for those of you whom did not know, counter top dishwashers are a thing. I was surprised to find out too. In fact, there were a few things that I was surprised to find out about the SPT SD-2202S: like the stainless steel interior. I was wracking my brain trying to remember another small appliance that had a stainless steel interior and a different color exterior.
The dimensions for this little baby are 21.65W x 19.69D x 17.24H inches. While these measurements aren't the smallest for a small kitchen appliance, it is certainly smaller than a standard dishwasher. Without sacrificing performance, I typically prefer smaller appliances. Below, I've reported my findings from researching this counter top dishwasher.
A Small Dishwasher for Your Counter Top?
When I first found out about counter top dishwashers, I didn't realize all of the people that could need a device like this. For most people, a counter top dishwasher wouldn't be essential. But, after a little while, I thought of all the people whom might need it: busy moms, college students, persons with no built-in dishwasher, small families living in small places, and persons with disabilities etc. Certainly, there are many more situations that would bring about the need for a counter top dishwasher, like a small office kitchen.
The SPT SD-2202S is a stainless steel product. Though, the body exterior is coated in a thin silver plastic, while the interior shows stainless steel. Apparently, the exterior is durable, according to a few owners. At 48 pounds, it is pretty heavy for a small kitchen appliance. The shipping weight, 73 pounds, might be too heavy for you. Perhaps you may need to arrange for assistance in lifting it upon delivery.
Again, the dimensions are 21.65W x 19.69D x 17.24H inches. It's not too tall to fit on your counter and under your cabinet. But, will it fit on your counter? Depending on the space available on your cabinet and the placement of your fridge, stove, and sink, it may not fit. You should measure before you buy.
Of course, hoses will need to be connected from the dishwasher to your faucet. For you, this might be unsightly. I'm usually a stickler for aesthetics, so this would be a big con for me if it had to stay on the counter connected to the faucet. You can run the hose along the seam of the counter and the wall, or only connect the hose while in use. The hose adapter is easy to attach and detach.
The SPT SD-2202S registers 55 decibels while in use. That isn't very loud. In fact a normal conversation takes place at about 60 to 70 decibels. So it won't be like having a washing machine in your kitchen while running a cycle.
A cycle uses about four gallons of water. You can fit about 6 place settings: cups, saucers, plates, forks, spoons, knives. The maximum plate size is 10.5 inches. No, an 11 inch plate just won't fit. Someone already asked. There is an 8-hour delayed start feature. This is good if you share a living space and need the dish washing cycle to start after your roommate puts in their dishes.
This Sunpentown countertop dishwasher seems to be a well built machine. But yet and still, there are other counter top dishwashers out there that offer a value proposition that could be more suited for you. Take a look at the competition below.
The EdgeStar DWP61S is a six place setting portable counter top dishwasher. I know, I know, looks isn't the most important thing to consider in a small appliance, but the EdgeStar is undoubtedly better looking than the SPT. The digital control panel is LED blue lit. The capacity, max plate size, and several other features are the same. They have roughly the same dimensions.
If you check for yourself, you are sure to take into consideration, the feedback for the Edgestar dish washer. There is enough feedback available to make some general conclusions. There are a lot of satisfied customers, although there are some customers with complaints. Overall, this model is a dish washing machine with cooler features and a more proven track record. Both of these dishwashers are made by companies that tend to produce high-quality products.
After doing the research, I believe that the SPT SD-2022S is a good choice. It has a quality stainless steel construction and it was manufactured by a company that makes quality goods overall. The unit does take up a decent amount of space, but for most customers whom would need it, it's simply worth it. The silver color is neutral enough to match your décor. You might find yourself wanting a more modern looking dishwasher, or maybe you'd prefer a different color. The EdgeStar DWP61ES is a good choice also.
Counter top dishwashers are great for a variety of people for all kinds of different reasons. Maybe you want a counter top dishwasher for your kid when he/she goes away to college…? Whatever the reason, consider the size and where you will place it before you buy. Good luck!


