At RopeCon, I saw plenty of GMs who dressed the part. They had pseudo-medieval outfits. Of course, this is partly cosplay, not necessarily having anything to do with the GMing itself, but some apparently do it to be (or seem) better GMs.

I think that’s too much. I have an imagination and I have a sense of humor (no matter how sick and twisted these may be). When someone in a cloak tries to be serious and is explaining my experiences within the game in a deep, foreboding voice (or their best imitation of one), I think that’s pretty funny and thus distracting. On the other hand, if someone in a sarcastic t-shirt explains the same thing in a normal voice, my imagination kicks in.

Of course, I’m just one instance and everything I say is anecdotal and shouldn’t be used as a basis for anything bigger. On the other hand, despite all evidence pointing otherwise, I’m still human and I thus have a human brain, which triggers in much the same way everyone elses does.

That’s not to say the GM shouldn’t try to create immersion, but he or she should also understand the limits.

Should one use music? Preferably, yes (not in cons, but otherwise). Many people just do this completely wrong. Their music choices are often just too good in the sense that they are good music, but not in the sense that they fit the situation. The problem is, when you hear a song you know and like, its – again – distracting. You need music that isn’t designed to catch your attention. Movie scores are always a good option as they are designed to heighten the mood, but stay just outside your consciousness, and quite a few GMs are using this pretty obvious tool. However, I still see GMs using popular music. Just don’t do it. It pulls the attention away from the game, whereas a good score or, say, Godspeed You! Black Empereor and Sunn O))) will push you into the mood.

What about props and miniatures? Props, yes. Miniatures… maybe.

I’ve done props in the past. Usually for the heck of it. And I’m not talking about anything complex here. Just making paper look old and simple stuff like that. When I hand it over, what’s the first question in the players’ mind? Not what is, but how I made it. Obviously, this strokes my ego in all the right ways, but that’s not the point.

Miniatures can be a good thing, but often not. Think about it this way. You are in the middle of a scene and things go awry. Everyone pulls their gun. Now, why would you break the tension of the moment to get out the map and the miniatures? If we’re playing a tactical game, this might actually be important to getting into the moment, but in a more narrative game, this just isn’t what you want. You don’t want to interrupt the flow.

Finally, the system. Yes, were talking about those again.

I don’t know how many of you remember the bad old days of THAC0. If you don’t know what that is, its the old D&D way of telling you how well you are able to hit your opponents. It stands for To Hit Armor Class 0. The idea was that because AC started from 10 and went down, you’d just subtract the AC from your THAC0 and you’d know how much you need to roll to hit.

The thing is, this is quite counter-intuitive. Although mathematically the current system isn’t much easier, its much easier to grasp. Adding is just that much more natural to us than subtracting, especially subtracting negative numbers. Even with this small difference, immersion is again easily broken.

Anytime you need to look something up, its distracting. Simpler is better. However, this has degrees as well. When I’m looking at the list of stuff I can do in AW after having succeeded in a roll, I’m still in the moment as I’m thinking about where I want this to go. Whereas if someone else is doing the same, I lose focus.

In the end, its all about the complexities of the human brain. Its a wonderful thing, but it can also be easily manipulated in ways we don’t really understand. Breaking immersion is regrettably easy (although, in the bigger picture probably a good attribute) and we keep doing things to distract each other without even understanding it. Our hunter-gatherer brains will focus on things like movement and faces, because that’s how we survived way back when. Much of that stuff is still in there, because not enough generations have passed for us to lose those qualities. I’m not sure we ever will.

Forgot something yesterday. Probably many things, but this one popped into mind this morning.

I tend to use too many shortcuts or cut things too short.

For example, last time I ran a game, I started the game at the scene of a crime that had happened two years ago. It was in a house where the characters essentially met each other.

The problem was, the players read this as the whole thing was supposed to happen in the house, whereas I had planned for the village where the house was located as one of the hazards. We never really got out of the house, although there would have been plenty to do out there (not that I had actually decided on anything concrete).

In the end, this didn’t really matter. Good times were had and a narrative was constructed. This doesn’t excuse the fact that I clearly miscommunicated. I like to skip all the bullshit most GMs push into their games to make them more lifelike and immersive, which is usually a mistake since they are actually using precious time to make their games more boring.

If it was really important to include the village, I probably should have started with one of the characters arriving at the village. Even if he met the rest in the house, this would have opened the village as a potential place to investigate things in my players’ minds. With that addition, they might have actually gone to the asylum where the young woman who killed her employers was located.

