Sunday, December 2, 2018

Oh DM Tools, Where Art Thou?

Every now and then I encounter some problem with a system and I start to wonder: when is a system complete? Because it sure ain't as soon as it's playable. At least not in my experience. So I thought, as those things often go, I write a post about why we need DM Tools and see what I end up with.

Playable versus Fully Realized

This is, if you want, my "all-in" at the beginning of the argument: I say that something like a "fully realized rpg" does indeed exist. What could I possibly mean by that, you might ask, and I would answer that I mean a game that has all the tools it needs to support play for an entire campaign. In other words you could buy that book without having a clue what a rpg is to begin with and it would give you the full picture.

Those games are not unheard of (if rare) and you could call me out on beating a dead horse (again), but one of those games would be the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. I might have talked about how great this game is before :) Anyway, if you haven't read my opinion on it (and want to) you could follow this link and come back afterwards.

Fully Realized in this context doesn't mean that there is no work to be done with the game or that it is by any means complete, it means that enough of the tools a game might need are present to gather an informed opinion about it, which is possible today because the hobby is now over 4 decades old and necessary to form the game to your liking. People wrote books about that, rpg-design had time to experiment and gather information about what's needed, what works and what doesn't and why. It's all there.

However, people tend to take the short cut and put games out there that work, but aren't complete. My litmus test for this when looking at games is the amount of DM Tools they offer. If they don't, it's not a complete game. Full stop.

Close, but no cigar ... [source]

Yeah, of course. I've been on record for saying that I was disappointed with Sword & Sorcery White Box leaving the Encounter Reactions and Morale out of the rules. The ignorance regarding the importance (and brilliance) of those rules is astonishing, if not telling. They are (imo) the single, most important rules in any game of D&D (followed by the Random Encounter Tables), because they show that there are creatures not always willing to fight to the death or even that they would not fight to begin with but have reason to parley instead.

Even if you disregard the impact those two little rules have on the game itself (completely changing combat dynamics and even exploration tactics, for instance), it should be obvious that not every DM is aware of those dimensions of the game, especially those new to DMing. (I blame video games to some extent for that, but that's material for another post ...)

I'll give you a second example, just because we happen to play with it  right now: Castle Falkenstein. You might not know it, you might have heard of it. I always held CF in high regard for all the lovely details it offers for a steampunk setting, but I never got to explore the rules in full until just recently.

I love everything about the core mechanics. They are light and fast and fit the atmosphere and style of the game (using cards in a steampunk setting is a no-brainer, imo). The rules for magic are some of the best out there and the dueling rules are great fun. What the rules lack, however, is support rules for the DM and that is really bumming me out right now. It honestly takes the fun out of DMing, because it gives a DM nothing to play with.

To Challenge and Inspire

The system offers no challenge for the DM, that's a big part of it, but it also gives no indication how the setting and the world function beyond the literary examples it summons to illustrate the kind of stories it wants to tell. That's just bad design, because it assumes that literary examples translate 1:1 into a gaming experience.

Okay, Castle Falkenstein is a couple of years old and was exploring new ground back then and all that. Agreed. But shouldn't we know better by now? I've been reading this more and more lately: the DMs are players as well, they are just playing a different game. My argument in this is, that the rules for that (part of the) game need to be part of the rules and those rules are just as important as those for the players. Leaving them out of a game reduces a DM to playing referee of an advanced game of cops and robbers.

DM tools inform and form a game. They expand a DMs narrative range by challenging the necessarily narrow perception or scope a DM could muster of the stage the game is manifesting on. It helps a DM explore the gaming world by experiencing it with a designer's eyes through the mechanics the game offers. That's crucial for new DMs and for those willing to actually play a fully realized game instead of just bringing their own notion of how every game has to be played.

I know, I know, most "experienced" DMs out there are able to play/DM any game out there because of the games they already have played. They bring their own tools, so to say, and wing it. Considering the above, they are not wrong in doing so, because lots of games lack that kind of support and need you to bring something extra. However, they are missing out when ignoring those games that offer DM tools specifically designed for the game they are in.

You cannot ... [source]
 The lack of DM tools in Castle Falkenstein brought that point home for me fully, because I also have my own tools for the games I DM and I can "wing it" if I want to. However, for CF it would have meant to take out the dice to compensate for that lack and it just wouldn't fit with a game featuring cards as the core rules.

I'm basically forced to either come up with my own rules to use at the table or arbitrarily deciding what I think the game needs in any given moment. If I wanted to do the latter, I'd be better off writing a novel, as the amount of preparation needed to do it properly does not justify the time we play the game (although it's an interesting exercise, no doubt, but I just don't have the time). So I have to write my own rules for it. Which sucks as well, for some of the same reasons (time, research, etc.) and one more:

Designing DM Tools is hard, though ...

The main crux of the problem is that writing those rules is hard to begin with, doing so for a specific game is where the real challenge lies. You need to know the scope and impact on the core rules in all phases of the game, and the transition needs to work from one system to the other. The results need to match or at least conversion needs to be simple and fast (ideally). Easy example for this? Mass combat.

It's an art to write a set of rules for a completely different play-style in a way that seamlessly translates to the player-side of the core rules. The thousands and thousands of soldiers of an army just can't all have stats and levels and items as the players do. Maybe some of them do (important NPCs and whatnot), but never to the level of detail or depth the players do.

This is a well known problem, of course. Let a group of high level adventurers (players) meet another group of high level adventurers (NPC) and you will see some of the problems. Or a high level wizard. What spells does he have memorized? Did he use any of them already? The easy way out is to just create the NPC somewhat like the player character and use the player-side core rules to play him. But is that satisfying? Are there any better solutions to that? And what about mass combat? Or colossal creatures?

Do that without reducing it to a narrative ... [source]
It's hard to write those rules. I know, because that's what I'm facing right now for Lost Songs of the Nibelungs (and for Castle Falkenstein, as if I had needed that kind of additional workload). Way harder than writing a core resolution system for the player side. Still necessary, though, and games that don't offer those rules shouldn't be considered "complete", imo. 

Final thoughts

Fully realized games offer DM tools that either address those problems for the DM or offer examples how to DIY problems when they arise in a campaign. I know it can be done. I argue it should be done. I close in saying that there should be a discussion about games that don't offer DM tools and the impact it has on a game or the implications it has for the DM. For one, it is actually unfair to leave DMs out there unsupported ... It'd be a start to at least educate new DMs in a way that they know what is needed and what to look for.

