Hit Them in the Stats

My MLP campaign got to its second session mark, which means that a, it is a campaign, and b, that it starts to get into shape. We also were joined by a new player, so more fun for everyone.

Anyway, during the session, one of the players (who was also in yesterday's session) told me that this session was even scarier than last one. And that got me thinking. How could a game session where the players play pastel-colored ponies be scarier than a full-blown one-shot horror game?

The Eureka moment has arrived when I brought back the memory of the instance in which he told me this. It was just after I took away one of his character's abilities. "That's interesting", I thought to myself, "it reminds me of something from the past…"

When I played in a 4-year long AD&D campaign, there was a single monster that was terrifying far more than anything else we could think of. It was the vampire. And why were we so terrified? Because it took away levels, hard-earned levels. Think about losing a year and a few tens of thousands of gold pieces work disappearing in a single attack, that's how terrifying it was.

When I was GMing one of my longest D&D campaigns, there was again a single monster that the players fear- the Quasit. This creature, a CR 2 type of monster, took away dexterity points from the characters.

What was common to both of these monsters was a single thing that it took me some time to figure out- it hurt the characters mechanically, in a stat that wasn't supposed to get hurt so easily.

And that's what I did here. I haven't thought about it when I did it today, but it explains so much of the fear factor. What I did do intentionally, though, was to ensure that this condition stands 2 "tests": 1) It doesn't happen as a side effect, but rather as a major plot-point of the session, and 2) The character still has other means by which to help the party and/or to contribute to the story and narrative of the game. Passing these two tests ensured that it wouldn't feel arbitrarily and out of nowhere, while also ensuring that it doesn't make the character fully useless.

So, how about you? Have you ever taken away abilities from the players? For what purpose? How did it go?

Two Dirty Tricks for the Horror GM

So… I've GMed a nice little one-shot today. It was a minimalistic game, with the players playing themselves, as prisoners in a prison. The "door" of their cell was open through most of the game, which meant that they went out of their cell about 5 times in the entire session, only to come back moments afterwards.

The game ran quite smoothly, although the players did most of the work for me. You see, the players came with things that were much more frightening for them than anything I could come with, so I just sparked their imaginations and I let them do the rest. What followed was a game that was mostly made of their theories, spiraling more and more to the extremely scary things.

But I utilized another trick also. I used the infamous theme from Requiem for a Dream. Now, one of the dirtiest ways to create suspense is to slowly turn up the volume. If one does it slowly but steadily, it creates a feeling of a build-up towards something. So I turned the volume up and up, up to the maximum, and then silence and a bad event. The players did the rest for me.

And that's it for today- two dirty tricks for the horror game. Happy gaming to you all…

My Players Created the Plot for Me

I opened a new campaign last Thursday. It's an MLP campaign, with the players playing Blank Flanks looking for their Cutie Marks, utilizing Erin Palette's wonderful UA hack. It started with books flying out of all of the houses in the city, laughing like villains should laugh.

The players then decided to search for info about this thing in the books. Long story short, they've found the book, and the page with the solution to this problem. Then I asked one of the players: "What's written in there?" and decided to roll with the outcome.

I think that it is no secret by now, fateful (and new) readers, that I love giving my players the power to decide about the way the campaign will unfold. The idea in this incident was that if the players like the story, they will invent something that will keep this "flying and laughing maniacally books" thing going. If they don't like it, they will finish it off.

What happened next kinda amazed me. You see, the player asked for help from his fellow friends (and players) and together they came with a prophecy. A prophecy about rebellious books, a prophecy that explains all that happened up to that moment, a prophecy that puts them as the ponies that will stop the rebellion before it's too late.

Or to put it in other words: they created together, in harmony, the plot of the campaign. Isn't it just pony magic? I don't have any lesson or thought for today except for this: give your players the opportunity, even just once, to decide about a thing like this.

You might end up like me, doing it all the time, addicted to the stories that they create together, with you and/or with the toys that you give them.

So, how about you? Have you ever tried to do something like this? How did it go?

Not Describing the NPCs

Some of my NPCs don't get a description. It's not that they get less love from me, as I do love them very much. I portray them to the best of my ability, some of them are even really important- the main villain, the main ally. They just never really received a description, not from me and not from my players.

It is an experiment that I've conducted (ok, I conducted retroactively at first), and I really like its results. It is no secret that people care more for the things that they create, and I wanted to take that to the extreme.

You see, a great lesson that I've learned from horror GMing was that one should describe as less as s/he can the monster, so the players will feel the balks with the things that frighten them most. So I thought to myself- "why should I keep this trick only for the frightening stuff?"