One miscommunication from me changed the whole scenario totally. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use shortcuts like this, but although stories are in many ways very open, there are also many rules. I tried to break a rule in the wrong place by using a faulty shortcut. I should avoid those, but I don’t always manage to.

This is a follow up to an earlier article. You should probably read that first to see what all this is about.

Now, first, some problem areas I identified on my own.

Identifying My Players’ Preferences

I don’t do much to accommodate different types of players. I’m most interested in the narrative and I probably give enough leeway for those into their characters, but powergamers and tacticians won’t get much out of my games, as I just don’t cater to them. I would prefer playing RPGs with people I enjoy playing RPGs with, if this really needs spelling out, but I am able to run games for those people, and I have in the past. Still, I don’t really try to identify these needs, so there might be a clash between styles. Doesn’t happen too often, but it happens.

Pacing

This is probably my biggest failing. I have a tendency to let my players run amok with whatever they are doing and often end up rushing the end of the session. This is a common problem in our group, but that’s no excuse for me to do it too.

System Knowledge

I don’t learn the systems in depth. I used to do this, but it never lead to the games being better. It just lead to extended discussions during the games themselves. Now, I have a pretty good grasp of the systems, but I tend to forget things. Often this is just part of the process of learning as I do always read the parts of the rules where I had problems after the game, but again, no excuse.

Not Following the Industry

Having just espoused the necessity of doing this yesterday, it is kind of awkward to confess to this (well, would be if I had a conscience), but I always seem to be a few years behind. Sometimes more than a few. Of course, not everyone needs to be an early adopter and there are definite benefits to being somewhat late to the party as instead of going through everything, I can focus on those that manage to establish themselves. Still, it would be better to know what’s coming.

Missing Cues

I often have great ideas… a few minutes too late or while I’m reflecting on the game while I’m walking home. Often this is something I should have responded to coming from my players, which makes it doubly bothersome, since I wasn’t able to fully utilize their ideas. I think I’m getting better, but this still happens at least once during every session I run.

Robin D. Laws’s Robin’s Laws of Good Game Mastering has a section called Picking Your Rules Set. It has the following mock discussion:

First Arguer: “Rules system X rules. Unlike rules
system Y, which sucks!”
Second Arguer: “Clearly, you possess the morals
and common sense of a rabid baboon! Everyone
knows that system Y rules and system X sucks!”
Third Arguer: “A pox on both your houses!
Everyone knows it’s the GM, not the rules, that makes
a good game!”

It then goes on to state the true problem with this discussion: None of the participants are actually stating the purpose of their choice.

Although people like to think the system choice is secondary and doesn’t actually matter, they are overlooking many things. Often this is the viewpoint of people, who have been playing since the days system didn’t actually matter that much, since they weren’t designed very well when compared to the modern systems, and therefore they don’t really see the difference.

Is there a difference? Obviously I’m trying to prove there is.

I’m not even going into quality of systems. Clearly some systems just have a superior design and simply work better no matter what you are doing. Yes, people, its time to let Palladium and all its inbred siblings go, but proving this is not going to be the point of this post.

First and most important difference between systems is what they communicate to the players.

If I make a character in any of the million or so Savage Worlds variants, I’m basically making decisions on how I’m going to contribute to the combat efforts of the group. Granted, there are rules for things outside of combat, but they are purposefully light and don’t really contribute to the experience. If I want to make a smart guy, I do that to be able to cast spells or be able to buy Level-Headed to be able win most initiatives. I make the character for fighting and thus I expect the game itself to revolve around fighting. This is what the game tells me to do.

On the other hand, if I’m making a character for HeroQuest (narrative method), I’m thinking about what I want to tell about my character. I’m totally free (well, obviously there are genre and world limitations, but still) to make any character I want. If there’s GM input I should take it into account, but I just have a set number of words (default 100) to just tell you about the character. Granted, 100 isn’t much, but its enough.

Clearly, there’s a difference. If the GM brings in Savage Worlds version of Deadlands, I’m going to go in expecting fighting zombie indians and wendigos. If the GM brings in HeroQuest version of Glorantha, I’m thinking about how my barbarian fits into the clan.