As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. And one for the brain pool: are there supplements out there offering just tools for the DM? Not advice (those are plenty), but an actual "game within the game" for DMs to drop into games that lack that kind of thing? Just wondering :)

Saturday, November 10, 2018

This is not goodbye (introducing Ø2\\‘3|| - A Dystopian RPG)

I read an interesting post the other day that we only blog to show expertise, but we publish to gain an audience. I always thought blogging was some sort of publishing (and still belief it to be true, especially for communities exploring new ideas), but this got me thinking.

With the recent shifts in the rpg blog-o-sphere (dusk of g+, lots of former bloggers either leaving for good or for publishing gaming content in more traditional venues), there is almost no audience left for more academic approaches on gaming or for show-casing the design processes behind writing games. Never change a running system, as they say. So the machine is running and too much is at stake for those earning a meager buck with what is published now to allow for open questioning of that content.

That's not a bad thing. Markets have a tendency to sort that kind of stuff out, if you let them. From what I have seen, the algorithmically controlled downgrading of visibility, targeted on those with smaller audiences is far more damaging to the hobby than a shift to a monetized market could ever be. The more obscure you are nowadays, the less likely it becomes that you gain an audience with it. Hence the statement in the beginning.

In a way, market places like One Book Shelf are more honest. You'd still have to fight for reviews and it is hard work all around, but on the other hand you don't have all the bad taste social media leaves with its politically fueled popularity contests or the meme machinery with its constant recycling of the past and simplistic messages.

So yes, it is time to move on, I think. Retreating from social media a bit had been appealing to me for some time now, but I always thought I'd leave too much behind. I have lots of projects that actually found a small audience that is looking forward to seeing shit happening ... I have no problem with trying to get all that done and out there. That hasn't changed at all.

What I won't keep doing, though, is talking at length about the process to get there or the insights I gained doing so. I will update this blog occasionally (once a month sounds about right at the moment). I'll also be lurking on g+ until that's done and you can find me on (don't-believe-the-bullshit) mewe for some more lurking. Feel free to engage and socialize and chat here or there. I'm always happy to talk games.

Instead of mingling on social media and writing walls of text here, I'll put some more effort into producing content. This has long been coming, I guess, and it has already begun: some of you might know my first DIY module, Monkey Business (which doesn't get enough - or any! - love out there) and there's definitely more where that came from (Rise of Robo-Hitler would be next and after that, The Goblin-Tribe Simulator).

I also got an opportunity to publish some science fiction and you can get a taste of that here and here, with another story being published as part of a great science fiction anthology very soon.

Lastly, there is the role playing games ...

Lost Songs of The Nibelungs

Lost Songs is on a good way to be complete soon-ish. I work on it constantly and play-testing should resume shortly. Over all, it's progress. Issues and design choices grew too complex to allow for musings on the blog, but I aim to announce some online play-testing early next year and I will keep you guys updated here on the blog.


We are currently testing this Labyrinth Lord Grindhouse expansion with the D&D RC, and testing is going well. Needs some writing, needs to be done before I can start with Robo-Hitler ... I expect some progress with this early 2019. I might throw around a beta-version of it on the social media circuit before publication.

The Grind

Not sure many of you remember The Grind. I didn't talk about it for some while now ... A card-based dark and brutal DungeonPunk RPG about heists in a world controlled by monsters. It never left my mind. It should be the next thing I do after the design on Lost Songs is done. It's dear to me and I want to see this happening, so expect some news on that in the next couple of years :)

Ø2\\‘3|| - A Dystopian RPG

This is the latest game I'm working on and it should be the next thing I publish. Here is the blurb from the introduction:
This is an attempt to update the classic dystopian and social science fiction of yore into a roleplaying game. There is a bit of everything popular in here (as the name of the game betrays). Half-life 2, 1984, Children of Men, Brave New World, Fallout, Black Mirror, you name it, it‘ll have a place in this game.

However, it is not just about the action, it‘s about exploring a world where the most hideous ideas humanity can come up with became reality in a near future. Nothing here is as much invented as it is satirically exaggerated. Some of it has already happened in one form or another.
It'll be my attempt at a rules-light narrative based roleplaying game and it will tackle some dangerous ideas to play around with (as the sticker says: mature readership implied). It's 80% done and I'm in talks with publishers about getting this out there. I will tease this soon, so stay tuned. Okay, here, have a teaser already:

Elements of this might change ...
Here's the gist of it: the setting is about a corrupt and fascist party called The Family, ruling what is left of a shattered Europe by subjecting all but the most politically conform citizens to puberty blockers in an attempt to control a population that is also under total state surveillance. Every extreme produces its opposite, and that's what the game is about.

So, stay around, folks!

Almost 8 years of blogging, with ups and downs and I think I managed to say a lot in the time. I'm not done yet, but I will change my online presence and concentrate on publishing, designing and writing fiction. The blog will stay as it is, for now, with updates every now and then.

I was thinking about offering a monthly/bi-monthly newsletter with all the interesting stuff I encounter in the wild out there, if something like this can find an audience. If you'd be interested in something like this, please leave a comment where I can find it and we can go from there.

I'll be around.


Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Violence in (RPG) Communities (not another post about killing orc babies)

This is decidedly not a political post. It is a post about why I despise violence in all its forms, why we (maybe) need tolerated and ritualized forms of violence nonetheless and why the oxymoron "fictional violence" can tell you right there how stupid it is to think that describing or visualizing violence somehow actually is violence. It is a lot for one post. It is probably a difficult one as well, but it is heart-felt and I think we all could benefit from talking about what is acceptable in a community and what is not. The short of it is:

If you use violence against others, you are the problem. If you promote violence against others, you are part of the problem. Do good instead.

The quotes I'll use in this post (in italics) are from the Tao Te Ching to illustrate that those thoughts aren't new. We can know this. Actually, we have to go as far as ignoring it if our own selfish needs dictate otherwise. This also is very relevant to our hobby, as it happens far too often lately that I see people promoting violence or using verbal violence to achieve their goals, even justifying it more or less eloquently. I believe this to be toxic behavior. People using violence should be ashamed and change their ways. Here is why.

What is violence?
Those who advice the ruler on the Way,
do not want the world subdued with weapons.
Definition time! We need to know what we're talking about here. I'd like to go with the definition provided by the WHO (the link leads to a page with some research on violence, for those inclined to look deeper into this):
The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

The definition used by the World Health Organization associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. Excluded from the definition are unintentional incidents – such as most road traffic injuries and burns.

