The State of the Discourse

 My friend sent me this the other day, and it perfectly encapsulates what a lot of online RPG discussion sounds like, and why I'm happy not to be part of it. I'll just keep plugging away at this blog that only a select awesome few bother to read. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Happy New Year, one and all! 

Axioms and Game Design

 I have this piece of paper in my desk with three game design axioms written on it. I can't remember where I copied this from. Google search leads me to BX Blackrazor for the first one, and that's no surprise. But I can't find where I got the other two from. I assumed they were also from JB, but I haven't found them on his blog anywhere. I've had them in mind as I'm working on both Flying Swordsmen 2E (expect delays) and OSR Modern (play testing starts tomorrow). 

Here they are: 

Axiom #1: Good game design only incorporates rules integral to game play.  

Axiom #2: Good game design requires rules that set clear objectives for players.

Axiom #3: Good game design rewards behavior meeting the objectives of play. 

 

Trying to track these other two down gets me things in groups of three like: Laws of Function/Immersion/Balance, Goals/Rules/Voluntary engagement,  Mechanics/Gameplay/Experience. 

I also find a lot of the game theory stuff that I was reading a few years back, like Juul, Crawford, Salen & Zimmerman, etc. But I can't find where I got these other two axioms. 

 

Regardless of where they came from, I'm trying to design OSR Modern with these principles in front of me. 

What is the bare minimum of rules systems needed for this game? (Axiom #1) Some that I have more or less worked out and will be testing include: combat, NPC interactions, chases, shopping for gear, crafting/creating/upgrading items, dealing with security devices.  

Some that I have been working on but haven't completed include: investigation, computer hacking, vehicle stunts/combat, being wanted by the law.  

I think that may even be too much, but for now I've got simple systems for the above list and concepts for the below list. 

But do these set clear objectives for play? (Axiom #2) That's something I'll start investigating tomorrow. It will depend on the PCs the players create, and which systems we test out that they react well to. In addition to gaining levels for the better combat/ability boosts, each level gained comes with an opportunity to improve the abstract wealth level, so that may be enough to encourage adventuring play. We'll see.  

What I envision as objectives of play: action movie stuff (rescue hostages, get revenge, infiltrate and exfiltrate strongholds, car chases, bombs, etc), detective/spy stuff (gather information, work sources, search crime scenes for clues/leads, etc.), and car/chase stuff (competitive driving, vehicle combat, running from the fuzz, etc.). 

Maybe I'll end up focusing it just on the action movie stuff in the end, as that's probably the biggest inspiration. The detective/spy stuff and the car stuff also seem like they would be fun for play. However, that may muddle the game objectives.  

Are the various actions listed above rewarded in game play? (Axiom #3) Well, combat, chases, and NPC interactions, and security devices can award XP based on the opposition overcome (I have a bunch of stock NPC types, animal opponents, and locks/security systems with XP values). But for chases, at least vehicle chases, I'm not sure if just using the opposing driver's XP value is good enough reward. 

A few actions, like creating or upgrading gear, provide their own in-game reward, but I may find a way to award XP for that sort of thing as well.  Shopping provides its award with whatever gear has been purchased. I don't see the need to award XP for shopping. 

Computer hacking and gathering clues/leads both need a system of how they work developed (I have sketchy rules for both), and what sorts of awards (XP or in-game) they will provide. 

Being wanted should provide additional challenge (higher chances to be noticed, hassled by law enforcement, or even actively hunted down). I have the levels set, but I'm still sketchy on how they impact character actions and how to model raising or lowering them. I think these will definitely motivate play (axiom #2) but pretty much the reward would be limited to lowering your "heat". 

I have a placeholder "challenge" award system in the book to cover the areas that don't yet have their own set XP reward mechanics done, but it's vague and wishy-washy and really too mother-may-I for my tastes. It's a stopgap for play testing, and I hope to get more concrete rewards for each element of game play from these test sessions.  

Maybe I'll find out I don't need all of these systems, and I can simplify my games. Maybe my players will want more. We'll see. I'm looking forward to the test tomorrow to see how it goes.  

Well, that was a headache

 Yesterday, the KakaoTalk Open Chat (Kakao is Korean WhatsApp) discussion started with a simple question: "Which do you prefer to experience, true improvisation from your DM, or a well thought out, well planned dungeon experience?" 

Very quickly, the conversation took this to extremes and began debating: "Which is better, 100% planning or 100% improv?" 

But yet most people claimed they wanted something in the middle. "Planned flexibility" was what is best (yeah, surprise surprise, the answer is somewhere in the middle of two extremes).  

And some folks claimed story-centered gaming needs to be prepared, but they're not gonna prepare two or three whole stories just in case the PCs go off track. Other folks wanted that pure improv experience, never plan anything and just go with the flow.  

And somehow, they got into discussing quantum ogres (to not waste what you'd planned), narrative vs gamed out travel, and the need to provide characters with arcs. 

