Social Arsonists

I learned 50% of my tabletop GM skills from LARP.  I learned half of those just playing LARP, and the other half from GMing LARPs.  (No, I'm not making you a pie chart.)

LARP is a crucible of GM skills.  Any half-decent tabletop GM can run a successful LARP for 10 players by simply doing what he does at the tabletop for twice as many players.  You may have been to a LARP (perhaps a networked LARP) where the GM basically ran a series of tabletop scenes interspersed with playing NPCs and answering player questions.  This is just tabletop GMing, with more players.  When the player count hits 15 or 20, the GM starts leaving half the players behind to get bored while he takes the other half of the players off on a tabletop scene.  Most of the LARP GMing I did was spent doing this, I'm not proud to admit.  I only started to pick up real LARP GMing skills by attending different games outside my sphere of influence.

I learned that LARP is different from tabletop because the GM needs to be able to get players interacting and reacting, but not with him.  And while interaction is preferable to reaction, a good LARP GM knows that if you can goad a player enough to react rashly, it will lead to a lot of interaction.

A good LARP GM knows that his players should rate the moments spent where the GM is talking as the most boring parts of the LARP.  A good LARP GM knows how to get players to interact and react with as few words as possible, and then to move on.  A good LARP GM flits about the game-space like a toxic gossip at a party, lighting little fires and walking away.  A good LARP GM is a social arsonist.

Another term for this is agent provocateur.  An agent provocateur is an infiltrator who pretends to be an ally and pushes people in the organization to take risks and commit crimes.  A LARP GM is like an agent provocateur, urging players into taking extreme and drastic action to cause others to react.  Good LARP GMs are double traitors, often setting up false flag operations or urging players to set up false flag operations against their enemies implicating a third party.  Having assassins attack your player characters is amateur.  Shake them to their core by killing off one of their enemies "off camera" instead.  You can do this with a note on a 3x5 card while you're off with other players subtly implicating a third group in the murder with a half sentence of whispered innuendo.

After that, fine tuning the level of tension among five players when you have their full attention around your kitchen table will seem like a cinch.

Toymakers and Storytellers pt 2

I posted about Storytellers and Toymakers a while back with a tongue in cheek cosmo-style quiz.  I should talk about Storytellers and Toymakers a little more.  The fundamental difference I envision is that both create hooks and stories and dramatic arcs and NPCs and challenges and so forth.  But they start in different places and stress different elements.

The Toymaker GM creates potential challenges, resources, events, and NPCs (toys) and organizes them so that when the players interact with them in character, they will be likely to have a dramatic story.  This doesn't mean a Toymaker is essentially a sandbox GM.  The organization and nature of the "toys" can lead players into clusters of challenges, resources, events and NPCs with strong hooks.  A bad "railroading" Toymaker will put all the toys in a straight line, with a barren desert all around.

The Storyteller GM creates a story, then uses challenges, resources, events, and characters (props) to tell it.  This doesn't mean that the Storyteller is a railroading GM any more than the Toymaker. Good Storytellers use the narrow-wide-narrow model of GMing -- start with a strong hook that can lead to several different possible paths that all converge on the resolution of the dramatic question posed by the hook.  Bad Storytellers "railroad" the players down a narrow path.

The Storyteller's props are there to push the story forward.  The Toymaker's story is the structure that organizes her toys.

The two approaches are fundamentally different.  In practice, they can create different experiences for players.

Toys and Props

Because of the Toymaker's stress on toys, each element in her games is likely to be an interesting puzzle or a fun setting element for the players to include in their stories.  But that also means many toys the Toymaker crafts will never be explored fully.  The storyteller's props are often like movie sets -- there's not much to them beyond what you can see.  Only props that are designed to be deeply involved in the story (or which later become integral) get a lot of detail.  This means that the Storyteller tends to improvise a lot.

Because the Storyteller's focus is on the story, a good Storyteller will have tight arcs, good pacing, and a well timed climax.

• The story will have a high degree of verisimilitude because the Storyteller sees it holistically, and Simulationist players may enjoy that part of it.
• Narrativist players will enjoy a Storyteller GM only if that GM allows them a good deal of input in the story.
• Gamist players will enjoy a Storyteller GM if the GM's narrow-broad-narrow model includes real risk (making consequential decisions with incomplete information) and strategy (some options are better than others).

Because the Toymaker's focus is on the individual scene, character, event, etc., a good Toymaker will have deep characters, dynamic settings, and game-elements mixed in at every level.