The inclusion of the word ‘‘power’’, in addition to the phrase ‘‘use of physical force’’, broadens the nature of a violent act and expands the conventional understanding of violence to include those acts that result from a power relationship, including threats and intimidation. The ‘‘use of power’’ also serves to include neglect or acts of omission, in addition to the more obvious violent acts of commission. Thus, ‘‘the use of physical force or power’’ should be understood to include neglect and all types of physical, sexual and psychological abuse, as well as suicide and other self-abusive acts.
This is a lot to chew on already. Actually, I believe it covers all the bases. In the report this is quoted from, they go 380 pages into that topic. Here we'll just scratch the surface and only talk about those elements I deem interesting for what I think relevant (encouraging everyone to research as they desire and come to their own conclusions).

What that definition doesn't do is evaluating what violence does, what the consequences are and why, indeed, violence is something we need to get a grip on (the study does that, of course).

It also lacks the search for the origins of violence. But fear not, psychology has some answers there.

Agreeableness is a human trait ... and so is disagreeableness!
Those who praise victory relish manslaughter.
Those who relish manslaughter cannot reach their goals in the world.
"The science is clear on this one," as they say. It's the result of some really interesting statistic research that started in the 1920s and is still going on and is called The Big Five. It is a statistical taxonomy of personality traits using common language descriptors. Very well researched and very well worth the time you can sink into it, if you want to learn something about yourself (or others, actually), imo.

For this post we only need to talk about two aspects of this, though (and short, at that, but it is important for the whole picture):

(1) Having our nature defined like this, doesn't mean we will be able to actually live them. The traits might be in conflict with their (social) surroundings. Following the definition above, those conflicts are always some form of violence or another.

(2) In a sense, violence creates violence that way. Either you are very disagreeable and violence is the only tool you know and appreciate or violence is done to you because of one of your traits or you react to that abuse with more violence. It is a vicious circle like that.

Knowing this and realizing its full potential is the first step in understanding why people do what they do or who wants to do harm to others and why. As far as our communities are concerned, I'd like to point out that it is important to see that people are different and have different temperaments (believes, even) and go from there. A community should embrace the whole spectrum of it under the condition of moderated and fair discourse.

It is important to mention ritualized forms of violence in this context, I think. Although only tangentially (it's discussed further below). Since violence is very much a trait humans inherit, it is important for societies to implement ways to channel it. Martial Arts are the prime example here, as they embrace a philosophy in which discipline masters violence to a degree where it is no longer needed or even overcome. All forms of competition work that way. Laws work that way, come to think of it.

The point is, being potentially more aggressive than others, does not excuse acting violently towards others. Never. There are ways to learn restraint or let off steam in every civilization that is worth anything. People ignoring this because they get a kick out of it or because the end justifies the means or some such bullshit, just decided to be bad people.

It is also important to note that to the degree this can (will) exist unchecked in any society, it also tends to guise itself as taking the morale high ground. So this is another aspect how it relates to gaming communities (or as much as it relates to anything else, really).

People wanting to act violent will find ways to do so. The degree of excusing they need to do with it could be seen as an indicator how wrong their behavior actually is (or how healthy a community actually is). And yes, there still are societies out there where you don't need excuses at all. They are, however, in the minority. We should thank the gods for that.

Exchange without violence, that's what makes a community healthy and productive. To get there it needs acceptance, reflection and the option to change for the better.

Are there accepted forms of violence?
Those who defeat others are strong,
those who defeat themselves are mighty.
Here's what civilization and culture have come up with over the course of the last couple of thousand years: the state has the monopole on violence. It is basically the essence of what has been discussed here so far.  Let me point out the first, most obvious critique to this idea: what if the state is abusive and violent?

There is no easy answer to this, but there is a bail-out: it is an ideal and as such something a people should strife to reach. It doesn't give you any answers, though. Would violence be a means to overcome a violent state? Did any attempt in history ever result in anything but more violence in the long run? I'd say, no. I'd say, if everyone would just start with themselves, all would be for the better.

But I digress. Violent states it is right now. What can I say. A close look at history reveals that things really got better over time. Extreme poverty is declining, people become more and more aware of how important the environment is for our own survival ... The list goes on. If not for it's individuals, humanity as a collective might be on a good way.

However, as always, you have the mean or average to look at, and the extremes. And there definitely are harsh extremes in the margins, making their presence felt. Rape, torture, murder, all kinds of violence and abuse make headlines all the time. It's a challenge to address and face those in every community. The best way so far seems to be to have laws and authorities to enforce those laws.

Naturally, those authorities underly the same rules of having means and extremes. It is, as they say, the nature of the beast. Overall, however, you will find more evidence that authorities do an average to outstanding job than doing harm and although those systems will have drawbacks every now and then, they evolve over time, aiming for a better version.

So overall, it's definitely a good thing to have laws and authorities to enforce them. It's also a good thing to monitor, discuss and change the modalities under which they operate. There is always reason to optimize. Just imagine a world without any kind of "law and order". Better yet, research it. Happened a lot and it's always ugly. Really ugly.

For the rest? Well, society provides ways to compensate violet urges (both healthy and unhealthy, and to a changing degree from society to society). Some of it is ritualized, some of it institutionalized, some of it inherited or, say, a natural consequence of who we are.

The mix changes from region to region, from community to community, of course. However, as a constant you could say that western civilization as a whole made access to all kinds of collected knowledge in that regard very easy. All you need is access to the internet or a library and you can start researching to help yourself (or helping others). Most will even offer therapy if you recognize the problem and want to change it.

What is NOT violence?

What differentiates us naked monkeys from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to learn from abstract experiences. We can read a text or see a picture or a movie and we can emphasize. We can understand second hand feelings and ideally, it prepares us for the challenges we have to face in our own lives.

That is why stories and art have value. It's why they matter. They carry meaning and if we take the time to confront some unwelcome truths about life like that, there is no better way than the abstract and safe way fictional realms of all sorts offer. You will always be better for it.

Zen is one answer [source]
 Furthermore, having fun exploring those ideas (like you'd have when playing some FPS, for instance) is not the same as actually doing it. It's not even the same ballpark. Believe it, they try for decades now to pin that label on computer games and it just doesn't stick. There is no harm in playing games with fictional violence or reading or seeing fictional violence.

I've written at length about this just two months ago, so if you want to read more about my take on this aspect of the discussion, you can do so here.

