We all have a role to fill

Last time I've covered a Princess Tutu episode, it was a really early one. Since then, I began to question my remark that this series is a great GMing guide, but the ending of season one showed me otherwise. In episode 11, which I'll cover today, we are presented near the end with a remarkable scene. The annoying Drosselmeyer shows us that he does understand stories, when he reminds each character of his or her role in the unveiling one.

Now, this is an interesting case, because each character in the series plays a role in the story. To a certain respect, it is just like an RPG: each player is assigned a role to fill in the story that is being created (this is, again, a topic for another post). Our 4 main characters are our players, and Drosselmeyer is our GM.

This scene asks about roles. What roles does each side fill in the game? What is the players' role? What is their GM's role? To a certain respect, after almost 11 episodes, we are presented with the Social Contract of the "game". Each player got a role to fill, assigned to him or her by the GM, and this is their job. As long as they fill it, though, Drosselmeyer doesn't intervene. But when they do leave the role behind, Drosselmeyer reminds them and guides them back to their role.

This is one type of a Social Contract that can be made. We can also "sign" a contract that gives the GM an even greater role in the shaping of the game, a kind of game in which the players are only there for the ride. Or we can go the other route, to a game without a real GM, a game in which the players guide the game themselves. It can also, unsurprisingly, be somewhere in the middle.

But the Social Contract is only a part of a greater contract, the one called the Group Contract, which also covers such things as rule-systems and the like. It answers questions such as "how do we choose a rule-system?" "How closely do we follow the rules presented in the rules-system?" and so on.

Both of these concepts are there to help us play better games. They do it by giving us the tools to describe in detail the roles, expectations and responsibilities of each participating party. 

"I Walked with a Zombie"- The Power of the Voice over

Sometimes I start to think that maybe, just maybe, this genre isn't for me, that all those horror movies that I really like- it is all an accident and nothing more. And then comes a movie like this. I Walked with a Zombie might have a really bad name, but truth is that this is a descent movie, a good movie, even outside of the horror scope. It is even respectful for the minorities, considering that it's a 1943 movie, but even today it is far more respectful to the Voodoo than most movies today.

It is a movie about a nurse, who comes from Canada to an island in order to try and help to cure a woman who is in a coma. She tries her best, mainly because she's in love with that woman's husband. But the woman is far from being sick- she's a zombie, made like this because of a combination of voodooist magic and a desperate mother-in-low.

Like most Lewton movies, though, we don't really remember the director. Lewton's movies had such a distinctive style, and they were that good, that they surpassed the campy names given to the movies by the RKO studio executives.

But enough general movie talks, let's look at the movie, and especially what we can learn from it, shall we? For me, the main magic of the movie is the voice-overs in the beginning. They have dreamlike vibe to them, they're as mesmerizing as can be and they present has the character of Nurse Betsy Connell quickly and effectively. And I think that it can be useful in RPGs too.

Think about it for a sec- a scene has just ended, and before moving to the next scene, we have a break and one of the players gives a monologue, in voice over, showing what goes in his/her character's mind. Wouldn't it be wonderful? This opens to us a new world of possibilities for reflection scenes.

But it can be driven further that this- a character is facing a moral dilemma. Instead of just choosing, the player can do a voice-over, detailing the way that the character thinks, showcasing the thinking-machinations in the character's head. It can be used to explain changes of thinking, growth of characters and so much more.

I don't know, maybe I'm just optimistic, but if there is one thing that this movie showed me, is that it can be made in any stage of the game, and it carries so many benefits as a way to present characters, to showcase them, to create identification with them, to understand them. Most films during those times used voice-over to present motives, not to convey feelings, after all…

How about you? Have you considered using voice-overs in your games? How did it go? And what else have you learned from this movie?

The Players just roll the Dice…

One of the most common problems that I've seen in games is a lack of understanding about the distinction between what the players do and what their characters do. Let's explain this strange sentence with an example:

It is a D&D session, and a fight erupts. Fighter raises his axe and attacks Orc Number 1, while Wizard shoots Orc Number 2 with a magic missile.

Now, let's analyze this scene. What do the characters do? Wizard casts a spell, Fighter attacks with his spell. What do the players do? They roll the dice, and… that's about it. And that is the problem that I mentioned in the first sentence of this post. The fact that the characters are fighting, and have a certain chance to die, isn't relevant that much, because at the end all they do is to roll some dice.