• A Simulationist player will enjoy the depth created by the GM's focus on creating toys, as long as the GM designs for what the player is interested in simulating.
• A good Toymaker GM will please Narrativist players with her habit of placing story elements in front of them and then letting the players take over the story from there.
• Gamist players will enjoy that everything a Toymaker creates is designed to be played with -- e.g. involved in challenges, strategic decisions, or resource management.

I think every GM should learn about to the strengths of both kinds of gamerunning.

Dealing with Absent Players

Every GM has to deal with absent players. What do you do with their character?  How many absent players is too many?  The answers to these questions are found in your group's social contract.  This is the expectation everyone brings to the table about... in this case... coming to the table!

Personally, I play and run in two different formats.  I game in short, weekly, weekday evening games on Tuesday and Wednesday.  These games are 3 hours long, and it can take several sessions to get through a story.  We alternate games, too, so every other Tuesday is one game, and the other weeks are another game.  I also run long 12-hour sessions for two different groups about 5 times a year each, on Saturdays.  It's much easier to handle a missing player for a 12-hour session than for a 3-hour session (he's been captured, or is off on another quest); yet I've only ever had one single player miss a Saturday all-day session.

Addressing a missing player in an evening work-night session is hard because of the options...

1. Hand wave it.  The character isn't exactly missing.  He's just never on screen.  In a fight, he's just not represented on the board.  In conversation, he just doesn't talk.
2. Have another player control his character.  This is helpful for keeping combat challenge levels balanced in some games.  Otherwise, it's a bit of a burden.
3. Create a story excuse.  The character is captured or has other tasks to attend to.  This doesn't work in an isolated dungeon, or just before going off to save the world.
4. Postpone or cancel the game.  Nobody likes this option, but if it's a climactic moment, you might need to.  Generally, my groups have a quorum rule:  With 3 players, we run.  With less, we cancel.  But for important sessions, we'd rather postpone if one player is going to be absent.

If you want something easy to put before your players, here's the rules.  I made one set for weeknight games and one set for weekend long format games.  What happens to the absent player's character really depends on how long they're going to be absent for.

Gamerunner's Weeknight Attendance Rules

• Commit to a Regular Schedule:  In general, players will commit to coming to the game over other leisure or social commitments; but they may occasionally excuse themselves with 2 days notice (e.g to go see a movie, have date night with the spouse, caulk the bathtub, etc.).  
• Emergencies are Excused: Obviously, no prior notice is required for absences for acute health problems (especially contagious illnesses), major unexpected family responsibilities, and unavoidable work requirements.  
• Two Hours or Nothing:  A player should attend at least two hours of every game session, or not at all.  It is not acceptable to arrive only for the last hour or leave after the first because it can disrupt the game.
• Absent Players' Characters Fade Out: If you are absent from the game, your character will fade into the background.  If you have any unique abilities, the GM will alter the game to ensure that they're not needed (substituting other players' characters' abilities).  If there is any information your character would know that becomes important, the other players are allowed to know it as well, ("Well ___ once told me...").  Anything that happens to the entire party happens to the absent player's character (if they all get cursed, or all take 20 damage, etc.).
• Be Honest About Long Term Absences:  If you intend to miss more than 1 game session, tell the GM.  The GM will write your character out of the story temporarily with a plot event -- sentenced to prison, captured by powerful and mysterious foes, killed (in many games this is temporary), questions her commitment, called away to greater responsibilities, trapped in a space-time rift, cursed to eternal slumber, etc.  The GM will write a plot event around this.  Another player may or may not need to play your character for this initial scene, so keep your character stats and notes available to the GM.
• Quorum is 50% of Regular Players:  If fewer than 50% of the regular players are able to make the game, regardless of the GM's plans, the game is cancelled.  If 50% of the players are present, the GM has "quorum" and should run the game (unless, as above, a player whose character was necessary for the scenario had an emergency and cancelled with less than 48 hours notice).
• The GM Must Run for Who is Coming:  It is the GM's responsibility to run the game for all the players who have not cancelled with 48 hours notice.  If the GM intends to present a scenario that requires a certain player (or all players), the GM will ensure that all of the players will be present for that scenario: The GM will find out who will be present ahead of the game day.  If the required player(s) are unavailable, the GM will plan a different scenario (filler encounters, a side plot, an unexpected complication, etc.) instead of cancelling the game.  And the GM will not let the players know it's filler -- it should be as well-designed as the regular scenario if possible.
• Remote Players Abide by Table Customs:  If you play remotely (via Skype, Hangout, etc.), you must remain on camera as much as a "live" player is expected remain at the table, have functional equipment, handle your own tech support, and close all programs and browser windows on your computer other than the teleconferencing window and anything else needed specifically for the game at hand (character sheet, game wiki, etc.).  
• Frequently Absent Players are Guest Stars:  If a player misses game sessions frequently, the GM may consider them a "guest star."  The GM should not plan for scenarios that require the guest star to attend.  If the GM allows a guest star, he should prepare games such that the guest star's character is taken into account.  Guest stars are not counted against quorum.  (e.g., if there are 4 players and 1 guest star, 2 players still counts as quorum.)  What counts as frequent absence is between the GM and the absent player, and they should come to an agreement about the player's status between games.
• OPTIONAL:  Good Samaritan Reward:  A player who writes a session summary for the group gets a reward.  The group has to cover his week to buy pizza.  Or... He finds the lowest level magic item off his wish list.  Or... He gets a full Refresh of his Willpower, or one of his Abilities, etc.  Or... Some other perk, determined by group consensus.
• OPTIONAL:  Absence Penalty:  If you miss a session, you are required to bring chips/beer/soda/etc. to the next session.  If you are a remote player and miss a session, obviously this is impractical.  I guess you get a pass.  It sucks having to play remote, anyway.