It was my birthday, so I mostly stayed out of it. And honestly, I couldn't be bothered to read every post that was made, because I also had grading to do. But I read enough to see that several people's feathers were getting ruffled. 

And everyone seemed to miss the point of the original question. Not whether you should prepare or go improv, but what makes for a better or more memorable game experience? Those moments when the GM is forced to improv to react to player actions, or those games where everything is so well prepared that the game runs smoothly? 

There are too many GMs (or people looking at it as a GM) in the group chat, I think. 

The thing that really stuck out to me were the people suggesting that preparing "two stories" was too much work. Well, yeah. Preparing ONE story is hard work. That's why you shouldn't prepare stories, but prepare situations and scenarios. I can say from experience, having first done it when I was young, it's not that hard to prepare a "choose your own adventure" style adventure for a game. 

Unless your goal is to put PCs through narrative arcs and a five act structure, that is. 

Anyway, it's best I mostly stayed out of the conversation. I know people can and do have fun with the more story-centric games, and with having their protagonist go through their pre-planned arc, and I'm perfectly happy to let them have their fun. If I'd stated my preference to not do those things, those folks seem like they would have felt I was telling them they're doing it wrong (that's how they reacted to others). 

They're not wrong to play that way. But that type of game is wrong for me.  

The 2025 Busan Tabletop Gaming Con Was a Success

Last Sunday, November 30, was our first game con. I picked up Justin around 9am, and we arrived at the cafe just a little before 9:30. Richard was already waiting, as well as Jonathan (Kojaq) who I only had interacted with online before this. We got everything set up, and most players, and Peter the other morning GM, made it there by 10am when we were scheduled to start. But Kurt, the cafe owner, didn't show up until around 11 so we had to make due with water or drinks people brought in from outside for a bit. Kurt had given me the door code so we could get in early, if you're wondering. 

In the morning session, I ran Classic D&D, using the same dungeon from the previous Online Summer Con arranged by Amae's Seoul group. This party followed the same route at first, but had a TPK in their first encounter. Four carrion crawlers took out a party of five 6th to 8th level PCs. As they can, especially if the party only has a cleric as a caster. The players got new PCs from the pre-gen pile and set out again in a different route. They didn't have time to make it to the dragon, but they had a great time anyway. 

Just before the thief misses on a backstab and everyone fails their saves (the Dwarf is already down).

Richard's Call of Cthulhu game only had one character death, but that PC died, was brought back, and died again. 

Richard brought his King in Yellow robes.

 

I didn't hear of any PC deaths in Peter's Black Sword Hack game, but everyone said they had a great game. 

Justin's BSH character sheet

We took a lunch break, and more people arrived for the afternoon games. A couple of people also went home (or elsewhere, anyway) after the morning games. I was a player in Keith's Cyberpunk Red game, which was a lot of fun. I got to play the Solo (combat character), which is always nice. But our new player David (who played his first RPG ever in my morning D&D game) was the star of the show. Of course, Richard's PC managed to shoot Peter's PC in the back...twice! None of us died, though several gang-bangers and scumbags died at our hands. 

The start of the game, in our gang's alley base, dealing with druggies

Jonathan's Mothership game was really good, too, from what I heard. There were definitely some PC deaths as well. 

An alien gestated inside one of the PCs. You'll never believe what happened next~!

Both Scott's 5E game and Elyse's Pathfinder game went over time, but this is something they'd planned for, and the players were aware of this. Scott did have one PC death. Elyse runs a more story-forward sort of game, so no PC deaths in her game. She did a think where players started with blank, or nearly blank character sheets, and had to discover who their PCs were as they played. 

Scott's got a lot of style when he runs a game. We could hear lots of laughing and some shouting from them.

Elyse's players were all really intent on the story that unfolded. 

Then it was the dinner break time. Most folks went home (or elsewhere), but a stalwart few soldiered on through into the night. Peter, Richard, Elyse, Jada, Justin, and I were there the whole day. Keith and his partner CC stayed for evening games, too, but they weren't here for the morning session. 
 

Justin had his group (Jada, CC, Elyse) play board games including Whitehall Mysteries. They also played a few smaller games. Justin had planned to play 1775, a tactical wargame of the Revolutionary War, but I guess they never broke that one out. 

London was scoured for clues.

 

My evening game was Gamma World. Richard, Keith and Peter chose their mutants and set off to explore a ruined tower. They dealt with crumbling infrastructure, hungry mutants, friendly mutants, and at the top of the tower androids intent on capturing Richard's mutated ape PC. Keith dropped to negative HP twice, and Peter once. At the end of the game, Richard escaped with his companions' bodies, evading the androids to survive the horrors of Gamma Terra. We had a blast. 

Peter's altered human scout is down thanks to poisonous two-headed bat mutants. The espers are about to meet the androids. 

It was a long day, but very much worth it. And we plan to do it again sometime soon. Scott wants to do the next event in May. I'll be back home for my son's high school graduation that weekend, but I'll probably help with the organizational side of things as best I can.