What’s the difference between an obstacle and an opportunity in an RPG? I’ve played in plenty of games where the GM laid down what they thought was an opportunity and what I thought was an insurmountable obstacle. And I’ve run games where the obstacles I created were instead interpreted as opportunities by my players. Is there any distinction at all?
Category Archives: GMing
Take Five: Episodic vs Serial works
In modern continuous works (largely tv shows at this point in time, but also comic books and other media) there are few ‘one-shots’ anymore. Obviously, books are the largest exceptions, but even many movies nowadays feel like they’re all either remakes, reboots, prequels, or sequels. Everything is linked to something else because why spend all of the money to make one of something when (if people like it) they’ll pay to come see another with less advertisement? And I’m sure that’s how a lot of consumers have come to see it. But from the perspective of a writer, it’s fantastic. Why? Because serial works have something that episodic works tend not to have. What is the difference between the two? I’m going to use TV shows as my ‘medium’, but you can apply this to any form of media.
A serial work is one where each episode builds off of previous episodes, and sets up future episodes. Episodic works, on the other hand tend to just rehash the same setting, but with a new plot. Rather than try and strictly define a midpoint, I’ll just say that it’s a vague continuum; everything is a little bit episodic and a little bit serial, but some works are way more episodic (Whose Line is it Anyway?) and others are way more serial (Lost). If you tune into a random episode of Whose Line is it Anyway? odds are you’ll understand it just fine. You might miss a few of the jokes that are more recurring jokes, but they’ll probably still be funny. On the other hand, the first time I tuned into Lost, I was — pardon the pun — lost. They were on an island, and an unknown monster — I was hoping they’d crashed on a prehistoric island and it was a dinosaur –was attacking them, and I had no idea why they were hiding in trees from a boar, and why the boar couldn’t be seen and then the next episode I tuned into I think there was a ghost or something and they were living in a bunker and pressing this button and all I could think was WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONSTER? WAS IT A DINOSAUR? IS THAT WHY THERE’S A BUNKER? AND WHY ARE THEY PUSHING THAT BUTTON?
So I understand why TV shows are at least somewhat episodic. Who has the same chunk of time open EVERY day? Who will NEVER miss an episode? What about that random guy who sits down and turns the show on, is he going to keep watching if he can’t figure it out? Books on the hand, are inherently serial. You don’t sit down, pick up a book, flip to a random page, and start reading. So if somebody criticized a book for not making sense when you started halfway through, we’d laugh at them. But we do sort of expect that to be possible with TV (less so in the age of TiVo, which I think explains the success of shows like Game of Thrones). And I think we understand that book series’ and comic book series’ are part of one ‘book’, so to speak. Nobody buys just book 2 of a series.
An Argument for Camera Tricks
You watch the heroes as they step up to the front door of the old and abandoned house, lit only by the faint glow of the streetlights down the block. There’s a rustle, and the heroes look around them anxiously before one of them pushes open the door while the other stands watch. A few leaves obscure your vision as the camera shifts, hiding in a bush. The heroes both turn to look inside, and your view rushes forward, surging up the steps towards the heroes as they turn in shock and you…
Let the Heroes be Strong
Ultimately, campaigns, much like movies, are about your protagonists. Much as Henry said in his previous article on Screen Time, “by running a game you are agreeing to give the PCs the stage”. Of course, by ‘the stage’, he meant something akin to ‘camera time’. But not only should the camera follow them (mostly), but they should also be the movers and shakers of the universe. Of course, there are some exceptions: villains will often be stronger than PCs, especially in games with elements of horror. And there may be campaigns in which the PCs have limited agency (or are a part of events bigger than themselves). But in those cases, they should still, ultimately, be the agents of the events they ARE privy to.
Story Focus: Who Gets Screen Time?
When you’re playing an RPG, which characters get screen time? Where should the focus be? How can a storyteller make sure that they’re not giving their players short shrift? Finding a good balance and learning how to give your players’ characters the focus that they deserve is an art, one that requires awareness of where your attention is at any given moment.
What Makes a Good Game?
It may seem strange to hit this topic now; I haven’t even defined what I think a game is! For now, I’m going to put that question off, but say that there are three types of games:
- Puzzles – These games involve one (or more players) trying to solve some system. These games can be played with some goal: ‘how do I solve the puzzle?’ or in a more exploratory manner: ‘what exactly can I do?” Games that are puzzles include:
- Computer Games: Platformers, Adventure Games, Simulations (Civilization/Sim City)
- Physical Games: Rubik’s Cube, Mind-Benders, Logic Puzzles
- Competitive Games – These games involve multiple players competing against each other within the constraints of some rule system with defined victory conditions. Some of the players CAN be AI simulated; as such, these games can be played as puzzles.
- Computer Games: Starcraft, League of Legends, Street Fighter, HALO, Simulations (Civilization/Sim City).
- Physical Games: Chess, Basketball
- Collaborative Games – These games involve multiple players working together (potentially somewhat competitively) to create something.
- Roleplaying Games
- Team-building games?
Horror and Predetermined Outcomes
In my article on how I run a game, I mentioned that there are specific genres in which I’ll sometimes accept predetermined outcomes. I’ve most often experienced this in horror games, where both the players and the PCs know that there will be certain terrible things that happen, regardless of the actions taken by the PCs. But why does this work? How could any player enjoy knowing that their terrible doom approaches?
Putting Power in Players’ Paws
Ok, so your players probably have hands, not paws, but I liked the alliteration.
The traditional roleplaying game, D&D, is very much structured in a specific way: the GM has a specific game/plot/monster that the players have to beat. In this way, D&D is structured much like a computer RPG, it just happens to be played with multiple players (and so can Baldur’s Gate 2, not to mention World of Warcraft).
There is value to this model; if you have one GM who is particularly good at plotting stories and taking care of all of the details of the world, and a lot of players without a knack for world-building, well, why not run a game like this? Labor gets divided up appropriately, and everybody gets to do what they’re good at.
Typically, however, everybody has something to offer to the story if given the chance, and 4 minds can probably come up with better ideas overall than just 1. This is why, typically (especially if I really trust the players), I prefer to run games that are much more player-driven. For me, good player-driven systems are those which have narrative elements built into them. The most obvious examples would be any game with a Fate point system. Such systems tend to give fate points to the player, and they can narrate something about the world that is unlikely but still possible by expending a Fate point. However, for me, the pinnacle of player-driven games is Apocalypse World. I understand that there are MORE player-driven games, but I find that the lack of a solid authority in completely player-driven games tends to leave most people feeling unsatisfied. Apocalypse World is the perfect balance: it lets the players help create the world and orient the plot, but doesn’t give them too much power to determine results.
Player Action, Player Inaction
I have often focused too narrowly on what will happen when the players follow the trails that I have laid out for them. But what do you do when the players don’t want to play with any of the plot you’ve got prepared for them? And what happens with the problems that they’re ignoring?
Lessons I’ve Learned about Naming NPCs
Names are hard. You want to make sure that the people and places you’re creating sound believable, and you don’t want to keep repeating the same things over and over (unless there’s a name like Michael in your game world, in which case you should probably just name everyone that since that’s how it works in real life). I’ve made and seen some pretty funny mistakes with naming things, so here are a few of the things I’ve learned…
Fistful of Wits 