Actually, if you look at it this way, looking for clues in Call of Cthulhu is not that much different: You enter a room, and you try to notice things. The character does that, I mean. You just roll the dice. Or in other words, if we want to differentiate between types of scenes, we should think in terms of what the players do and not in terms of what the characters do. Because if in both cases we just roll the dice, there is no difference. Or at the very least, not a real difference between the scenes.

And that's a distinction that I think one really has to make and hold to her heart. When one writes an adventure, or improvises one, you should always try to think in terms of what the players will do. Will the players just roll some dice? If so, maybe I should find another thing that they'll be able to do, like inventing the adversaries, or giving them as much roleplaying scenes as possible?

After all, we sit with the players, in the real world, and not with the characters in an imaginary one…

Success with a Cost

Another week, another session. We finished the first story arc. None of us really know if the problem was solved or not, but as it seems, we won't tackle laughing books anymore. They came back in time and defeated the villains before the problems really begun, winning the "fight" against them before most of the books left the library. So it is a win.

But you know, winning wasn't the goal in the first place. I mean, maybe some of them wanted to succeed, but I'm not even sure of that. Looking at their favorite scenes' list from the arc, most of them are major plot points, or catalysts for major plot points. No challenge that they've overcame found its way to the list.

So what did we look for? My money is on story possibilities. And because of that, it is no surprise that the "success with a twist" idea is so powerful. The idea is quite simple- when the players roll a failure, they can sometimes still succeed, but it will not be a complete success, because something bad is gonna happen alongside the success.

It's not a new invention by me, but I must say that again and again I'm surprised by the possibilities it presents for me. And most of the times, they are the ones who describe/create the bad happening. They are the ones who bring their doom to join hands with their successes. And I think that this is the reason that this idea is so powerful: because they bring to themselves the bad events that hurt they're the most. And this crates the drama that we're all looking for.

When a group isn't looking to win, but to enjoy creating together a nice little (or not so little) story, it is only fitting that they will look to increase the drama level in the game. And if they can do it through successes also, it is only better. Especially if it lets them escape complete failures when it doesn't fit dramatically, I suppose.

So yeah, this is one of the tools that I use to increase the drama. How about you? What do you use?

Background Is Not Mandatory

I don't ask my players to write a backstory anymore. It's not that they don't know how to write good ones because not only some of them write quite a lot of stories in their free and not so free time (and a pretty damn good fiction also), they do know how to write good backstories. It's also not because I don't love reading backstories, because I really do. I stopped asking them to write backstories because I think that there are better ways to create a connection and to get a feel for the character. I still welcome backstories, but it is not mandatory anymore.

I now use a different tool, a series of 10 questions that I devised over the last year and a half, which I find quite satisfying. It gives me and them roleplaying tools, creates a feel for the character, enriches the world and takes far less time than it would take to get all of that from a backstory.

The questions are presented in this order, in these groupings:

1) What is your character obsessed about?

2) What triggers your character's rage and anger?

3) What scares your character the most?

4) What makes your character be her best self?

5) Who is your character's best friend?

6) How would he/her describe your character?

7) Where would he/she be wrong?

8) What is your character's goal?

9) What tools does your character have in order to achieve them?

10) How is your character connected to the other characters in the group?

After presenting those questions, I wanna take a moment or two and go through each question, explaining why I used this questions and what do I get from them.

What is your character obsessed about?

This question gives me a simple tool- something that I can get to draw the character to the story with, if I'll ever need one. But it does more than that. A player can use the answer to signal to the GM what she wants to see in the game ("my character is obsessed about killing orcs"), or he can use the answer to breath more life into the character ("my character is obsessed about flowers").

What triggers your character's rage and anger?

This is again a question that gives a simple identification tool. But it also gives us more than that. It is usually used to describe what one's character will fight about ("whenever I see injustice"). I, though, prefer using this answer to shed some light about my character's uglier self ("losing in something that I'm good at", for example).

What scares your character the most?

Every one of us is afraid of something, it part of what makes us real persons. It is also true for our characters. For that we have this question coming to the rescue. While its immediate usage seems like only for horror games (and in those games, it is preferable to answer with something that the player is afraid of also), I think that it has much more uses than that. In most heroic stories, the heroes and heroines face their fears and overcome them in order to win. But for that to happen, we have to have those fears in the first place, right?