As an aside (probably a whole point in its own right), the same goes for humor and comedy. I've heard just the other day a comedian say (I think it was Theo Von) that comedians are the "canaries in the coal mine" as far as the political climate of a society is concerned. If what they say (or draw or whatever form of expression they chose) is considered violence, a society is in deep shit. I believe this to be true.

Oppose violence, always
The forceful and violent will not die from natural causes.
Beware the people that find elaborate means to excuse violence. There are other, more civilized ways to solve problems and seeing a simple truth like that ignored should warn people that something is afoul.

It is difficult to distinguish the good from the bad "players" in a community and it is easy to fall for passionate ideological claims if they resonate with your fears well enough. It is tempting to use the shortcut and act aggressively to reach you goals as it is tempting to look away when others act that way. I know it. It's a fucking struggle.

But seriously, not trying to understand, not trying to be a better human being, is just as bad as using violence (in fact, neglect is a form of violence). All of it, the looking away, the calls to arms, the verbal abuse, all of it is doing harm to everyone and in the end, everyone loses. That's not what we should want in a community (or a society, for that matter).

Struggle. Be better. Educate yourselves. Help and understand each other. Seek dialogue before confrontation. And if you can stomach it, oppose violent behavior. However, the best way to oppose violent behavior is by acting good yourself and showing others how they can do the same.

You might think you don't have an impact like that, but you'd be wrong. Every little thing helps. A nice comment, a like or just resisting temptation and not engaging in a fight (digitally or otherwise). Do not applaud or condone violence ... Little things like that, done every day, will have a positive impact in your surroundings. It'll resonate and encourage others to do the same. If that's not worth struggling for, I don't know what is.

One last thing: if you find yourself to be a victim of abuse, you should always reach out for help, regardless if it is in the rpg community or elsewhere. That said, I'd like to encourage the idea that there is always a way to heal and overcome shit like that. You'll get stronger than you think if you get strong enough to have it never happening again.


Sunday, September 9, 2018

D&D RC Campaign Summerbreak Summary Part 2: The Art of Boredom

Hello, everyone! I'm still alive and I got lots of writing to do, just not for the blog. Have a great little home campaign cooking and people seem to enjoy it enough to put some more energy into it, I started writing some more fiction, which will get published through other outlets (if you want a taste, check out my little cyberpunk story here) and I still aim to publish a couple of projects I started the last couple of months ... it's been busy. Anyway, so much for the update. I this post I'll talk a bit more about our D&D campaign and share some of the world building we've been doing. Enjoy!

Here's Part 1, for those interested in the whole bit.

Where we left

I need to write this down or I'll forget it ... Alright, the characters arrived in Deverrin, a nice town in a nice valley with a nice apple festival going. They got involved in a heist of some very expensive apple cider, or at least everyone thinks they are involved and the party of adventurers becomes a party of interest for at least 3 factions involved.

In best noir-tradition, they go with the flow and see where they can benefit form the situation. First in line was a priestess of the Goddess of Boredom and after some unfortunate business about unpaid bills in a tavern, the characters are on their way to the temple for room and board (or should I say "bored" ...).

This is where we get back into the story.

The Temple of Boredom

The challenge here was to present the players with something that obviously bored their characters, but still was entertaining to behold. Not an easy task, beyond the obvious jokes that come to mind immediately: highly bureaucratic, boring architecture, boring people ... and yet, you'd have burned your way through that pretty fast and they came to stay, so it'll need a little bit more than that.

I started out lucky, as the Narrative Generator suggested that the characters encounter some rivals. Having the group encounter another adventuring group is something I do very rarely in my D&D games and this gave me a great little opportunity to change that. So as they enter the temple, looking forward to some free food and a bed, and they see a group of eccentric strangers that could only be adventurers: a pixie, a veteran, some shady looking guy and a halfling.

Obviously the Forum Romanum, but it'll serve as temple district ... [source]
The group's very own shady looking character sneaked in and heard that their jig was threatened (is that how you say it?): those guys offered their services for finding the missing bottle of Goldspritz and their offer was good. The players wouldn't have it. However, instead of confronting their competition, they "sleep-spelled" them (which totally should be a word ...).

It was a gamble, of course, as they had no idea how tough those NPCs were and plan B seemed to be of the bloody variant, with the thief hoping he got a surprise attack if the wizard failed ... Well knowing that if he failed, they wouldn't get out of this alive (at least it would get bloody).

Anyway, the spell dropped 3 of the four, leaving the Pixie awake and they managed to handle that one. Took a little bit of intimidation and pointing out that cutting some throats would be the easiest solution right now, and the competition was no more. They sure made an enemy that day, though.

Having their place secured, they claimed the offer they got. The next problem seemed to be that they couldn't agree how to pair for the rooms they got, so they had to share a room with some (very boring) strangers.

Here's the thing: there is beauty in boredom. If you are bored, nothing dangerous is happening, and that's a good thing. That's why the Goddess of Boredom has a strong following and people come from all over the place to experience true boredom at the temple. Mostly office types, probably. But there is nothing wrong with embracing a boring life. Or so they told the characters.

Of course they tested the limits of that by trying to disturb the divine boredom of the place. It's just that the reaction was never as spectacular as they thought it'd be. Hence, that first night in the temple was quite unspectacular.

Breakfast was when the characters realized that this place might not be healthy. They'd been led to a room without windows, with two rows of tables where the seating always faced a blank wall. The food was gray porridge. Nourishing, for sure, but not very appealing. To make things worse, they had a little machine in there that made a constant ticking sound, like you'd know from a loud clock.

It was too much for the characters and they'd have to make a save versus death rays to avoid the boredom affecting them (which two characters failed, of course). Still, a free meal it has been. They gathered some more information in the temple, then they went back into town to gather some more ...

Deverrin with details (or rather, that's what I use) [source]

Rumors and the Redcape Militia

Another rainy day in the city. But still, the festival was in full swing and apple-themed gimmicks and pastries where all over the place. The (fat) wizard and the (fat) cat woman where happy to explore a variety of apple extravaganzas, while the rest of the group headed to the next guard post.

The city guard is a militia called the "redcapes", obviously for their choice in clothing. From what the characters know, they are mainly financed by powerful political entities in the area and thus, let's say, a bit biased towards certain cash cows. The baron keeps out of town, mostly, so the city guard is who's having the say. And who controls them, controls what's happening.

Chief among those powerful is the Godmother of apple cider in town, Gertrude Oldinges. Now, guess who was target of that heist ... Right. So the city guard had a vested interest in solving that particular case.

