I hope that all the tumult with Excessively Dominant RPG leads a whole lot of people to better systems.
The tenth anniversary of publishing Blade & Crown has come and gone. Sales are a trickle these days. I’m pondering putting the digital version on sale for US$1, or changing it to pay-what-you-want, or something. Hmm.
Another bundle I’m a bit late to the party on, but still worth posting about: The Itch.io TTRPGs for Trans Rights in Texas bundle. A very good cause, with a pretty astonishing amount of games, many of which are amazingly inventive. I mean, dang! An RPG for two players — you and your pet! I’m starting to assume that every possible thing is, or soon will be, an RPG on Itch.io. And if you need more-famous games to be convinced, there are a bunch in there, like Wanderhome, Agon, and Thirsty Sword Lesbians. Hmm, I suppose I should put Blade & Crown up for sale there at some point.
Should higher-magnitude spells require longer intervals to cast? As it stands, higher-magnitude spells are rarer to find nodes for, and more dangerous to cast. But perhaps there should also be a set frequency at which they can be cast. In the rules as written, you can cast a 7th-magnitude spell just as often as a 1st-magnitude one. Maybe that’s too frequent. If so, it would make sense if the maximum casting duration were something like:
- 1st magnitude: Once a day
- 2nd magnitude: Once a week
- 3rd magnitude: Once a year
- 4th magnitude: Once a decade
- 5th magnitude: Once a century
- 6th magnitude: Once a millennium
- 7th or higher magnitude: Once, ever.
Want to cast the same spell more often? Find more nodes and align them to the same spell. Want to live long enough to cast your 8th magnitude spell more than once? Well, clearly, annoying qualms such as mortality are issues that high-level mages will need to find ways to deal with…
I’ve never had many high-magnitude spells in my games, so this isn’t really an issue that’s ever come up in play. If you try this in your games, let me know how it goes.
The latest XKCD is pretty funny. It’s also an idea I had more than a decade ago. Made a game about it, in fact. Didn’t have much luck with it, though, because reasons. I don’t begrudge Randall his very funny cartoon, nor do I think he stole the idea from me. (Not directly, anyway. Who knows how ideas percolate through the public semi-conscious.) Nor can I be sure the idea is totally original to me. But it does peeve me plenty that the cartoon will probably generate more income for Randall than the same basic idea ever did for me.
How often does some already-famous cis hetero able-bodied white guy (AFCHAWG) get tons of success with an idea that was first had by a non-AFCHAWG person, a long time ago?
I also expect that someday soon, some AFCHAWG will get super successful from publishing a campaign wiki via Patreon or in installment payments or whatever, just like what I tried (really hard) to do with Calteir. Some AFCHAWG will get tons of traction, where I got none. I dislike that, a lot.
Inspired by recent game-play.
You are Quiet. Perhaps you speak softly and carry a large sword; or perhaps you don’t have much to say, because you know words only cause trouble. Your quiet may give you gravity, or it may cause others to assume you are not as smart as you actually are. Being Quiet may simply make you hard to hear, and it may make others assume you are being passive-aggressive; or it may cause others to listen attentively when you do speak, and it may make you adept at conveying secrets.
Con of the North decided to move to virtual next year. Which means I can actually attend, for the first time in many years. And that means I should start thinking of games to run. But my well of inspiration feels kinda dry. I could run one of the encounters/scenarios I’ve done with the long-term B&C group. I could playtest 8 Tokens some more. But there’s nothing that really grabs me.
(Why is the well of inspiration dry? I have two regular gaming groups, but we basically always play the same systems. I put a lot of creative effort into my regular B&C game, but that doesn’t necessarily inspire many side ideas. And since I haven’t been able to go to CotN in years, I haven’t had those ideas to bounce off of, either. And I feel kind of generally disconnected from gamerdom these days, so I’m not getting a lot of inspiration there, either. And I usually have several months to decide what I want to run, where this time it’s realistically more like a few weeks.)