What makes your character be her best self?

But our characters also have a good side, and this question is used to showcase it. These are the times when the character will do everything that she can in order to help the persons around her. She will defeat the adversaries, help the wounded or whatever else that she can in order to achieve this goal or to solve this problem.

But one of my players used this question to show another ugly side of the character. She answered this question with this answer: "Only when my character feels better than someone else".

Who is your character's best friend?

Remember all those tip articles about mining the backgrounds of the characters for NPCs to add? Here is my answer (well, the first part of it anyway…). This answer gives all of us a major secondary character to add to the story. It can be used to hook the characters for something, to illustrate the PC or anything else. It populates the world with a character that the player already feels for.

How would he/her describe your character?

This gives us the primary characteristics of the character. How she presents herself and how she is seen by everyone in the world. Answers such as "dependable", "smart" or "honest" gives us easy gates into the character's psyche, while others such us "pretty", "strong" or "has a keen eye" showcase more physical characteristics that can't be ignored.

Where would he/she be wrong?

This question I like to nickname as the twist one, or the "thank-god-my-friend-doesn't-know-about-it question". This is a usually dark or ironic twist about the descriptors from before. "My character is not brave, but just too scared for being afraid"; "my character isn't smart, but just recites old sayings". One of my players decided that his character isn't playful because she's afraid to lose her playful friend.

Take into account, though, that it can be used to illustrate the friend also. If we'll look at my player's example, we get a friend who has a territory- "I'm the funny and playful one"- and will probably fight for it.

What is your character's goal?

This is the ultimate goal of the character. This is something that should be unachievable till the end of the campaign (or at the very least very hard to achieve). This is the character's dream, where she sees herself in 20 years' time or whatever.

In my MLP campaign I tweaked it a little bit, changing it to "what is your character's childish goal", because they are children and as such their dreams are prone to change all the time.

What tools does your character have in order to achieve them?

The answer here can give me a lot of tools. If the player answers with NPCs, then we have more characters the players care for in the world. But other answers can be given as well- one of my players gave answered this question "because I really want to", thus making the character a childish one. It can also be used to showcase the character's most famous moves or whatever, showcasing the way she behaves and/or acts in the world.

How is your character connected to the other characters in the group?

Now is the time to answer this question. After we have the personalities of the characters, and we know who they know, we can finally answer this question organically. I always ask the players to come with an answer together. This way, they both feel that they're part of it and they all care for it more because of that.

And an end

And that's it, my 10 questions with the logic behind them. I hope that you'll find them as useful as I've found.

How about you? Do you use a similar questionnaire? If so, in what way? And if not, why not?

Whose Game Is It?

I think that it was just yesterday when I wrote about my MLP campaign. When the session ended, one of the players sent us a drawing of the characters. Apart from the cool factor and the feeling of epicness for such an instant, what struck me more was the conversation that ensued.

Player 1: You should post it on Facebook.

Player 2 (the artist): What should I write?

Player 1: Tag all of us-

Player 3 (interrupting): And write that it's Yosi's campaign.

I immediately said that this campaign is owned by all of us, it is our campaign, and that they created the story as much as I did. A quick conversation ensued, and it got published as "our campaign (but mostly Yosi's)".

I have 4 players in this group. Each one with different amounts of experience with RPGs, with only one of them (quite ironically, player 3) having prior experience in one of my games. The fact that he's a regular player in my groups for about 2 years now is only this more ironic.

The consensus was clear- this is my campaign far more than it is their campaign. And I find it quite interesting. You see, I always use "my campaign/game" in my writing, because I took part in it, making it mine. It is my campaign not because I'm the GM, but because I help to drive it toward a certain dramatic beat. I don't mean here railroading, because I don't railroad (and my players can attest for that), but rather I mean here creating as much drama as I can, while ensuring that as much of the story and drama is created by them and/or for their playing instruments (the PCs) and them.

My players also play this way, and have almost as much control about the plot, setting and the like individually as I do. They create parts of the setting, their findings, they even invented the plot, creating and fleshing it between the sessions to our own amazement. Yet they all agreed that it was my campaign and not theirs.