(I've been told my blog uses cutting edge graphics... for 1998.)

If you want an alternative for infrequent, long-format games, here's a ready-to-use rule you can use for your troupe, the...

Gamerunner's Long-Format Attendance Rules

• Consensus Scheduling:  The game will be scheduled using a survey so that everyone is available for every session.  The game will be scheduled at least two weeks ahead of the date of game.  The players all have input into the date choices and time choices this way.  The date and time of game will be determined to be the date and time that every player is available to commit.  Players will be responsible adults and seek childcare, spousal permission, or time off from work at least two weeks before game.
• No Cancellations Except Emergencies:  Once committed, players will prioritize the game over other leisure or social functions.  Allowances will be made for acute health problems (especially contagious illnesses), major unexpected family responsibilities, and unavoidable work requirements.  A player who can't make the entire session due to an emergency must either attend at least 4 hours of the game session or none of it (it's too disruptive otherwise).
• Four Hours or Nothing:  If a player can't come to game for at least 4 hours, the player should not come to game.  The player should consider this during scheduling and when deciding if he needs to make an emergency cancellation.
• Absent Players' Characters are Written Out:  If a player is absent from the game for more than 4 hours, his character will be written out of the story -- sentenced to prison, captured by powerful and mysterious foes, killed (in many games this is temporary), questions his commitment, called away to greater responsibilities, trapped in a space-time rift, cursed to eternal slumber, etc.  The GM will write a plot event around this.  Another player may or may not need to play the absent player's character for this scene, so keep your character stats and notes available to the GM.
• Quorum is 50% of Regular Players:  If fewer than 50% of the regular players are able to make the game, regardless of the GM's plans, the game is cancelled.  If 50% of the players are present, the GM has "quorum" and should run the game.
• The GM Must Run for Who is Coming:  It is the GM's responsibility to run the game for all the players.  If the GM intends to present a scenario that requires a certain player (or all players), the GM will have to change her plans on the fly.  The players will be understanding about this.
• Remote Players Abide by Table Customs:  If you play remotely (via Skype, Hangout, etc.), you must remain on camera as much as a "live" player is expected remain at the table, have functional equipment, handle your own tech support, and close all programs and browser windows on your computer other than the teleconferencing window and anything else needed specifically for the game at hand (character sheet, game wiki, etc.).  
• The GM Keeps the Sheets:  Given the infrequency of game sessions, players should take notes.  Players will then leave character sheets, notes, and player handouts with the GM in the Party Folder between games.  They may make copies of anything they need, or ask the GM to scan/fax/etc. stuff for their reference between games (or just visit the GM to look at it) if they really want.  
• Break Policy:  It's a long game, so players are not expected to ignore email, SMS, and phone calls all day.  Smokers aren't required to go cold turkey.  Etc.  Bathroom breaks and stepping away from the table to make a quick call are fine.  Any break that will last more than 5 minutes, however, will stop the whole game.  Any player may call for a 10- or 15-minute break at any time, as often as needed, with no explanation.  The troupe trusts that this won't be abused, and that if a player needs very frequent breaks because of an emergency at home, work, or with his health, he will leave the game for it.  Further, the GM will call for official breaks every few hours regardless of the players' needs, because people need breaks, and the GM is best suited to predict the best time for a break, based on the NPCs' actions and scenario.  Try to schedule breaks at a natural break in the tension.
• OPTIONAL:  Read the Session Summaries:  The GM will write session summaries, describing the events of the previous session.  These take a lot of work, and all players are expected to read them before each game session.  
• OPTIONAL:  Meal Breaks:  Meals during game will take place at a break time set by the GM with player input.  The GM do her best to start and finish eating first (if there's any question), because she needs to start preparing to resume the game before the players do. If the players leave the location for meals, the GM will set a time, and everyone will be back at the table before that time.

