Dragons are Great and All, But Dungeons?

I've talked a bit about pen and paper gaming in previous posts, how ridiculously awesome it is, how disappointed I tend to be with newer systems. I think its about time to actually discuss how I run a game.

I've been told I'm a strange creature as far as GM's go; I'll let my players do damn near anything that doesn't kill immersion or outright violate the laws of common sense, I tend to build my worlds from whole cloth instead of utilizing existing settings, and I don't give my players a storyline. That last one seems to be the most unusual from what I've heard. I run my games open world, there are things happening, monsters to slay, maidens to rescue, machinations of the foulest sorts guiding forces of various descriptions, but I leave it largely to my players to explore the world I've created. Its not that I don't want to tell a story, its that there is more to a world, and therefore a game, than any one series of loosely connected quest lines. I run my games open because that's how the world is, your growth is determined by your conviction, your path is shaped by your interests. Sure, another story about a sinister lich/cleric/warlord/ruler trying to conquer/destroy/enslave the world can be a lot of fun, but there's more going on than that. What happens if you misjudge where your party is at mentally? What happens if the story you set up doesn't have the punch you thought it would?

By setting up a world, with individual characters, with factions interacting and forces influencing events on various scales, some of which directly effect the party, some of which will have effects later, some who'll never directly influence the party at all, I can create a world where something will always be happening. I can run a game that isn't done until we want to be done. And by letting players flex their creative muscles and bend rules that don't make sense or justify actions that fall beyond the normal scope of the game, they can shape the world in new and interesting ways, creating their own story lines and dealing with unforeseen consequences.

I love to run a living world because it forces me to be creative and active on a much higher level and it lets my players decide not only what stories they want to tell, but how far they want to pursue them. It's hard, admittedly; you either have to be able to work with a shit-ton of world level events simultaneously or improvise at blinding speed, but its incredibly rewarding if you can pull it off.

Gygax is My Spirit Animal

I'm late, I know. I'm bad at things and my heart is made of smelly cheese. Rather than self-flagellate over my established failings in punctuality I'm going to ramble about gaming some more.

I've written about my possibly unhealthy obsession with pen and paper gaming before, and none of that has changed. I fucking love tabletop gaming, rolling dice might as well be an aphrodisiac. That said some aspects do run afoul of my pickier sensibilities from time to time. As I've mentioned before, I game for the high degree of customization and adaptability available in a pen and paper situation. I dig the complexity of options and versatility of interactions; which makes it troublesome to me how many systems are trying so hard to become video games. When a system goes from versatile feats based on the development of skills and abilities to a series of powers or maneuvers dependent on level I see a problem. I will admit that its largely an issue of nuance but its a little difference that matters. One option encourages the growth and development of an interesting and at least relatively unique character and the other rewards you for your numbers going up by making your numbers go up.

I'm probably being a bit of a fuddy-duddy about this but I don't really care. I understand that there are perceived market factors in play, the new generations of gamers like a simplified system or whatever. I understand the desire to streamline what can be kind of ridiculously convoluted systems. Seriously, just the licensed books for D&D 3.5 numbers in the high sixties. But the effort to streamline also seems to act as a restrictive measure on the flexibility of the system. While I understand that nobody, especially me, wants to pay a thousand bucks to get a nice, relatively complete set of books; the methods used to clarify the system also demand a higher degree of specificity in the use of power. Classes that once stood as starting points in the development of a character and bases for roleplay options have started shifting into the MMO vernacular. You don't talk about the paladin in terms of her dedication and righteousness, you talk about her capacity as a tank and the control value of her powers. We don't talk about the sorcerer in terms of what his innate connection to magic does to his mind or what his draconic heritage means for his future, we talk about his DPS. I'm not saying the trend in the new systems makes this kind of roleplay impossible, but it is so much easier to ignore the story-potential of a character when more and more the only thing we're given rules for is how that character is equipped to kill shit. I know I'm picking on D&D pretty hard, and they are by no means the only perpetrators, but I feel like they lead the way, I mean D&D has been The Big Name in tabletop for a lot of years.

I feel like an old man yelling at these damn kids for their newfangled power cards and skilltrees, why back in my day you had to pass a tumble check just to get your armor on or whatever. I'm not saying that there aren't any good things to be had from the new breed (13th age has some interesting showings in the mechanics department) but I'm always left wanting more, and not in a good way. Give me some real skills, give me a chance to love my character for more than their ability to one shot a group of mooks, for fucks sake give me more control over my character than I'm liable to find in a Bioware game and we can talk. Until then I can't see myself spending money on, much less running, the new wave. I can't imagine I represent much of a loss in their profits but that's fine, I'm plenty capable of enjoying myself with some 3rd ed D&D or homebrew oWoD. Maybe I'm not alone. Hopefully, I'm not alone. If so, good luck out there. I hope to see you all at the table someday.

YKWFA 2: Player Characters

Alright, I need to go full on squeeing geek for a minute here. This post has been building for a while and I've had a strong need to write about something that doesn't inspire me to try and hate the world to death, so bear with me. Our topic today is my absolute favorite sort of meta-reference: the PCing of a world. Let me explain.