And I'm confused. If it weren't for them, it would remain just a concept, an idea about a MLP game in which the players play Blank Flanks looking for their Cutie Marks. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't have a prophecy, or Sherlock Hooves, or Zombie-like ponies. If it weren't for them, the books wouldn't do anything more than fly and laugh till the end of days. If it weren't for them, the narrative wouldn't move from Canterlot to the Crystal Empire. If it weren't for them, they wouldn't meet Cheese Sandwich. Yet it is my campaign, according to their words.

Looking in forums, theory articles, RPG.SE and other places that I regularly visit, it seemed almost too prevalent, too widespread. I found only a handful of players who didn't gave the credit for the campaign's success, or the credit for ownership, to their GM. And it didn't matter if the game involved a pre-written narrative, a sandbox or a completely improvised game. It didn't matter if the players were active, passive, inventive or questioning for permission before each step on their way towards the end.

And I find it confusing and problematic. We always say that RPG is a type of shared experience. We always say that we create everything together. We always say that the story moved one way or the other because we, each and every one of us, chose so. So why do we still give the keys of ownership to the GM?

I don't have an answer. I have some theories, but not even a single one of them is fleshed out, not to mention able to stand a test or scrutiny. But I know that I don't like this mindset. Am I alone?

Letting the players invent

It's hard to believe, but it has been more than a year since my last post here. Quite a number of changes took place in my life, which I might get to write about them eventually. But not for that I wanted to come back to the blog. I wanted to write about RPGs again, 'cause it's a kind of passion that I still have. In the past year I've moved to "RPG Stack Exchange", where I was amazed by the sheer amount of knowledge going on in there.

I guess that some of the new posts in here will be renditions of some of the answers I wrote for questions that were asked there. But others, like the one that I'm writing now will be completely new., completely original. A word of caution, though: I don't know yet in what schedule I'll be updating here, in the blog. It might be every few days, or once a week, or who knows. But I'm back and hopefully for good.

With that said, it's time to start. Well… I'm reading right now a book, written by our beloved Gary Gygax , called "Master of the Game". It's part of the reason that I came back, but anyway, Gygax talks there quite a lot about the creative role of the GM. He all but says that the players are there for the ride, w=and it is the sole responsibility of the GM to create content and invent things about the imaginary world.

And here I must wholly disagree. Part of the magic in the RPG world is that the story is created together, by the entire group. It is true that by deciding to knock on the dungeon door (for example) the player changes the fiction of the story, thus creating something of her own accord, but is it the only way that a player can use to invent something?

In rule-systems like Fate there are tools, mechanical tools, which the players use to invent things. But I must say that I don't think that it went far enough. The players need more than a limited amount of facts to invent about the imaginary world. If you ask me, a limited amount of facts to invent is far too limited for most groups.

I, for once, use a different system. Whenever I'm stuck without an idea, I ask my players for one. "So, you found the truth about the murder- what is it?" When I'm stuck, whatever my players will bring will be far better than what my stuck mind can bring to the story.

But even this is not far enough. It is a known fact that a great way to bring the players to care about something is to let them invent it. So nowadays I let my players invent and/or describe my NPCs, invent barrels and cats and other parts of the scenery, and much-much more.

For me, it has always been the shared creation of the story and of the world. This was my thing, the reason that I came back to the infamous seat of the GM. It is not groundbreaking. Hell, it's a technique that even I use for at least six or seven years. But nevertheless, it is one of those things that I wanna see more- GMs who let their players create and invent the world as equals to them [the GMs].

And somehow, just somehow, when I GM to new players, I see the players try to invent more. Has the social contract changed us so?

What do you think? Do you let your players invent and/or describe things in the imaginary world? And if so, to what extent?

Bringing Back the Sense of Consequence...

I've watched another Buffy episode today, also from the 3rd season. One concept slipped to my mind from it. It's nothing new, or surprising, but it's the single best way to stop our murder hobos from doing something that they're gonna regret about forever. The concept is consequences. If there will be consequences for what the PCs do, the PCs will stop with doing evil bad things for no apparent reason.