In come the characters. It's a busy little guard station, right in the center of town. No obvious leaders, but the characters wanted to mingle first anyway. The barbarian offered an arm wrestling competition and those redcapes just hanging around happily accepted the challenge. Anything to get some entertainment, right?

So the barbarian fails, which is good for morale, then the pretty boy of the group (our very own Prince Charming) joins the fray and devastates the strongest guy the guard could offer. Now people started paying attention. The thief made some good winnings on the side (which he had to share, because people with axes persisted).

Our prince charming wished he looked like that, but it's close enough ... [source]
Having played the crowd like that, the group starts asking questions, especially asking who's in charge. Turns out, the guy in charge is called Irmin and he's quite the hero material, all muscles and charm.

He's open to exchange information, but wants the group to do him a favor first (again the narrative generator throwing a curve ball): his young cousin has fallen in with a bad crowd. A band of misfits that hang out in the slums that grew outside the walls of Deverrin. Irmin wants the group to go in there and get the boy back to his family. If they manage to do that, they get the information they want.

Meanwhile the cat and the wizard eat and drink their way through the festival and gather some more rumors while they are at it: something about an explosion in the north-east of town that seemed somehow drug related and there is some underground fighting somewhere in the sewers.

The group unites and head towards the residence where Irmin's aunt lives to gain some more knowledge on the boy.

A tragic story?

Irmin's extended family lives in the artisan quarter of town. Houses with several stories, where the business is on the ground level and the living quarters are above. Usually several generations lived in those houses, as well as the apprentices and the helps. The characters are met with suspicion first, but as soon as they explained that Irmin sent them and what their quest is, the family warms up to them and they are allowed inside.

The family seems to prepare for supper as the characters arrive. Women and children in the kitchen, the mother of the boy in trouble among them. She sends the rest of the family outside and tells the characters the story as far as she knows it. Her son, Tlaus, had a childhood sweetheart called Yvi. They'd do everything together, but it was a strange and silent girl most of the time and they'd soon find out why.

She was the daughter of a famous artisan living close by. Seemed to be a perfectly happy family, too, but something went on there that wasn't supposed to be public. A secret, until the day the family residence burned down and revealed some ugly truths. Or at least some rumors about went on when no one was looking.

Not many of the family survived that fire, but among the dead had been Yvi's father and the surviving family members where unanimous that Yvi had set that fire in a fit of rage about something her father did to her. Most of it was left to the imagination, but Yvi definitely went into hiding after the fire and was searched for as the culprit behind the fire.

Tlaus had secretly kept in touch with her, very much aware that it wouldn't find approval with his family to help the firestarter (the reasons didn't matter that much). It was a situation that had to escalate at some point, and it did. When his family found out that he'd helped Yvi, they tried to intervene and (of course) he ran away because of it.

Last thing they heard was that they started a gang and mugged unwary johns in the outskirts of town. Their main residence seemed to be (as far as the family knew) an establishment called "The Burning Kobold" They'd love to welcome Tlaus back to the family.

Meanwhile the cat made some friends aḿong the children living there and in the end the group got offered some stew in the kitchen. However, the had to be gone before supper started.

The weather had cleared up a bit when they headed towards the wooden shacks that grew like a tumor between Deverrin and the river Wolter. It was an impressive sight, mostly because of its height, and it looked like a proper labyrinth. However, there'd be enough freelancers at the entrances offering their services as guides into the filthy underbelly of town.

That's pretty close to what I described ... [source]
They threw a little boy some copper to get them there and then headed towards the Burning Kobold. What happened there, will be told in Part 3.

Still no fights ...

The group was very careful to avoid conflicts so far. That might be because they realized that all kinds of NPCs with varying power levels populate the area (as should obviously be the case in a D&D sandbox game, right?) or they wanted to avoid forcing their hand with the very brutal and unforgiving combat system we where testing for the game.

Hard to say, but they seemed to have fun nonetheless and that's all I need to know (I really wanted to test that combat system, though).

Still super happy with the Narrative Generator (the only part of Lost Songs that sees some testing right now, I'm afraid). It forces me to develop the narrative in directions I wouldn't have thought about. That's a good thing.

It also helps to imagine this to be an anime story. D&D is great for this kind of game (as I keep saying). All the tropes are either in there or easily implemented. Not really serious gaming, but lots of fun to play.

All the other house rules we agreed upon work as they should, although no character had been challenged really hard at that point. They still get xp for good roleplaying and ideas (as you'd get when playing the D&D RC), so people will level up eventually.

I know many people will tell you that you need to have some sort of mini-dungeon or similar challenge for a low level group to get them some treasure and monster xp, but I found it is very much worthwhile to take the time and built a strong narrative instead. I mean, who's to know, it's a sandbox game and anything goes. I sure enough gave them the hints for some proper dungeon crawling.

However, this is where the game went and it worked just as well, if not better.

Next time we'll learn how things went down with Tlaus and Yvi and what the guard had to tell about that heist. Stay tuned.

Saturday, August 4, 2018

Dangerous Ideas in Roleplaying Games

This is not about murdering orc children, but it could be. Instead I want to take a look at the dangerous ideas that are out there and see what worth there is in having them in a game. Not sure I'll get too specific, not sure this is going to be complete, but I'm very sure that role playing games are the one medium in which we are safe to experiment with ideas we wouldn't want to encounter unprepared in the wild ... and those definitely exist.

To Know Is To Know

The first foray in this argument could go several directions, but we'll go with the one formulated in the intro: to give people the opportunity to reflect ideas properly in a "simulation" is the best way to give them a head start when confronted with it or to give them an understanding what they had already experienced (even "just" through close friends or family).

To some extent this is what stories already do: they allow us to experience difficult situations (drama) quasi second hand, offering us to not only understand, but to emphasize. Fear, laughter, hate, sorrow, lust ... you name it, you can experience it. Get a glimpse, if you will.
Emotions and how they connect ... sometimes I love the internet :) [source]
You might say now 'But that's just entertainment!' (which I've seen happening in an argument once) and I'd hold against you, that the main reason for stories being "entertaining" is the fact that we are wired to engage with patterns and make stories about them. It's the reason why I can sit down in my apartment in front of a strange contraption, typing strange symbols you can decipher into something (hopefully) carrying meaning. It's the core engine that makes us hairless monkeys as inventive as we are.

So, stories are important. They give us an understanding of the world surrounding us. The appeal is that "knowing" will always give you an advantage. This isn't even about something like "scientific truth" necessarily, as a metaphorical truth will serve you just fine as long as its base assumption leads the the right behavior when needed. Which means (not exclusively, but mainly) that abstract and strange ideas or concepts have a place in this realm.

