So, we had a fairly successful game of InSpectres with some friends a handful of months ago at one of the semi-local game emporiums and coffee shops. While I still need to show some examples of solid Confessionals (I, myself, have failed at that) I saw that it worked well for these friends, and we talked about using it again. More specifically, I saw the opportunity to blend a favourite flavour (in this case, Harry Potter) with it, if only for the duplicated Confessionals between Draco Malfoy and Hermione Granger: "I am SURROUNDED by IDIOTS."

So our Elfquest game (yes, I'll actually post some more about that later) was on hiatus as we were missing our healer-trickster (two great tastes that don't taste great together) and our working-class lust goddess (um, yeah) so I offered to run a quick one-shot if people still wanted to get together, and since I'd been hinting at this game for a while, I got the go-ahead early.

peer behind the GM screen • • "InSpectres! Potter-Style [long]" »

Disclaimer:

Someone I know chants, "My process is not your process," and that applies. That's why this series is called, "How I Design a LARP," not, "The One True Method as to How to Design LARPs and why you're stupid and ugly if you don't do this same thing."

If I happen to be giving the same advice as someone else, please point me to them, because maybe they have a solution I don't for some of my issues. Otherwise, I am mostly writing this down as a guide for my co-GMs of the future.

peer behind the GM screen • • "How I Design a LARP (part one: Location-Cubed)" »

Paladins no longer have to do stuff to be paladins.

This is the note that starts the list of aggravations for the last session of our 4E game. It used to be that being a Paladin didn't just require an unlikely succession of die rolls for attributes, but the GM's constant surveillance of your demeanor and actions. If you acted in anything but a Paladinesque fashion, you were stripped of your special abilities, and became Just An Ordinary Fighter.

peer behind the GM screen • • "Paladins now with less din. [4E]" »

Why, yes, I am in the middle of a redesign on the blog. I've gotten tired of the lack of colour, which means, of course, I go overboard the other way, eh?

Or, the number one lesson for life: expect change.

One of the games I'm in the planning stages with this year (mostly as a participant, but somewhat meta-GMing as well) (which is like GMing, only on a level that doesn't make the in-game decisions...) is having a bit of a participant problem that I'm really not sure how it is going to work out.

It's come to a choice of two players. One of them should join the game, but it's hard to tell which one. (And yes, the choice of "neither" has come up, but...see below.)

Player One is enthusiastic and comes complete with good player partner. One does not play characters who can get hurt. However, One does play characters who "look for trouble" (in the Munchkin sense of the phrase.) One does have a tendency towards the silly.

Player Two is also enthusiastic but comes with player baggage. Two plays a very basic character, one that may fit the "straight man" niche of the game. Two would make for a more serious game but spends a lot of the time accomplishing the generic.

Player Baggage: refers to out-of-game issues that become in-game issues. Baggage can include emotional or personal... meaning, actual people (nonplayer kids/partners) that need attention during sessions. I have my own, but I continue to try to train them well.

One of the main problems of the game in the past was the "silly" overwhelmed. On the other hand, if "silly" means a level of guaranteed player-driven plot, how does one weigh it?

I keep having the feeling there's got to be better questions to determine this. Any thoughts?

1) Have a family history with 1st Edition, up to the point of literally being known to sleep with the DMG. Look, old habits are hard to change.

2) Don't read anything on 4E except the excited writings of people who are familiar enough with it to actually write FOR it, and expect to intuit it immediately.

3) Try to translate your existing characters into it rather than build them completely new. This is not an upgrade, this is a whole new OS. Your existing programs may not work.

I am glad the LintKing reads the books. Because he's the one who answers the questions when I ask, "OK, what should we roll for this?"

Take, for example, the incident tonight.

Drythar, Beryl, Molivus, and Thorn have made it out of the ancient coliseum.

Between commentary (there's only two of us - you'd think we'd move faster than this... but discussion ranged from banana nut muffins, blue penguins who are actually god-emperors of the multiverse, mufflers of gold, and scarfing food) some fifteen minutes later our intrepid heroes manage to open the door.

A minute later, there's a whistle from behind them, and then one of the strange glass arrows (with obsidian "fletching") is fired above their heads and into the ancient cactus directly outside.

(They haven't observed, passively or otherwise, that this is actually not the first time for this to have happened.) (Or the skill of the archer - it should have slid right through, but...practice, after all.)

So, should they turn directly around they could have caught the gaze of the lurking medusa who's been playing with them for about half an hour of their "careful" trip through the hall of statues.

I want them to roll to fail the automatic reaction of trying to make out something in the gloom they left. I'd rather not deal with two more statues, not that I can really find any petrification rules. (It's probably something you can "self-heal," muttermutter. Did I mention I made my cleric/mage a warlock instead? It's seeming to fit better.)

What do they roll? And if they fail it, do they roll a saving throw?

"I should have stuck with THAC0," is like our theme song.

We went with a wisdom check and yes, saving throws. Which suck hard in 4e, but we're trying...really.

A good friend recently brought up a question to one of her gaming groups about "GMing styles" and she used me as an example. It kind of brought up a lot of thoughts I had recently about my "GMing style" and how dissatisfied I've been with [my] GMing lately.

See, the thing is, I don't feel I've come through with what I think of as "my style" for about... oh, over a year now. ("Please and Shank You" was good through about the third session...) I had some success in the recent InSpectres game, but, dude, if you're not having a good time with InSpectres, UR NOT DOIN IT RITE, as the LOLcattian parlance goes. Even then I had a couple false starts and probably should have put a kibosh on a confession or two.

So, the real question is, how do I change? I've been reading and observing closely over the last couple of years for things I long to do and have happen and be like, for that matter. I want to have and be fun again, and the more I try to follow what seems to be "the new conventional wisdom" (if there is such a thing) the less successful I've been.

peer behind the GM screen • • "The Year of No GMing...not." »

1) What does Illegal Gods do that no other existing game does? What makes it unique?

When I was first designing the game, a heck of a lot that other games don't, but, as time has gone on, it's been crowded out with others' ideas. That's the problem with slow-cooking. On the other hand, God-Merchants, Soul Jockeys, and maybe the HSEL are the first three things that come to my mind. I think of it mostly as a pirates-in-space game with religion added. Preacher pirates in SPAAAAACE. Erm.

What is holding you up in your minigame, "The Four Queens"?

Trying to work out a mechanic that isn't so self-contained as to make a great card/boardgame, and allowing narrative to have an influence.

What other RPG irons do you have in the fire?

My ACNW games, of course. I took out the Lonesome October style LARP as I need another GM for it, and about 20 people for it to work the way I want. Aurors Gone Wild is about ready to launch. I just need to fill in some final information and I'll be happy there. The Reclaimers! which I think of as a Shadowrun game 'gone twisted,' (you play in a world of mutants and magic and try to dig up the future) is being nudged and massaged, if not in any playable form yet.

And computer RPGs? Boardgames?

Still playing Arcanum. About to take on Arronax, or whatever his name is, presuming we can, um, get back to him. That's kind of awkward when you move into the next room and teleport somewhere else and there's a hanging plot point. Still, the designers have been vaguely smart about it so far...

I wrote on my Twitter:

"I can sum up my ACNW game submissions on Twitter: `It's all gone wrong. It's your fault. Can you fix it?' and have characters left over."

The reason I'm talking about it here and not on my Amber Blog is because this isn't inherent in any fashion to ACNW, Amber, or even my games.

It's indicative of a methodology I've embarked upon in changing the way I GM.

peer behind the GM screen • • "You broke it. I'm fixing it." »