Anyway, here are 4 quick ways to bring back the sense of consequences to the game:

1. The police and other law enforcement groups are the single most common way to deal with it. Sure, players will sometimes pooh-pooh the police, but the sheer numbers of the policemen should be enough for that. If a party member commits a huge crime, have a chaotic scene in which the police takes the characters to an investigation, and the rest will be history...
2. Dreams. When that particular PC sleeps, dreams about the infamous action will come to the character's head. If the character has problems with sleeping, that little extra edge has been achieved. 
3. Vengeance. No real need to expand it, I think...
4. Alienation from the world. The stink of the evil doers has been glued to the character. People are whispering around him/her, every shadow is like a killing machine ready to destroy him/her...

And that's it for today. How about you? How do you bring this sense back?

The Player Is Responsible Also

Yeah, I took the other day off. But today we're back in business. Anyway, today I wanted to talk about something that bugs my mind. You probably read this also, these many posts that talk about the role of the GM as the lead entertainer, and I agree with them, but I don't think that it's an excuse for the player to only go for his (or her) fun.

You see, The GM is responsible for about 40-50% of the fun (and according to Robin Laws, the rule set for another 30%). It still leaves about 20-30% of the fun to the players. I personally believe that just as like the way the GM sacrifices from his/her fun in order to make everyone to enjoy the game, so it is the player's responsibility. The little player, not the group. 

I truly believe that fun is just like laughter, the only disease that you wanna get. It spreads like one, and some people fight it just like it is one. This means that if everyone at the table has fun, I'll have also. And it will be a much more rewarding fun than the type where only that certain player is enjoying it. 

What I'm trying to say is that a great player is responsible for more than just his/her enjoyment, but to the enjoyment of everyone. I might, in the future, make a more elaborate look at the differences between great player and a good player, as I see them, but 'till then...

How about you? Do you agree? Disagree? Feel free to tell me what you think.

The Story of Eleanor

This moment comes, when you open a new game, with new characters and all, and you all sit across the round table and wait for the ordinary world to disappear and for the imaginary world to fill the space. You, like every person wants to get into the mind of your character, you want to be him/her and not yourself anymore, at least for a few hours.

The GM starts to speak. She describes the setting, going over all the details of the bar that you're within, of the tired barkeeper and of the stinking man with the purple roses who's supposed to be some kind of a magician. Then he asks you: "What are you playing?"

And in a moment, everything that she built is lost. In a moment, you're not Beatrix anymore but only play her. The shift is too quick, too strange, too out of its place. You look at your wonderful GM with your eyes and she suddenly understands what mistake she made. She quickly corrects herself: "Can you please describe yourself?" And the change is far too great. Suddenly, you're not Eleanor anymore, but Beatrix. 

She then continues to one of her old tricks, and she asks you (just like she asks everyone else) a question about Beatrix. Not a familiar question, but a strange one. "What does Beatrix do every Sunday morning?" Last story opener she asked you about Lisa's marriage life, and she asked Bob's character about what he liked best in his wife. She didn't ask Bob, as she didn't ask you, she asked the characters. Suddenly, you were in the characters' minds, thinking like them. The shift was well familiar, and it felt great.

Today, it's the time to start a new session, and you begin in the same way your old GM opened the game. The players respond well, and you can see that they begin to be their characters, to come into their skin, to sit into their brains, just like the way it happened to you.

I don't know if I succeeded with what I tried to pass here. I hope I did. It's not magic, and Eleanor didn't lose touch with reality (although she wasn't real in the first place...). It just helped this Eleanor to be her character for a few hours, and to leave the troubles behind when she met her friends...

How about you? How do you help the players to be their characters?

A Letter for My Players

Dear players,

I'm writing for you this letter in response for the last one you've sent me. You said that you want to feel like heroes and heroines, that you want to feel more than just the anticipation for another victory, that you want the game to feel far more epic and interesting and... 

I want to deliver for you just that. You're my players, and I want to give you the best. But I want something from you too, in order to achieve that: I want you to stop being afraid of failures. Failure is not a dirty word, and failing sometimes doesn't make you a group of failures. 

I want you to stop being afraid from that, but more than that, I want you to let yourself fail. Drama is not about succeeding, it's about overcoming obstacles. If you're gonna win no matter what, there's no drama, and none of us will really enjoy the game. 

I promise you, I'll do whatever I can to raise the drama in order to make the story better. All I ask from you is to do your part too; to improve as much as I improve; to strive for drama as much as I strive for it (and I know that you do, just please bring it into the surface); To accept failure as much as I accept it and to let yourselves fail as much as I let myself fail.