On April 17, 2010 EAR CANDY hosted 10 youth for a special tour of the Mesa Center for the Arts and an evening with Grammy Winner Pat Metheny.
"Thank you so much for the opportunity to let the students get introduced to a performer such as Pat Metheny. It was so nice for the kids to see backstage and how things work. Our tour guide really gave a sense to how concerts and events are put together. He gave the students something to think about as they watched the concert. Sheehan was especially nice in guiding the students and asking questions to get to know them a little better. I am going to have my students write up a thank you letter to Ear Candy.
Thanks again for all Ear Candy does to help these kids get special opportunities like this one."


text:
module Compass::Canvas::Backend::Interface
  # Interface Context class.
  class Context < Base
    # Unpacks argument +width+ from Sass to a Ruby object.
    def line_width(width)
      [width.value]
    end

    # Unpacks argument +type+ from Sass to a Ruby object.
    def line_cap(type)
      [type.value]
    end

    # Unpacks argument +type+ from Sass to a Ruby object.
    def line_join(type)
      [type.value]
    end

    # Unpacks argument +limit+ from Sass to a Ruby object.
    def miter_limit(limit)
      [limit.value]
    end

    # Unpacks argument +type+ from Sass to a Ruby object.
    def antialias(type)
      if type.is_a?(Sass::Script::Color)
        [type.to_s]
      else
        [type.value]
      end
    end

    # Unpacks argument +type+ from Sass to a Ruby object.
    def fill_rule(type)
      [type.value]
    end

    # Unpacks argument +level+ from Sass to a Ruby object.
    def tolerance(level)
      [level.value]
    end

    # Unpacks arguments +X+ and +Y+ from Sass to Ruby objects.
    def translate(x, y)
      [x.value, y.value]
    end

    # Unpacks arguments +X+ and +Y+ from Sass to Ruby objects.
    def scale(x, y)
      [x.value, y.value]
    end

    # Unpacks argument +angle+ from Sass to a Ruby object.
    def rotate(angle)
      [angle.value * (Math::PI / 180.0)]
    end

    # Unpacks matrix arguments from Sass to Ruby objects.
    def transform(xx, yx, xy, yy, x0, y0)
      [xx.value, yx.value, xy.value, yy.value, x0.value, y0.value]
    end