PCing is a narrative device derived from meta-reference wherein the presence of a player character in the world irrevocably changes the structure of the world, typically by fucking over someone in the game who ought to be important. Sometimes this takes the form of ill explained gaps in a game's mechanics that end up illuminating possibly unintentional subplots. Sometimes its the result of active interplay in the story environment. We'll work through some examples and then discuss the value PCing has as a narrative device. (HUGE SPOILER WARNING OF DEATH)

One of the most explored instances of PCing in a game is the roles of "Ash" and "Gary" in the first generation Pokemon games. By all rights the rival character Gary should be a nearly uncontested champion. He's related to the greatest Pokemon researcher in the world, so he's had, or at least had access to, extensive exposure not only to Pokemon in general but to unique qualitative and quantitative information in the field. He's driven and highly talented. Gary as a character has skill, talent, motivation and resources in spades. In fact he accomplishes nearly everything the player does before the player even has the option. He's also over shadowed in every possible way by the PC.

In the beginning of the game Gary's beloved grandfather Prof. Oak doesn't even remember his name (a good example of a mechanical weakness leading to accidental story depth) and he's largely disregarded in favor of his "childhood friend" that no one seems to know anything about. Over the course of the rest of the game Gary develops an almost compulsive need to beat the PC that results in progressively greater failures at the player's hands despite being relatively successful in all other areas. The PC is even the direct cause of the only possible instances of a Pokemon dieing in a battle (though that is debated weirdly fiercely). When Gary does finally become League Champion the PC comes along, beats his ass yet again, and shames him once again before his grandfather. The PC spends the entire game robbing Gary of his every accomplishment and depriving him of the love of his only relative. My favorite part about this is that its not because the PC is an asshole, its because they can't help it. The presence of a PC in the world ensures that the world bends in their favor. Let's see if I can't clarify with a couple more examples.

Fallout 3 starts out in a Vault, which are constantly demonstrated to be long term social experiments, and follows the development of the player in the Vault environment. Butch is one of the children the player grows up with and his story is what we're interested in for this idea; because Butch is the hero of Vault 101. Or at least he would be if it weren't for the PC.

Your first shown encounter with Butch is at the PC's 9th birthday party, where it quickly becomes clear that Butch is a dickhead. In contrast, everyone else at the party, with the exception of the Overseer, thinks very highly of the player. We learn at this point that Butch's mother is a non-functioning alcoholic, providing one explanation for his aggression. At one point during the player's escape from the Vault one of the Overseer's journal entries becomes available in which he is learned to have been utilizing Butch as a means of social control within the Vault. Given the closed system of the Vault and the low population the Overseer is almost certainly grooming the boy for a position of authority not to mention almost certainly vetting him as the likely husband to his daughter Amata, the only female child in the Vault. So lets build the story, it might be a little weird if you haven't played the game, but I have. Lots. So take my word for it.

Butch, seeking support outside his worthless mother, tries to find solace from the other adults in the Vault, who are all preoccupied with the Outsider child (player). Finding no comfort in any of the adults he develops a hefty resentment for the PC as he projects his inability to earn affection onto the player, he instead establishes a "gang" out of the other male children in the Vault. His gang has trouble understanding his aggression toward the PC, but his clear pain on the subject and threats of violence erode their empathy for the player, after all they must have done something for Butch to hate them so much. Being the clear Alpha male of the Vault's children he reaches out to Amata, once again the only female kid, whose father is the only person to value him over the PC. Amata doesn't share that perspective, making Butch feel even further alienated and cementing his rage.

Now here's the thing. The Vaults are all experiments, and Vault 101's purpose is never actively expressed. We know that the culture of 101 is geared to establish the Overseer as a sort of demigod, carrying on the practices that stave off the certain death of the Wasteland. Its not hard to imagine that Butch was meant to take on a leadership role in the Vault. He's charismatic (though his charisma becomes tainted by his aggression), he's strong, and he is highly capable of establishing and maintaining connections with the Vaultdwellers. The mere presence of the PC denies him even the opportunity to explore anything other than his own resentment.

Perhaps the most prominent example of PCing occurs in the Fallout: New Vegas DLC Lonesome Road. In it the player is contacted by a fellow Courier called Ulysses who bears a hell of a grudge. Over the course of the story Ulysses describes both his and the player's actions as Couriers before the events of the game and why Ulysses holds such hate for the player. It turns out that before the events of the game the player essentially tore the country in half. Basically on a whim. Ulysses became obsessed with this act, with what it means to be a Courier. What he finds, what he describes, is a PC. An active, self-actualized being in a world where they are surrounded by people completely at their mercy. The events he describes are the results of PCs in a world without PCs. What Ulysses describes, in both his previous actions and the actions of the player, are what it looks like to the outside world when a PC is active. This is, to me the best description of what a PC is in a game world.

In most games the player is largely lead about by the story, but from a narrative perspective they are all but gods. Their actions fundamentally alter the structure of the world. They are free to act in ways that other actors in the world are not, and the consequences of their actions reverberate through everything. That is why this device is so beautiful to me. By its nature it half-steps the player out of the game and gives context to their actions. It takes relatively simple choices and gives us a chance to consider their consequences, adding depth and engaging us in ways the game otherwise couldn't.