After all, failing doesn't make you failures, fearing from it makes you less of the winner type. 

Thanks,

Your humble GM

"My Character Wouldn't Do That!"

Yesterday, inspiration struck me. I was reading a post over at Stargazer's and I understood right away that he's right. Sure, I had a few posts that were directed to my players (or to other GM's readers...), but it can't hurt to have another tips' post directed to them, can it?

Anyway, I wanted to talk about something that I've heard a lot, from myself and from many others: "My character wouldn't do something like that!" This dreadful answer is something that we hear or make in order to save ourselves from doing something that we don't like. "The mayor wants you to leave those cops alone. -My character hates cops, Holilo Lombrete won't do a thing like that!" 

Before we go for what I want to say today, I want first to examine why it's so problematic. There are many reasons and many problems that a statement like that carries with it. The first that I want to discuss is that a statement like that means that the player doesn't trust the GM. In other words, we have here a trust issue. If the player says something like that, he's like saying "I know what you want me to do, but I don't like this idea, so fuck off!" This is a sure way to make the next idea by the GM even worse or late or even make the GM have trust issues with himself/herself and no new and/or interesting ideas will come. Sure, I'm a little bit going for an over the top thing, but this is the way to get there (well, one of the ways...).

Secondly, it prevents the player(s) from getting to new and interesting places. Genesis had a song called "I know what I like (and I like what I know)", and this is the point of the song: I know what I like and don't like, and I like what I know, resulting in an anti to try new things.

Thirdly, it makes the characters stereotypes. I'm sure that almost any person that we'll see, even if s/he will say "I won't do that", if they'll have no other choice, they'll do that. More than that, even in less dreadful situations, people do things that they don't want to do.

So, what did I want to say after all of this long long exposition? That any character can do any action that she wants or doesn't want to do. That's the whole point, that's what I wanted to say, and that's probably one of the most shocking (at least to myself) revelations I've reached for this year.

Think about it for a moment. I can justify according to my background almost everything that I can do. I can justify a helping and caring hand, and I can justify in the same way the opposite of it. A pacifist might justify carrying a sword in order to intimidate as a way to prevent wars, and a womaniser might stop chasing a woman by saying that she probably has a good reason for not wanting him (Skins, anyone?). Justification is not that hard to achieve, and if it's not strong enough, a few "yes, and"s and the problem is solved.

One more thing to consider is that this choice, whether to chase the goal while doing something that is against all of the character's morals or to leave the goal, is the highest point of drama. The sudden understanding that my morals stand in the way of my goal, or vice verse, is the whole point of drama. After all, if there's no real conflict there, there's no real interest...

So, this concludes this post. What do you think? Do you also agree that everything can be justified according to the character's background? Why, or why not?

Don't Be Afraid to Look Stupid...

Don't be afraid to look like a stupid human being. Don't be afraid to act it out, walking and speaking and making funny voices and sound effects. We all look quite funny when we play this, so there's nothing to lose, just to gain. 

Yeah, I'm talking to you, you pal who always sits in the back and talks calmly. Why won't you act like your fellow player, who raises his arm like in pain whenever his being hurt? Why won't you act like Mellisa, who roses from her chair and shows how she's walking to the king and how she bows for him?

I'm talking to you also, you mighty GM. Why won't you give your players an example? You're the leading storyteller, the one that everyone looking to see what s/he will do, so please give your players an example. It can't hurt you, you know, it will only make you feel more energised.

I'm not telling any of you to go and play like this is a LARP (although it can't hurt to do it once in a while); I'm only asking you to try to live the game a little bit more. Getting up from the table once in a while, shouting and screaming like a barbarian when your barbarian is fighting, whispering something when you wizard does its magic, making a gun noises when your character's gun is shooting, but most of all: Talking like your PC and gesturing like your PC...

Normality Became the New Originality

You don't have to be original by force. You don't have to be this uber half elf/ half orc/ half monkey/ half dragon hybrid, who is also 5 levels of wizard, 4 levels of warrior and 12 levels of rouge. You don't have to be Superman in a CoC game and don't have to be a coward in a D&D game. You don't have to be that special and original, you know.