Hmm. Will have to see if inspiration hits in the next couple weeks.
A while back, the Weekly Group did what I assume is the first serious playtest of 8 Tokens. (I assume so, anyway, because I haven’t heard any other reports back. If you’ve tried playing it, let me know!) It worked pretty well, considering! I got some very good feedback, and learned some lessons:
- Players didn’t follow the exact “[Really good/good at] [gerund verb] [object] with/without [indirect object]” formulation. Not sure what to do about that. Does the game work if characters are written up as just “Good at killing”, for example?
- Relatedly, it was clear that players weren’t sure what kinds of “good at” qualities were possible. That’s a big part of why I came up with last month’s list.
- Players very rarely use the “choose not to succeed” rule. But then, we weren’t super-low on tokens.
- The game got praise for being fast and light-weight. It worked well as a quick drop-in system for an existing campaign where we wanted a quick switch of systems. One player noted that 8 Tokens would work well for a heist-style game. I can see that. One player thought it would work well as a fast system for conventions; another player thought it would work well as a general introduction to RPGs. I can also see that. It seems like it could work well with kids, for example.
- Skill challenges kind of need to be to the group as a whole (“someone needs to do X”) rather than to each PC (“you all need to do X”). Hmm. Will have to think about that.
- As a player, I got down to 3 tokens by the end of a 2-ish hour session. The GM and another player had 2 tokens. That’s pretty close to what I was hoping for.
- The GM noted that there’s a subtle incentive for the GM to come up with lots of 1-point challenges for the PCs, so the GM can keep their token pool the same size. (If the GM poses a 1-point challenge and at least one PC passes it, the GM gets their 1 token back, and the GM’s pool then stays the same.) That was definitely intentional, but it’s good to hear that it worked.
- The GM has a slightly too large disincentive to pose larger challenges, though. The GM didn’t feel free enough to pose 3- or 4-point challenges. I think maybe the GM should get 2 tokens back for posing 3- or 4-point challenges. Maybe just for 4-point challenges. It’s might also work better for the GM to get a larger number of tokens to start, such as 2 tokens per player. Need to playtest this further.
- All games have an issue of “what skill do I use when none of the game’s skills apply?” Like, if a game only had skills for “Fight”, “Talk”, and “Run”, which skill would apply when you want to notice something? The fewer skills the game has, the more serious this becomes. The extreme granularity of 8 Tokens — each PC consists of only four ‘skills’ — means it can be difficult at times to say whether a character is able to do a thing. For example, does “Hunt things in the wilderness” imply an ability to detect hidden things? Maybe, maybe not. I think that being careful to use the full “[Really good/good at] [gerund verb] [object] with/without [indirect object]” formulation would help cut down on this, by adding much-needed additional context, but it doesn’t eliminate this problem altogether. As another example, we were playing something of a horror scenario, but how often does a player want to have something like “Really good at keeping my wits about me without panicking” be a major character-defining feature? And if a PC doesn’t have anything resembling a ‘sanity’ skill, does that mean they automatically fail any sanity checks the GM throws at them? Does that mean PCs need more than just four things they’re good at? Perhaps one thing they’re super-good at, three things they’re very good at, and four that they’re just good at? What’s the sweet spot here? Again, clearly something to playtest further.
Some good feedback, some good encouragement, some good things to test more.