That's what "monsters" are, for example: manifestations of truths in an abstract and strange way, that can function as a warning (which is true in mythology, not necessarily in D&D). Fairy tales will work that way and are a good example how abstract concepts can get and still work. To a degree, even, where the reader isn't even fully aware of the effect or the consequences of a story (a lessons well learned and abused in advertisement, btw).

To know is to know, that's the big lesson here. You have an opinion? Challenge it with a counter-argument by any means. Explore the possibilities of ideas by talking with others (if opportune), by reading or writing (works for me a great deal), by watching movies or tv series or, well, by playing games (of the digital or analogue variety).

Always a catch ...

As I said, we do this naturally, unconsciously even. However, we are also creatures of habit (which is nothing else but using behavioral patterns we learned and got accustomed to) and, connected but far more influential, we like to keep it simple. Simplification is just as important as the abstract and the strange, even go hand in hand. And as long as it works, there is no problem with that what so ever.

When it's not working, though, is where it gets problematic. Simplifications will always leave room for interpretation. Done wrong, different interpretations will lead to conflict and misunderstanding. It's something we can see in politics (or the understanding thereof) almost every day. In other words, every low resolution story needs to include at least pointers to what the high resolution might look like.
Good old Boromir Memes ... [source]
 "Do good" is , maybe, a good example for something like this (most idioms and proverbs work that way, I guess) because what it means is not obvious by any stretch of the imagination. However you interpret it, though, will at least be beneficial to someone and it is only the degree how many people would consider something someone did as "good" that'll determine how effective this simplification is implemented. It's also something you can find out. It comes with "pointers".

Look at the paladin, if you need a role playing example.

In a way, simplifications only work beneficial if they are a short hand for some sort of reasonable and accessible truth. You can always find out by challenging them, but there is always the danger of just trusting that they'll lead to some sort of truth.

In a best case scenario, someone using those simplifications (either with ulterior motive or, far more often, unreflected) will be challenged to look closer (going to a higher resolution, so to say). But that might go either way and the higher the stakes, the higher the potential for conflict.

Add to that the fact that we are all individuals, not only with very different approaches and ideas about life, but also with very different potential outcomes. It's not only that you can't convince everyone of your opinion (for lack of skill and opportunity), you just won't. People are different, and that means in consequence that different variants of "truths" will apply.

Easy example: what's true for someone loving nuts in everything, is very much different for someone highly allergic to nuts.

Dangerous Ideas in Roleplaying Games?

The name should give it away, one would think, but it bears repeating every now and then: those games are designed to play roles. Shocking, isn't it? The invention of character classes (simplifications, if you will) might actually sidetrack what that can mean.

At least that's what I realized just now. If you ask someone during character generation what he wants to play, it's always some sort of simplification we look for. What can I play, what's worth doing in this game? Even games featuring point-buy-systems will have discussions in that direction to some extent (being able to do EVERYTHING isn't a good idea either, as every game designer worth anything will tell you).

The answer to this question is actually the gateway to exploring dangerous ideas. It's not about a character a player is going for, it's about what potential for conflict and drama that choice has in the setting that is going to be played.

Here is the thing: ideas will always lie dormant (like a virus!) or, say, conserved in the surroundings they are created in. To activate them, you have to bring them into a context where the implications of an idea can be explored. This resonates well with everything described above, but the merit I see in doing this activation in a setting, is that the exploration not only happens in a fictional realm (which is true for all mediums, of course) but is also collaborative.

Each participant in a role playing game experiences stories through fiction that way and there is an opportunity to explore challenging ideas as well.

Here is a saying Carl Jung is famous for (not only for that, of course):
 "People don't have ideas, ideas have people."
Not Carl Jung ... you get it [source]
It really brings home lots of points I try to make above. It also might help highlighting the idea (sic!) why roleplaying is a "safe" way to explore ideas and concepts when doing said exploration through the lens of a fictional character (players) interacting with a fictional setting (gamemaster). There is an abstract distance between yourself and a your character (or setting), allowing you to become an observer and interpreter of the part you play.

If that ends up manifesting some sort of insight you didn't have before, it's a sign that you discovered a truth you weren't aware of. And if that's not worth playing for, I don't know what is.

How far people are willing to go with this, is entirely up to them. I'm just talking about the potential here. However, as far as I'm concerned, as long as all involved keep that abstract distance between themselves and their character (or setting), there is NO LIMIT to what you can do.

It brings some responsibility and maybe even requires some maturity to make it work, but that isn't even a problem, as you can scale this quite easily and "potential" also means potential for growth ... steady wins the race, and all that.

I might need to stress at this point that we (of course) play for the fun of it, and when you think playing it as vanilla and safe as you can get is the best way to go, more power to you. However, my definition of fun varies from that quite a bit and while I'm definitely not telling other people how they have to play their games ("can" is better in that context), I'd definitely see it as a sign of competency if a group is able to pull something like that of (even if they don't do it).

In other words: if you want a metric what a good DM or player makes, you could do worse than starting with how insightful their gaming is.

Dangerous Ideas need to offer insights

This is where it gets difficult, as there is a wide range of possibilities what that could entail. Playing a SS-Officer in occupied France might be an idea like that, or playing a serial killer (Vampire: the Masquerade, basically, right?). As a rule of thumb I'd say, the closer to home an idea hits, the more dangerous it can be.

Inglorious Basterds, of course [source]
If you are anything like me, you'll sit there now, thinking that there are, indeed, limits to this. You shouldn't role play whatever is considered taboo, for instance. However, given the right context and communicating it properly goes a long way. Playing a historical game can do this, for instance.

The Romans had slaves. Actually, they build a society on their shoulders. They also owned boys for sexual pleasure and married children as young as 10 ... Playing in a setting like that allows you to tackle some dangerous ideas where the abstract distance is somewhat greater because you add history as a layer.

It'll also need tact. Sure, you can play Spartacus and project your contemporary set of values to fictionally avenge whatever you take offense in. However, as far as insights go, it's better to experience something like the Roman society in day to day life, imo ... and that's where tact comes in. You have to keep the distance and to a degree rationalize the experience to allow reflection.

Have a Merchant become a good friend of the players. Someone they would protect, maybe. Then have him abuse a slave in public or marry a 12 year old and show how society reacted positive to it to a degree that the characters acting up against it would get them into trouble, actually. Let them explore the ramifications. Stuff like that.