Have you tried to be the normal once? Have you just tried to be this dwarf fighter or half elf diplomat? Have you? Was it that boring that you had to try to be that special for the sake of being special? Isn't being a half elf in an elfish society hard enough that you have to be half orc also, just in case?

Please, for god's sake, try to be normal for once. Normality became the new originality, retro is back as the new kid in the block.

Oh, and just in case, try to look in the net for this hybrid that you so wanted to be. Probably, someone has made it already, and the maker had a little bit more experience so it's probably even better than what you did try to achieve...

Don't Be a Coward...

You don't have to cower in the back of the room. The fact that a monster from outer space has came to earth and is now tearing the world doesn't mean that you have to hide under the tables and play dead. The monster won't like it, and so would none of us.

When you've created your character for the game, although a horror one, you created a character that is beyond the normal person. You created a character, you casted a hero, and now you're playing a hero. It might be not much more than an ordinary person, but sure the character is. Otherwise, it was an NPC.

So, please, for god's sake, when playing in my horror game, don't be a dick and cower in the back but try to do something far more interesting.

After all, it's not interesting to play the coward. That's a GM job, a dirty job. Instead, try to play the one who tries to cope with his/her fears, and we'll all benefit...

My 3 Ways to Reward Great Roleplaying

I don't reward my players with experience points when they play in character all session or really well or something, not even when they do something extremely cool. I always believed that a thing like that will bring my players to this. Maybe not in the short term, but in the long it will surely will. There are also 2 other things that prevent me from rewarding my players this way:

1. It will make the players look at roleplaying as secondary to mechanics. If I'll reward them with mechanical benefits, they will look for those benefits and not for the reasons for giving them.
2. It's no different than bribery. "You'll describe how you kick the orc's ass, and I'll grant you with a nice bonus. A lasting bonus. 

So, I've started to think how I can reward my players for doing a cool thing without going for the mechanics. I've found 3 main ways:

1. If you describe something cool enough, and it is interesting enough it just works. We're looking for drama, aren't we? If it helps you present a better character, go for it. This is, of course, a mechanical benefit in more than a way, but it's a different kind. It's not a lasting reward; it just makes the character look total badass and true to the character.
2. Giving a compliment. You don't understand how nice it is to hear from your GM: "Wow! What you did was soooo cool!" Simple and catchy, and no one can say no to being in the GM's list of cool deeds.
3. My favourite: Giving the character more time in the limelight. It's a narativistic reward, a true and pure narativistic reward, and it does its work. All of us wants to be in the centre of the group's attention when we do something cool. Why can't we give it to the players?

So, what do you think? Am I missing something and a mechanical reward is that powerful, or is there something in what I think and say?

I Know What You've Watched Last Summer...

A little tip that I've stumbled upon once, and since then I'm using quite a lot: A great way to find what type of horror game it will be, is by getting to know what horrors movies the players really like or found frightening. If the players, for example, have found that The Birds and Jaws are truly terrifying, going for a horror game about nature goes mad might be the right type of game to GM. If the players, on the other hand, have been frightened by The Shining, maybe you should throw the slasher game that you've prepared and go to the psychological realm.

It can also be used, of course, to avoid failures. If the players start to laugh every time that they watch a slasher, maybe slasher is not the right type for them. If they find body horror as too horrifying for their taste, maybe there's another direction that you should seek instead of this one.

There's one danger, with using this technique: If you GM a Gothic horror game for your players, and they know the genre well enough, they might get less terrified as they know the common tropes. Here comes to the rescue the other part of this thing: After you know what the basic feel of the game should be, add a little color from other types of sub-genres. If the players found Gothic horror as the most frightening genre, adding a little bit of nature goes mad and psychological horror will surely confuse the players a little bit, just enough to get to the dreading parts...

"And the Villain Opened a Competing Pizzeria to Yours..."

About a year ago, in the beginning of April last year, I was in one of the most important gaming lectures I've ever been in (a lecture by מיכאל אלבוים Michael Elboym). It was, as the headline of that particular lecture implied, about improvisation in RPGs.