My rational was quite simple- if each player will create for himself/herself the image of the NPC, each and every one of them will care for the NPC more. After all, it is (at least to a certain degree) their creation. And I must say that it worked.

So I still give all of my NPCs distinct voices, and I adopt certain postures for each NPC, and some of them I still describe. But some of them I just don't describe. Sometimes it is just because I forgot or because there was no real opportunity for it, but most times I do it with a purpose. I just really enjoy this bond.

Besides, it gives me more time for other things, like portraying them and stuff…

How about you? Have you once tried not to describe your NPCs? How did it go?

Scene-Framing

I've talked quite a lot about scenes in this blog. I talked about types of scenes and how to construct them; I talked about what scenes are going to be remembered and how to invoke emotions using them. What I haven't talked about up until today was how to frame them, i.e. when to start and finish them.

Scene-Framing is one of the greatest tools in the GM's arsenal in order to control the pacing of the game and story, and it can also cut a lot of frustration if scenes are cut before they bore the players. So, how can we achieve that?

As we probably know by now, each scene has a purpose, a role that it should fill in the greater whole. So, even before we put it in, so to speak, we must ask ourselves if this scene will help the game in some way or the other. It can help by enriching the story or by advancing it, it can help by breaking a much too tense tension or it can help an-up-until-now-quiet player to shine. If it fills at least one of this roles, consider putting it in. and of course remember its purpose.

When we start a scene, the number one rule is that the scene should start a little bit before the action starts. This helps you to both set the ground for the action (thus building anticipation) while also cutting down the boring stuff. Don't roleplay Lisa waiting for hours for her contact to arrive, start the scene a few moments before the contact arrives, like with her looking at the clock nervously as the contact is almost late, and then a black car is seen at a distance. This way, you build anticipation, you give the sense of the time passing and you also skip the boring part of waiting and waiting and… waiting.

Finishing the scene well is also very important. We don't want the scene to drag, right? Remember that I mentioned the role of the scene? This is where it comes in handy: Once the role, the purpose of the scene is fulfilled, the scene is over. It is usually advised to ask the players if they fill that the scene should end, but if the purpose has been filled they will probably feel like it too.

Another way to know when to close the scene and move to the next one is to try to discern the amounts of energy around the table. If the levels seem to dwindle, it is probably the time to close the scene. Otherwise, the lasting taste will be bitter.

How about you? Do you have another method around which you frame the scenes? Is there anything that I've missed? Feel free to write those in the comments.

Red Scents and Sound-Seeing

I wanna talk a little about descriptions. I talked about it quite a lot, up until now, but mainly because I do believe that it is one of the most important tools in the GM's arsenal. Together with portraying the NPCs, it is the most important tool in the arsenal.

On Wednesday I GMed a game, a D&D game. It was something that I haven't done in a long time, perhaps a year and a half, maybe even more. I used there quite a number of descriptions' techniques, from using references to my "3things in 20 seconds" rule. I even let my players describe things.

But there was one technique that for some reason I didn't use. And it got me thinking. Why haven't I used it? I'm still thinking on that, and I think that I know why I didn't use it, but firstly I want to present it.

The technique is quite simple: mixing the senses a little. I got the inspiration for this technique from the Bible. When Moses goes up the mountain, it is written that all of the people "saw the sounds". Seeing sounds wasn't something that I was used to. It is not a common way to describe things. But it does make it seem larger than life. It makes the event seem grandiose, important, and alien to what we can comprehend.

So I started to describe some of the things in my campaign this way also. I started to use it in horror games, then continued to the climaxes of fantasy ones. The players were shocked at first, asking questions about how it is possible and what do I mean by that. Today they feel the power of it also, and try their hands on it from time to time.

After all, when you can listen to the dark, smell the yellow scent and see the spicy taste, everything is quite different. Everything is quite alien, unnatural, and even uncanny. And this, of course, is only the beginning of the possibilities.

Then I came back to the game, to my analysis of it I mean, and started to ask why I haven't used this technique also. I think that it was because of the comedic tone of that game. After all, when even dragons are nothing but a joke, there's no need for the red scent, or for the green sounds.

Bu I think that it is also because it is a far more complicated way of describing things, one that needs it's proper time and place, and it just didn't feel right for me at the time. I don't know for sure, and I will probably never know the truth, but it doesn't matter. I do know that I felt this technique missing, and I want to use it again, because its rewards are far too great and many.

How about you? Have you used this technique or something similar in your games? If so, how did it go?

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?