The value of realizing how different cultures and people can be and why, is very much worth the attempt. However, it implies the requirement to do so without ill intent or malevolence. I really think that the main problem people have with bringing dangerous ideas to the table, is how it could be abused. So if you are sitting there right now, thinking how all that could go wrong, all of the examples you can come up with will be cases that go against this very basic requirement.

There are no orc babies ...

I think I understand now why the ideas of "killing orc babies" gets dismissed by some and is offensive to others. It illustrates how the abstract distance can vary from individual to individual. I don't say this to invalidate either claim. Actually, if anything, it validates both sides.

In that sense it also shows another quite obvious aspect of all of this: different people have different levels of maturity and experience. Stories that are engaging for some (within the limitations discussed above), might have others somewhere between bored or even offended!

So maybe the first thing we can learn by playing role playing games like this, is to not only accept that others are in different places about different topics (which already is very important), but also that that is totally alright. The important thing is that we find ways to talk about those things and find a consensus about them. Role playing is one of those ways.

There is no better message to end this post, I think, so I'll leave it be. What I'm interested to hear is if people did something like this already and how it worked out. Share your experiences, if you are so inclined. I'd love to read them!

Zen Baboon! [source]

Sunday, July 22, 2018

Magic in Lost Songs of the Nibelungs (Design Post - this is Part 3, sort of))

You have been warned. This is right now the part of Lost Songs of the Nibelungs that took the longest time to get to the stage I'll start describing below (yes, there'll be more). Some familiarity with what I've done here for the game isn't necessarily needed, however appreciated. I'll give pointers along the way, of course. This post is about the design first, and then the game. It's also a bit complex and long, so it'd be a good idea to be in the mood for something like that. Let's get rollin'!

What I'd like to have

I took a first stab at this in 2016, and while the mechanics grew and changed quite a bit since then, the basic concepts and nomenclature still apply. Here's some quotes for us all to catch up on the topic:
"So what I want in my game are mysterious and powerful wielders of magic with a very weird connection to the world surrounding them, getting worse the deeper they go into the rabbit hole. I want them half crazy, with strange tattoos and fetishes and rites, seeing more than others but are always in danger of getting lost.

I also want the dark witches and wizards from the fairy tales, sitting in their dark towers, the land surrounding them drained of all life. Or the white warlocks and witches, living in harmony with the world or working on that harmony. I want demon pacts and craziness from outer space, but seen through the eyes of someone living 1500 years before today. And old magic from the time of the Roman Empire or before. It's all there in the mix.

The greatest wizard of them all: Odin [source]
But magic in Lost Songs is subtle. A curse, a chicken bone with strange scribbles on it or a fire that moves unnaturally, stuff like that. And it's very commonplace, in a way, as those "barbarians" really had a thing for individual trinkets and symbols like that, differing from tribe to tribe. Or that one guy living as a scholar in a Roman city but really dabbles in summoning demons ..." (from Part 2 of my original take)
That's how it works. It should also tie in with mystical creatures and how they do magic (dragons and what-not). Another thing from those posts tat is still valid, is this little concept:

The dice used for magic and the meaning associated with them
This would be the energy a caster summons. How he forms it is a totally different matter (and took the longest to figure out), but how he gets there is as straight forward as it gets:
"And that's basically it: players rolls 1d20 + Wits vs. a difficulty. If the result is below the difficulty, Aether Points are reduced [note: Aether Points are somewhat like Endurance, a resource to burn that grows as characters advance their magic]. If there are not enough Aether Points, Wits is reduced. And if you loose too much Wits, you'll damage that ability permanently, which reflects the ever growing madness in you ..." (also from Part 2 of my original take)
Difficulties vary depending on what a character attempts to cast. A predefined spell, for instance, would be easier, as some of the necessary patterns are known. Rituals would also be quite easy, although not as specific as spells. A third instance would be using trinkets and totems and such, little artifacts that help focusing the energy. Casting magic "raw" would be the most difficult task, as it should be.

I'd encourage players to come up with their own spells and rituals and totems, matching their character's cultural background and all that. It also should encourage players to cooperate with others to cast magic. At least in the beginning.

Actually, seeing someone casting a spell including all the oracle dice should inspire awe and fear among those witnessing it. One last quote:
"This is where synchronicity comes into play. According to Wikipedia Carl Jung coined the word "synchronicity" to describe "temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events." In other words, when events that coincide and seem meaningful but are without any causal connection.
This is still gameable! [source]
Or at least seem* unconnected and that's where it all comes together: the "magical connection" normal people don't see and those dabbling in the arcane arts are somehow tuned into, is the very same thing that causes synchronicity. Learning to understand (or abuse) it makes a powerful sorcerer. What we have here is a narrative device for the DM to puzzle the players and give his world some depth.

To compare it with D&D (since most of you reading this should be familiar with it): instead of giving the player a list of spells, it's the DM that gets parts of those spells and describes them to the players as they manifest in their surroundings. And that's what the players are going to use (if they are clever)." (you guessed it: from Part 2 of my original take)
It's about creativity and subtlety and the unforeseen consequences of using forces not totally understood or controlled. Ideally, the procedure produces an instant riddle for the caster to unravel as he works his way through the forces he summoned. Turns out, easier said than done ...

Where it got problematic

There are different design schools about this sort of thing. Some would just use what is already established (1d20+something vs. difficulty), ditch the oracle dice, reducing it to spells and leave the rest to the narrative. This works, of course, and a DM running Lost Songs would be able to fall back on this easily enough (not that I recommend it, huh).

Then there are those who just come up with a nifty little magic system and leave the output minimal in a way that allows an easy connect to the core system. Basically they'll add some flavor to the d20 thingie described before.

The problem with that approach is (1) output needs to be kept at a minimum to avoid conflict with the core system (AD&D might be an example for that approach, actually, and you can see how splat books killed the bunny there) and (2) it's hard to find a system that way that would be able to accommodate all the different types of magic a setting like Lost Songs might have (old Roman, Asian, African, Germanic ... you name it, really, it's all over the place!).

Fringe, but possible ... whatever that is [source]
Going that route would mean (as a worst case scenario) building little magic systems for all possible variants ... which can work, but will most likely be lacking or incomplete or too baroque for people to care (well, or put a publisher in a position to sell a shit-load of splat-books ... just saying).