One of the most important lessons I received from this eye-opening lecture was from the example the lecturer opened with: the characters were at the end of the dungeon, ready to face the dark and evil sorcerer, and one of the players suddenly said out of the blue: "To hell with that, let's go back town and open a pizzeria!" Unlike every normal GM, he went on with it. An idea, you see, came into his mind, and when a few minutes passed and they opened the pizzeria, a new pizzeria was being opened, by the infamous dark and evil sorcerer, a pizzeria which competed with the PCs for the same customers.

This story became one of those lessons that I came back to, every time I was stuck or surprised by the players. I learned to almost never say no, and to always find another way to get out of a halt like the one that was supposed to happen from the pizzeria story. More importantly than that, though, I didn't break the game, called the players out or anything similar.

There was another lesson, though, that I learned from this example: No matter what I want to say or what I feel about my players (at particular times, of course...), I should always look at them and say to myself "how lucky I am", because after all, They're surely way better than the players of that pizzeria example.

What I Want From My Players

I GMed today another session. It was really nice, and the players enjoyed it (at least, that was their answer when I asked...) but I went out of it feeling a bit disappointed. You see, I came to the game with expectations that were too high. Most of them are good players, that I GMed for at least a couple of times, and yet it wasn't as good as I expected. Maybe it was me? Maybe it was because I didn't stress from beforehand what I want from my players? And then I started to think: What is it that I look for in my players? What special things, beyond coming on time do I want from them? My conclusions follow:

1. I want my players to be an integral part of the game. It means 2 things: First, I want them active, not sitting in the background waiting for when they are attacked to do something. Secondly, it means that I want them to come with ideas ("wouldn't it be cool if we'll meet the dragon for a final battle just above of his cave?"). Nothing too fancy, just, you know, suggesting things that they may find cool.
2. I want my players to participate in the stories we tell. I don't want them there to just say "I attack" or something like that. I want them to make important decisions, to fight for their morals, to help create a better story. The fact that I'm the GM means that I'm helping to advance it and that I have a bigger share of telling the story than each one of them, that's all.
3. I want my players to keep to the tone of the game. I don't want them cracking Monty Python jokes in a horror game, nor do I want them to go kill the king and all his men in a political game (at least, not in the normal hack and slash way...).
4. I want my players to help me with making sure that each one of them has about the same screen time, so all of them will be able to shine.
5. I want my players to come to every session wanting to go out and explore a different world, ready for adventures and horrors and stories yet to come.
6. I want them to come passionate to the game, and I want them to think about the game beyond of the normal gaming hours.
7. Lastly, I want them to deliver characters that are more than just their stats, characters who have a personality, conflicts, background, relatives, and all other ways to make them part of this world we're telling the story within.

There are surely more things one expects from his/her group of players. After all, the GM is only one mind, one brain, and the players have more brains to come with more ideas. Also, they have less of a responsibility, and as such have more time to invest in more things of the like. Is it too much? I don't know, but I don't think so. What do you expect from your players?

A Letter for My Players

Dear Players,

You know, there's something I need desperately, something that I'm looking for from each game session that I run. You probably know what I'm talking about, but still, it's the fifth session since the last time you gave it to me.

No, I'm not talking about money, or books, I'm not talking about apologizing for another session where you blew my entire plans for the campaign (that was awesome, though, so thanks for asking anyway), I'm talking about a far more important thing, a thing that without it there's no reason to continue in this hobby with the hope of advancing to be better, a thing that without it I may (and I do, actually) come back home feeling that something wasn't right and I just don't know what.

You know, I do a lot of work to plan these games for you (even if it doesn't seem so), I work extremely hard about improving and creating the feel and the mood and the tone and working on so many other things. No, I don't want you to apologies for the work you're putting me through, I'm enjoying it, I'm enjoying the surprises, I enjoy GMing. I really do.

All I'm asking for are 2 simple things: a thank you, so I'll know that you understand how much effort I'm putting into it so you'll have fun (me also, but I thank myself everyday that I'm "working" on it). The second is much more important for me, 'cause it includes the first thing, and helps me much more: Feedback.

I want to do what I did great, what I did well, what I did not so well and what I did badly. I don't want to know it so I'll feel that I'm a bad GM or a good one, but for an entirely different reason: To know where and how I can improve. If you can suggest what would have been better, so much the better, but I don't require it or anything. I don't require even what I'm asking for. I just want to know what I can improve so all of us will have more fun every session. Is it so hard? Is it taking so much effort?

Thanks,

Your GM