    def slow_blur(*args)
      radius = args.shift.value
      [radius].concat(Compass::Canvas::Functions.unpack(args).flatten)
    end
  end
end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
A Blog About Facts of the World
Home » Medical » 10 Facts about Alzheimer's disease
10 Facts about Alzheimer's disease
Tuesday, January 6th 2015. | Medical
Let's discuss Facts about Alzheimer's disease if you want to know the progressive brain disorder. When people have Alzheimer, their intellectual and memory abilities will be decreased. The disease damages the brain cells. Find out more interesting facts about Alzheimer in the following post below:
Facts about Alzheimer's disease 1: dementia
One of the common forms of dementia is Alzheimer. The lay people understand the disease as the loss of the intellectual abilities and memory. This disease is very fatal. There is no cure ever found for Alzheimer.
Facts about Alzheimer's disease 2: a low moving disease
Alzheimer is included as a slow moving disease. The patients of Alzheimer will experience memory loss gradually. Then they will experience the severe brain cell damage.
Alzheimer's Disease Brain
Facts about Alzheimer's disease 3: death
In America, Alzheimer is ranked on the sixth position of the leading cause of death.
Facts about Alzheimer's Disease 4: Dr. Alois Alzheimer
The name of the disease was taken from the name of Dr. Alois Alzheimer. He was a neuropathologist who made an autopsy on one woman who died after having memory loss, unpredictable behaviors and language problems in 1906.
Alzheimer's Disease Detection
Facts about Alzheimer's disease 5: the characteristics of the disease
Dr. Alzheimer found out the characteristics of the disease after conducting the research. They include neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid plaques.
Facts about Alzheimer's disease 6: a blood test
A blood test can be conducted to predict whether a person will develop Alzheimer disease or not in the future. It was a result of the researches conducted on healthy persons. The result of the research was published on 9 March 2014. Check out facts about ALS here.
Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis
Facts about Alzheimer's disease 7: age
When people get older, the chance of having Alzheimer is increased. The risk is doubled every five years after you are 65 years old. If you are affected with Alzheimer, the first symptoms of having this disease appear after you are more than 60 years old.
Facts about Alzheimer's disease 8: head trauma
The head trauma also contributes a lot to the risk of having Alzheimer. There is a possibility for the people to develop Alzheimer if they experience the loss of consciousness and repeated trauma.
Alzheimer's Disease Facts
Facts about Alzheimer's disease 9: the family history and heart health
The risk of developing Alzheimer also increases if there are many family members who develop it. The high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol also play important parts of having Alzheimer. Find out facts about ALD here.
Facts about Alzheimer's disease 10: Symptoms
The symptoms of Alzheimer include memory loss, confusion, weight loss, trouble of handling money, seizures, personality changes, paranoia, increased sleeping, delusion, and lack of control of bowel and bladder.
Facts about Alzheimer's Disease
What do you think on facts about Alzheimer disease?
tags: Alzheimer's disease, Facts about Alzheimer's disease
Related For 10 Facts about Alzheimer's disease
10 Facts about Cystic Hygroma
If you want to know about congenital multiloculated lymphatic lesion, look at the following explanation on Facts about Cystic
10 Facts about Brain Tumors
The abnormal cells which develop in the brain are explained in Facts about Brain Tumors. The benign tumors and
10 Facts about Elizabeth Blackwell
Facts about Elizabeth Blackwell give the important information about British physician. She was born on February 3rd, 1821 and
10 Facts about AMH
Facts about AMH discuss about the Anti Mullerian hormone. This hormone is visible to the damage on the Mullerian
10 Facts about Emile Waldteufel
10 Facts about Emile Durkheim
10 Facts about Emiliano Zapata
10 Facts about Emeralds
10 Facts about Birth Control Pills
10 Facts about Coeliac Disease
10 Facts about Cri Du Chat
10 Facts about Anabolic Steroids
About Us Contact Us Disclaimer Privacy Policy Sitemap
Copyright © 2017 Fact File

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Syedna Taher Fakhruddin TUS will preside over the Urus Majlis of 43rd Dai al-Mutlaq Syedna AbdeAli Saifuddin RA on 12th Zil Qa'da 1438H (4th August 2017) in Bakersfield, California after Jum'oa Zohr Asar Namaaz.
In Mumbai, Shehzada Abdeali bhaisaheb Saifuddin will preside over Urus Majlis in Ivan-e-Fatemi, Darus Sakina after Maghrib Isha Namaaz on 12mi raat (3rd August 2017). Mumineen are invited for Salawaat Jaman after Majlis.


text:
Demi Lovato to fill in for Selena Gomez at the Global Citizen Festival
Demi Lovato has Selena Gomez's back.
The "Cool for the Summer" singer is stepping up to fill in for her longtime friend Gomez, who pulled out as a headliner of the 2016 Global Citizen Festival later this month.
Gomez, plagued by her ongoing struggle with the side effects of her Lupus diagnosis – including anxiety, panic attacks and depression – announced last month that she is taking a break from show business for a while and cancelled all upcoming events.
"I want to be proactive and focus on maintaining my health and happiness and have decided that the best way forward is to take some time off," she said in a statement to People magazine in late August.
As for Lovato, who has been a longtime mental health advocate, she said in a Twitter video announcing her addition to the lineup that she was proud to support an effort to end world poverty.
"I'm excited and proud to support this cause and perform at the Global Citizen Festival," she said." Join me and Global Citizen to help promote mental health, well-being and gender equality."
Other performers slated to perform at the festival in New York City include Rihanna, Metallica, Kendrick Lamar, Usher, Coldplay, Ellie Goulding. Hosts will be Hugh Jackman and his wife Deborra-Lee Furness, Neil Patrick Harris, "Quantico" star Priyanka Chopra, Chelsea Handler, Salma Hayek and "Late Night" host Seth Meyer.