I developed these two policies based on my ideas of what's worked for me as a policy for absent players for the last 20 years or so.  If you're just starting as a GM, feel free to copy these word for word for your game, with or without attribution, yada yada.  Use them or change them as you see fit.  Definitely feel free to edit these policies as you implement them.

Having a written (or emailed or wiki-posted) policy for your group may not be necessary if you've played with them for a long time.  It might help established groups to write up their customs for new players.  It might help new groups, organized play GMs, or new GMs to write their policy, even if they're experienced roleplayers.

GM Tips from GUMSHOE

I’ve recently read Night's Black Agents (thanks to the Bundle of Holding and my pal Dave).  There are two great innovations in its system, GUMSHOE, that I wanted to share.  These two innovations may be adaptable as GM techniques in any system. 

Investigation is about Deduction not Perception

The innovation:  When following a plot, players never fail to find a core clue.  In character creation, the GM ensures that the players, between them, have taken every important investigative skill needed for his campaign.  Typically, that just means making sure the players take at least one point in every investigative skill.  Core clues are the clue that leads to the next scene – the clue that’s important for the plot to progress.  Whichever PC has that skill (or the most points in it) is the one who finds the core clue in each scene.  They find it simply by asking a question even vaguely related to it.  There’s no roll or expenditure required.

Why it’s great:  Mystery solving is supposed to be about figuring out what the clues mean, not simulating the process of searching for the clues.  Worse, if the PCs don’t find a core clue, what are you going to do?  End the adventure?

Adaptation:  Ensure that all of the skills available in the game are spread among your players’ characters.  Rating is irrelevant.  When a core clue comes up, the PC with the most in that skill automatically finds it simply by looking for it.

Skills are Spotlight Sharing

The innovation: In GUMSHOE, all die rolls are 1d6 vs. a target number.  Characters with 1 in the skill roll the same die against the same number as characters with 10 in the skill.  The skill rating defines a temporary pool that can be spent on a one time basis to add to any given die roll.  So you could spend 3 Shooting to roll 1d6+3 instead of 1d6 on an attack roll, for instance.  Investigative skills have no die roll – you just make a spend of 1-3 points to automatically gain information that gives your character an advantage (either information beyond the core clue that could help you, or an advantage with your general skills).  The effect of the spends rule is that players have to share the spotlight.  If they go on an “Infiltration” skill heavy mission, the character with the best Infiltration is going to get the most spotlight time, but he will eventually run out, and the other characters with Infiltration will get a chance to shine as well.  In most games, there’s one character with Stealth, and that character does all the scouting.  In GUMSHOE, that character eventually runs out of points and others have to take over.

Why it’s great:  Normally your PCs will focus on different tasks, so that spotlight is shared by sharing who is good at what task.  But then only the stealthy character ever uses stealth, and only the good driver ever drives, etc.  The other characters – and other players – never get to enjoy doing other tasks.  Characters become focused tools that only get used to do a few things, rather than generally competent heroes, like they’re supposed to be.  GUMSHOE fixed that.

Adaptation:  You can’t copy the full glory of the GUMSHOE spotlight sharing mechanic without house rules, but you can use mechanics that exist in every game to encourage rather than discourage spotlight sharing.  In a lot of games, skills like Driving and Stealth are better if one character does the task and the others wait.  The reason being that if one character fails, there is catastrophic consequence, so it’s better to trust the character with the highest rating to handle the task alone.  Most RPGs have a “working together” mechanic, though.  It may initially strike you as unrealistic/counter-intuitive, but consider using PC cooperation as a bonus in these sorts of situations rather than a penalty.  If five characters go scouting together, let the one with the highest skill make the roll “that counts” and let the others make rolls to give him bonuses or do other tasks.  It actually makes sense:  A scout works better with a lookout and someone making a diversion.  A car chase works better with other cars to serve as decoys or to cut the fugitive off and channel him into a dead end.  A sniper works better with a spotter and ground support.  A hacker needs help with social engineering, research, and data analysis.  (Etc.)