I got to do a playtest of 8 Tokens. More about that later, but one specific piece of feedback: I needed to come up with more examples of things to be good at. So, here are a few:
- Acting convincingly with an audience
- Baking delicious pastries without any gluten
- Blasting asteroid worms with my beat-up old planet-hopper
- Bringing people together with sympathy
- Casting nature magic with drops of pure water
- Charting courses through the Warp without a stellamat
- Clearing obstacles with my holospanner
- Convincing people with my sugary words
- Copying documents without any noticeable difference
- Creating haute couture outfits without spending much money at all
- Delving into ice caves with my trusty ice axe
- Destroying fascists with my fists
- Dispatching ne’er-do-wells with my sonic lance
- Doing scientific field research with great insight
- Explaining complex concepts without being too wordy
- Expressing what’s in my heart with acrylics
- Facing the infinite void without losing my mind
- Ferreting out the truth with my keen reporting instincts
- Fighting for the oppressed with every fiber of my being
- Going toe-to-toe with Aglarian gladiators
- Hunting wild animals without any tools
- Ingesting large amounts of information without forgetting any of it
- Making friends with my enemies
- Navigating bureaucracy without breaking a sweat
- Performing surgery with appropriate instruments
- Playing boardgames with strategic acumen
- Probing corporate mainframes with my trusty cyberdeck
- Racing the streets of Mirror City with my grav scooter
- Repairing household appliances without breaking code
- Skin-diving for minutes on end without losing consciousness
- Solving crimes with rugged, steely attitude
- Sneaking in the dark without a sound
- Speaking alien languages without a holotranslator
- Staying serene with my Mitrika training
- Swooping elegantly with my arm-flyers
- Walking the lonely roads with my rifle and a heavy heart
Many cons have moved online now. Sadly necessary, but happily accessible. The fact that we can connect via the internet means conventions don’t have to be, and shouldn’t be, limited to one country or one timezone. Futurecon is a convention that’s happening right now, as I write this, which is truly global in scope. Panels are happening at all times of day and night, all weekend long. Membership can be as cheap as free (if you already have the wherewithal to connect to the internet). There’s been some really cool discussion on the practicalities and challenges of translation already.
I could quibble with some of their choices: Zoom is a bad platform, for privacy reasons; they are focused almost solely on prose fiction, to the exclusion of all else; and although the overall stance has been anti-imperialist and decolonial, some pro-imperialist and pro-colonial discourse has gone unexamined.
Overall, though, it seems well worth checking out. So, do!
While it’s still in memory, some notes about WisCONline, which happened at the end of May.
I was part of the concomm, doing a bunch of work behind the scenes, so I’m kinda biased. But at the same time, none of my opinions are official or anything like that — I’m speaking for myself here, not the con.
The gaming folks had arranged a huge slate of games, but the way things worked out, I didn’t get to play in any of them. Largely down to what shifts I was on.
However, with our tech setup, I was able to watch some of the games after the fact. (I have a lot of thoughts about people broadcasting games for other people to watch, and parasocial gaming, and similar things, which I may write up here at some point.) All the games I saw were really cool!
- Atop a Lonely Tower is designed specifically to be played in a Discord channel, with the GM as an old being of magic, using leading questions to very gently guide the narrative, and all the players drifting in and out as ravens, acting as the GM’s eyes and ears and taking most of the narrative control. The players all really went with the conceit, and it worked brilliantly!
- Are You There, God? It’s Me, the Quarterly Earnings Report is about a group of angels, all having a business meeting to discuss who’s going to take over the department for the next 1000 years. It’s designed to be played as a videochat/conference call, using the quirks of this technology as innate parts of the game: players can deliberately mute themselves, accidentally drop calls on purpose, etc. If all the players understand that it’s a playfully passive-aggressive game, it works beautifully; and all the players at Wiscon did. It worked gorgeously, with some superb roleplaying on the parts of some players.
- I saw even less of Court of Ferns, but what I saw again seemed brilliant: A game played entirely through a Google Doc spreadsheet, with players as part of a (dysfunctional) bureaucracy.
I assume the other games were equally neat. The gaming folks did a great job of planning and running things. It was also really cool to see how games are expanding into and embracing entirely new kinds of media (a game played through an interactable spreadsheet! omg!).
There was also some cool discussion about gaming and RPGs elsewhere. bankuei from Deeper in the Game pointed out the websites Roll For Your Party and Playing Cards.io, which look very handy for online gaming. And there was a lot of other wonderful geekery — too much to detail here.
Overall, it was really cool to finally see, and help, a con go online. It would of course be nice if we didn’t have to, but it’s very good that we can.