Second, players have different styles and expectations. Some are more interested in characters, some in narrative, some in tactical aspects, some in character advancement and some in just kicking ass. Obviously not everyone clearly fits into these categories and all of us fit into all of these categories in at least a small way. If your major interest is in tactics, kicking ass or advancement, you should probably find a game outside of this form, because there are plenty of other types of games (MMORPGs, board games, miniature games, MtG) which are better for satisfying such needs, but I’m not here to judge (today). Different systems will cater to different players.

The guy who enjoys the tactics wants a clearly defined set of tools. He isn’t getting everything he wants out of the game if he can’t plan meticulously and find innovative ways to use the tools he’s given. He’ll enjoy Savage World for sure, but the very freeform way HeroQuest plays out isn’t something he’s really looking for.

People who are interested in the narrative are going to get much more out of HeroQuest, where the fail-forward mechanics make it much more interesting – for example – to simply lose a fight than in many other games. The tactical player doesn’t necessarily dislike losing any more than those interested in the narrative, but they won’t knowingly make the decision to lose, because that’s not the way he thinks.

Third, if you are running a oneshot or a short campaign, using a complex system (unless its familiar to all players) is counterproductive no matter how well it works for what you are trying to do otherwise. The complexity of the system is clearly an issue even in longer campaigns. Many players simply won’t learn rules. Its just not in their nature. They’re not stupid. They just don’t live in the same paradigm as those interested in the rules do. You should be especially wary of systems where rules knowledge gives players too much of an edge over those who are not aware of all the intricacies.

Of course, there are times when you should just take the system all the players are more or less familiar with. However, if you are only doing this because you have a system you are overly familiar with and automatically default to it, no matter what, you are probably doing it wrong.

Choosing the right system is actually easy, if you have enough experience of different systems. Of course, getting that experience might not be easy, but openness to new games is key. That doesn’t mean you have to be on the cutting edge. I’d rather wait a few years to try a system. On the other hand, can you even discuss choosing a system if you aren’t aware of at least some of the top games out there? I mean how many GMs do you know, who are only familiar with one or two of these games. I don’t agree with the list, but at least I’ve tried or read many of the top games. Not as many as I’d like, but quite a few. This gives me at least some basis for my decisions and analysis on the differences of games.

The thing is, its hard to find good players. Its hard to hone your skills as a GM. Compared to these problems, its easy to find a good system. Not only that, but its actually the easiest way to make your games better.

Of course, often you don’t really even have an idea and then develop it and find a system for it, but rather take a system and make something up for it. This is fine, too. I won’t go into this too deeply, since this goes into the quality question which I said would stay away from.

(Note: No, this is not an MtG-article, even though I mention the game in passing in the beginning.)

Some time ago (actually over six years ago), Sam Stoddard wrote an article on StarCityGames, where he took an inventory of his MtG-playing skills. He had been away from the game for a while and felt his skills had diminished. So, he tried to make an overview of all the things he felt he was lacking in. He came up with a list of 31 things, which seems very in-depth and shows a lot of self-awareness.

The major problem with doing anything well is that we don’t know good we actually are. At the beginning stages we will often overvalue are knowledge on a subject, since we don’t really realize what we don’t know. Beginners will often rate themselves well above average just because they think they know what there is to know. This is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, although similar sentiments have been around at least since the days of Socrates.

I’ve been GMing on and off for about a quarter of a century. That’s long enough to realize there are things I’m doing wrong. Gladly, I do understand this and I do want to be better. Even if I’m good, there’s still room for growth.

Obviously, there are limits to how much I can improve based on the fact that actually scheduling RPG sessions seems to be harder now than ever and I also have a limited time as I do have job and a life (of sorts). Still, if I want to be better, its best to identify problematic areas. Therefore, I decided to start following Stoddards example.

The thing is, I’m not sure how to do this. I’ll probably interview my players. I’ll probably reflect on the games I run (which I often do anyway) and I’ll probably benchmark myself with other GMs. Are there things I’ve never even thought about? We’ll see. This is just the beginning and I’ll return to the subject.

Yes. Have them. Cultivate them. Fiction is largely based on conflicts. In roleplaying games, where we don’t really see the bad guys that much, the conflict, to be interesting, has to largely happen between the PCs.

Now, I don’t mean all games have to devolve into the characters killing each other (as it so often happens in our oneshots), but instead, it can mean all sorts of conflicts. Holmes and Watson are in a constant conflict over Holmes’ drug use. Bones is often in conflict with Spock over his detachment from human emotions. House is usually in conflict with both his superiors and underlings over methods and ethics.