Try these adapted innovations and come back and tell me how it works.  As for me, I'm going to try running Night's Black Agents.

Last Words on Next

I will buy the D&D Next Player's Handbook.

I wanted to get that out of the way before I continue.  Wizards just released the final public playtest packet, and Mike Mearls discussed some of the rules they'll be working on with internal design and playtesting.  That tells me that now is the last chance to comment on D&D Next before Wizards starts setting things in stone.  With no currently supported edition, they're under pressure to complete Next and release it, so they're going to be committing to system soon.

So this post is going to be harshly critical, but not intentionally mean.  That's the point of that first statement.  I'm loyal to D&D, and will at least buy the core product, but whether I buy much more than that depends on how good the system is.

Process

Most of the time, when designers make an RPG, they use one of two processes.  First, if it's a new edition of a past game, they take an old edition, add a few smart new mechanics, and fix problems with the old mechanics.  This is how AD&D Second Edition came out of AD&D First Edition, or how the God Machine Chronicle rules update arose from the Storytelling system.

More often, even with some new editions of old rules, the designers build an entirely new game first.  With new editions, the new game often resembles the old game and uses a similar core mechanic, like how 3rd edition D&D replaced 2nd edition AD&D.  The process for designing a new RPG system is pretty clear -- I follow lots of these guys' blogs and twitters.  I'm friends with the Asylum developers.  Their process seems pretty logical:

1. Draft a functioning game system
2. Playtest the draft
3. Poll the playtesters and assess the market
4. Present the game based on your new idea of its essential nature

Mike Mearls, for all his love of D&D, sort of did this process backwards for D&D Next.

1. Present the game based on your new idea of its essential nature
2. Playtest the draft
3. Poll the playtesters and assess the market

And presumably, according to his latest post on the design process...

4. Draft a functioning game system

D&D is a core system with a lot of emergent elements.  I'm not just using those words to sound smart.  The game is a basic idea of a 20 sided die rolled, modified by one of six attributes, and compared to a target number.  As players progress, their characters advance in level, which adds hit points and emergent system elements.  Emergent elements are rules options (such as bonuses, spells, weapons, items, etc.) that emerge from a core system.  A well crafted game has a set of rules-about-rules that can be used to generate emergent elements.  By having a system for creating emergent elements, a "meta-system," you're not just pulling them out of your ass and playtesting them to see if they're unbalanced, you're actually being intentional and goal directed about design and balance.  Playtesting is still necessary because nothing's perfect, and combinations can have unexpected effects.

Next does not seem to have been built with a meta-system.  Each playtest packet to date has been immensely different from the last.  Classes and abilities seem to come out of nowhere, and trap choices and overpowered options abound.  The "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" method may actually work for D&D because of the vast number of playtesters, but depending on your playtesters is dangerous.

D&D Next resembles AD&D 2nd edition Player's Option.  Forum posters are calling it 2.5.  Mike even said in that last post that the tactical combat rules will resemble Player's Option.  Depending on feedback from your players is dangerous because their idea of what is "iconic" about D&D is based on nostalgia, for those that have it.  And for most players old enough to be nostalgic about D&D, the edition they played first or most was probably 2nd edition AD&D.

I'm Being Unhelpful, I Know

If I were the D&D Next Design Team, I'd be pretty pissed about this blog post right now.  To this point, I'm guilty of not providing constructive criticism - just gripes.  "OK, if you say it's bad, what do you suggest we do about it?"  I apologize.  I'm afraid I can't give advice like "make all fighters use the Gladiator mechanic" or "return feats to 3rd edition style" or whatever.  The flaw is that there is no backbone "meta-system" that generates and regulates all the emergent elements.  What math balances wizards with fighters?  What's the target number of rounds in a combat?  What's the target number of encounters in an adventuring day?  Is it based on a sense of the encounters/day in actual past modules, playtests, or surveys?  How much damage does a paralysis status effect equate to?  What is the ordinal or tier of power of every status effect?  What math keeps monster ACs bounded by level?  What math is used to determine a monster's damage output and other numbers based on its level, and what system is used to introduce balanced variation to that?

Here are some particular recommendations:

Recommendations

Keep Magic Items
You have a great system for magic items.  Keep it.  I hate the way 3.5, Pathfinder and 4e make magic items about as special as a trip to the grocery store.  Your bonded items system is great.