A third way is to build a system that seamlessly merges with the core system. No easy task with Lost Songs, as it is pretty fine tuned, with lots of moving pieces under the hood (as I imagine every system has, sooner or later). Especially challenging is the idea that the output of such a system not only produces a little riddle for the player to solve, but has lots of output that carries into a completely randomized setting in a meaningful way.

As I said, lots of moving pieces. And I really don't like bookkeeping, so the solutions discussed in those posts from 2016 went the right direction, but the results weren't ... well, they weren't in the right place, if that makes any sense.

A number a DM has to keep track of over several sessions is a number most likely lost. At least in my book. Ideally I'll have complex results that take the narrative of what happens into account and produce signifiers that resonate back from sessions yet to come, but without the need of bookkeeping.

It's complicated and it took me quite a while to get it all together in a way that did all the above in accordance with the core system, while producing a little riddle for the player to solve and taking all kinds of possible cultural variants into account. Really ... let me show you.

This is it, folks!


Okay, so a character attempts to cast a spell. He'll roll 1d20, adding his Wits (ability sore) to match a difficulty based on how he goes about it. Is he casting a spell? A Ritual? Is he using trinkets or totems, any kind of foci? Is he casting it raw?. He can use Aether to bridge a gap between his result and the difficulty and it'll hurt if Aether is gone and there's still points left to meet the difficulty. Accumulating damage like that might drive him crazy, if unchecked.

If a player decides to advance his character in magic, he'll have more Aether to work with as one option to chose from, but it'd also be possible to reduce difficulties when using Wits or being able to write scrolls or create magic items (among other things).

Okay, so he matches the difficulties and summons raw energy from around him. That's the oracle dice: 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d12 and 1d20. The Platonic Solids and I talk about that part here (just  little twist to root it in actual historical concepts). The result forms The Riddle and is put on the corresponding squares at the bottom of this little piece of paper:
Open in new tab to see it all ...
The idea here is that characters have all that raw energy at their disposal and have to decide how their spell manifests from that raw energy. That's the riddle, the little game in the game and, yes, I know, it's not trivial.

One of the big problems had been to identify the base elements that go into all spells (raw or pre-defined) and finding a pattern that allows them to manifest at every possible level with every possible result. You see that pattern above.

The results on your oracle dice will range between 1 and 20, with obvious limits imposed to the different dice. The grid above is divided into 5 parts, four of them (labeled 2-5, 5-8, 9-12 and 12-20) going clockwise around the fifth in the center. Also notice the numbers leading from 1 on the top left corner around the center with 2, 3 and 4 to the 5 in the center. This is where the 1s go.

All the other circles are possible elements of the manifesting spell. The number of dice a caster is allowed to use is 1 per level of advancement in Magic. There are, however, a couple of ways to improve on that. Obvious ways are rituals and foci (dice are locked on the squares in the lower right corner and raise the levels on the defaults they were created for - "defaults" are the given base criteria for a spell, independent of the result, more in the next part and on the magic sheet above).

The second way is the rule that doubles connect to chains. It means that a good roll of the oracle dice allows access to more dice than a caster might have at his disposal initially. So a level 1 mage (initially being able to manifest 1 die on the grid) that comes up with a double with his oracle dice, will be able to use both dice, if he decides to manifest one of them (but both have to be active on the grid). Same goes for triples, and so on (1s always go to the corners, though).

Add rituals, foci and cooperation (more on that aspect later) and even a level 1 magic user would be able to cast quite effective and somewhat safe (raw) spells. 

Ritual, done right [source]
So there is a high complexity about how many of the dice manifest on the grid. Linked to that is what those dice can do and what'll happen to the remaining elements (the dice that DON'T manifest) and the elements undefined (the categories a spell needs, but can't be fulfilled with the dice as they are available). In other words: what kind of spell is cast, if a caster has only one die he can actively use?

That's a lot of choices. And necessarily so, because there are several factors that need consideration to get anything cast, like range, effect area, purpose or even just as simple as damage.

Some of those decisions will be taken away from you with the roll of the oracle dice: 1s go to the corners (they are negative effects that will happen when the spell is released), doubles build chains and the results themselves show you where on the grid the dies can go (with the fiat that 1 die needs to be in the center). Another set of restrictions is the reason for drawing the energy to begin with (a declared goal derived from a necessity occurring in the narrative, of course).

With those decisions made for the player, he now has to chose an optimal way to distribute the remaining dice. The things he has to consider for that may not only be how the dice will manifest on the grid, but also what the remaining dice will do. The energy is summoned and all dice that aren't bound, will have a residual effect on the area. It might have visual effects, it might be a beacon for creatures best left undisturbed, either way, it will bring an imbalance not necessarily impacting the caster (as that's what the 1s are doing), but definitely the surroundings (details will follow).

To find the right way (or one of the many possible right ways) is to solve the riddle. To describe how the caster goes about it, is (like with Lost Songs combat) always enriching the narrative.

Not done yet, but ...

I guess that's a good point to stop. I'm all out of juice for today. There is obviously more to that system, but if you take a close look at the pattern above and at the descriptions it offers, you'll see how it's supposed to work. I need to talk about the specifics, though, as there are a couple of ideas connected to it that need more explanation.

There's also some systems attached to it all and it needs a little conversion for the possible energy output in relation to the core system (what saves are needed, how much damage is done, etc.), as that's not quite obvious from the results. Maybe an example would be nice :)

Now, some of you might ask yourselves, why go through all the trouble? And the easy answer is: because it is satisfying for players to have those little systems to master within the game. It gives players control over the narrative within well defined spaces of the narrative. It's challenging, yes, but that is the game I'm writing. You want easy, there's plenty of that around already.

Also, it's really fun to design high concept like that (I admit, I'm strange that way).

On the other hand, I feel that the complex part is only on the design side, and not necessarily something players will get to feel that hard when playing. Sure, it's a little system on it's own, but is also follows the same principles as combat (to some degree), so it's not that much of a leap.

And since all the elements are descriptive to a point where they explain their need themselves, it cooks down to taking the time to reflect what's there and make a decision, with the margin of failure being part of the whole experience. It's something you can get better at over time.

There is also enough meat on this to make it worthwhile for solo-play, is what I've been told. So there is that.

Anyway, I hope this didn't just raise eyebrows, but also gave a glimpse what kind of game Lost Songs is and how that's a bit different from what is out there. Maybe even that it has merit that way. If you have questions, please ask away! And if you are interested in giving this a go, just drop me a note and I'll see what I can do.

The next part will definitely go more into detail about the ramifications and if I have the room, I'll throw in an example as well. Soon.