The hallmark of a good, modern RPG is the ability to resolve these conflicts. The tendency of the player, understandably, is to make up his or her mind and stick with it. This will result in conflicts that will needlessly drag on and become unproductive. Therefore, we need a system to keep these conflicts fluid and natural from the point of view of the story.

You do see Watson commenting on the drug use, but they don’t argue over it for pages on end. That’s boring. It certainly helps the story, giving both characters depth, but putting emphasis on it would change the whole nature of the narrative.

Lets use House as an example. We have a rogue genius, who generally finds the answer, although there certainly are deaths (although, those who die are generally poor people, so no worries there (that was sarcasm, in case you didn’t realize (there also seems to be and underlying theme of sexism in casting choices))). Now, lets say player A plays Chase. Chase doesn’t generally oppose House played by player B, but lets say in this case he does.

There’s some word play as both parties make their case. In the real world, this would often go nowhere and might lead to an extended argument. Noone wants to see that in a game. (Also, we probably don’t have enough expertise to believably convey the part of the doctor very long, but that’s beside the point.) We need to know a conflict exists and we need to resolve it, even if only (and usually only) temporarily.

So, what does player A do to resolve a conflict with player B in his favor. Well, player B can always pull rank. He’s the superior in this case and can therefore force player A to do whatever he wants. This isn’t interesting. Of course player A should have some recourse. After all, conflicts aren’t interesting if they always end one way.

Different games approach this differently, but the good ones do have systems in place so that player A can win. It might (and probably should) cost him something. He shouldn’t win always or even half the time, but he should be able to win. This all should be a natural part of the gameplay. It might require some learning, but once you get there, its great.

Most of you have probably seen Platoon. (If not, spoilers ahead. And where have you been during the last quarter of a century?) Watch it again and think about how the system of your choice could handle all the different conflicts, which happen between the groups, within the groups and an so-forth. Think about what happens within Elias’s squad after his death. Some (including the main protagonist, Taylor) want to kill Barnes, but Rhah stops this from happening. Could your system allow for someone to defuse the situation in such a way?

What happens right after is that Barnes comes in and confronts them. Again, its Rhah who talks Barnes out of killing Taylor (although I’m a bit hazy on this). Again, would your system allow for this?

I think a good system not only encourages conflicts, it encourages quick resolution and has at least some randomness to provide unexpected results. Its the players (and the GMs) job to explain why this unexpected result happened.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess has the following text in its backcover.

Simple enough for a beginner yet meaty enough for the veteran

Hopefully you haven’t been subjected to this garbage (which I sadly backed in KS), so I’ll explain. Its basically old D&D with a few slight adjustments. So, if you’re a fan of old D&D for some peculiar reason, you don’t need this. If you’re not, you definitely don’t need this. If no one has any use for it, its – pretty much by definition – garbage.

My question is, why would anyone think this is appropriate for beginners? Granted, most of us old timers started with D&D. It worked for us, right? Sure, but we possessed the capability to absorb the rules and abuse them. Maybe we even enjoyed the threshold. This was our thing and no-one else could quite figure it out. It set us apart. After all, many of us were or are more or less social outcasts.

Now we should know better. RPGs aren’t about that. If you want games were you can find places where the rules are broken enough to abuse, you can always play MtG at tournament level or any number of miniature games. RPGs are and should be about stories and characters. We have game systems that facilitate this aspects.

In theory, RPGs aren’t restrictive in nature, but in practice, they restrict you to things they emphasize. Most of the old systems are mostly interested in combat and advancement. Is this what we want the new players to focus on?

No. That is not what we want. I was indoctrinated into the school of thought where RPGs were a series combats with some discussions in the middle, which took the place of actual story and character development. It took years to get rid of this mindset. Why would we make new players go through this?

There are obvious benefits to the steep learning curve. Once you learn, you are too proud of your skill to let it go and you will continue the hobby. Maybe you take a step back sometimes and take a break, but you’ll end back. My break from MtG lasted 13 years. Still, us nerds might be willing to do this, but do we really want to limit this hobby to the true nerds?

We need new players. They bring new ideas and viewpoints. They are always willing to go where us ol’ folk don’t think to go because in our day we didn’t do that. We are too deep in our thinking, and we don’t need to bring more people down with us.

So, introduce new players to Fiasco, or MonsterHearts, or HeroQuest. Games were imagination is rewarded above system knowledge.