Ditch Vantage
Throw out Advantage/Disadvantage (Vantage).  The idea is smart -- rolling two dice at the same time requires less arithmetic.  The problem with these is that they don't stack.  If you use Vantage too much, one bonus will cancel a stack of penalties, or vice versa.  If you reserve it for just a few effects, you've still got to use arithmetic for most modifiers, and static modifiers and Vantage interact very poorly, especially in a system with bounded accuracy.  I recommend that you keep Vantage as a GM-supplied situational modifier.  That is, don't include spells, class features, etc. to allow the players to reliably cause Disadvantage or gain Advantage (such as Bardsong).  Let the GM hand it out as she sees fit.

Throw Everything Else Out
Throw out your monsters, classes, etc.  Go back to the drawing board and build a meta-system that you can use to generate your classes, races, monsters, spells, attacks, weapons -- everything.  It's pretty clear that the 15 minute workday isn't a problem except when some classes have daily abilities and others don't.  That needs to be addressed, and giving casters fewer spells won't do it.  At the very least, explain that once the game hits level 7 or so, every adventure needs to be under time pressure to keep the PCs from resting every encounter!

Design for the Game; Write for the Icon
Instead of building a game out of the fans' ideas of what is iconic about D&D, build a great game, and then present it in a way that evokes the fans' ideas of what is iconic about D&D.

Include a Narrative Mechanic if That's Your Goal
You might want to build a more narrative-focused version of D&D.  That's great, actually.  I mean, the game has moved toward a simulation / game focus in 3rd and 4th edition, so it may be time for a narrative edition.  Building a lighter, easier, more narrative version of D&D is great...  if!

If you're aware of the light, narrative games out there.  If you make design decisions based on putting players in more of an author or even director stance.  If you make design decisions based on giving players more narrative control.  If you involve mechanics that help the GM build hooks into every session (13th Age's icons, FATE's aspects, a replacement for Alignment that involves story hooks, faction association baked into character creation like in Vampire, etc.).  That's a big if, and the playtest editions of Next so far fall very short.

So adapt, borrow, or design some narrative mechanics or stop telling me your game supports GMs telling a story instead of rolling dice just because the rules are less tactical.

Start Supporting Every Line
Dear WOTC:  It's your worst nightmare.  The small market that fantasy tabletop RPGs serve is divided up between Pathfinder, 3.5, 4e, and Next.  But that's the reality.  Even if Next is fantastic, the market will still be divided.  Personally, I'm in a 3.5 game, two 4e games, and a Pathfinder game -- so even a single gamer can be divided!  Publishing Next isn't going to fix this.

So, WOTC, you're going to lose money unless you start supporting every line.  Maybe even Pathfinder.  Go ahead and publish Next with or without my advice (probably without -- you don't have time to read every little blog); but if you want to make any money, you're going to need to support every line.  Actually, you might already know this.  I recall Murder in Baldur's Gate is just such a product...

These are my last words on Next until it's published.  See you then, PHB in hand.

Incorporating New Players - Troubleshooting

There are several kinds of barriers to participation in RPGs.  I won't be touching on the kind that the GM (you) can't do anything about.  This post is mostly about troubleshooting problems with new players.  I might want to do a post on social contract soon.  Here's what someone else said: http://rpgathenaeum.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/is-a-social-contract-right-for-your-dd-group/

Stated Barrier:  I don't know these people that well.
Translation:  I don't feel comfortable acting or sharing the fruits of my imagination with people I don't know and trust.
Problem:  The new player feels vulnerable.  Even if he plays your game, he will hold back.
Solution:  Establish a norm of honest openness among your players.  Don't let them explain how they get into character or play the game.  Encourage them to ham it up and acknowledge how silly they appear.  Remember that even one criticism could shut down the new player.  Model hammy behavior by doing voices, embarrassing yourself, and generally showing trust by going out on a limb for yourself, too.

Stated Barrier:  I feel out of my depth with this setting.
Translation:  The other players seem to know a lot about the world this game is set in, and I feel constrained in my creativity.  While they can invent ideas and interpret the world, I feel like I can't.
Solution:  Bend the world to fit this player.  Make it clear that there is no inviolable canon.  If she says she's a Tremere who defected to the Sabbat but came back, don't explain all the many reasons that's not possible.  Instead bend the setting to make that possible.  Use the setting to make it more interesting, but not punitive or un-fun.  Maybe she was a sleeper agent and doesn't know it yet!  Maybe she was an experiment in breaking Vaulderie!  To hell with the canon.
Note:  This is one of the reasons that organized play -- be it One World By Night or Pathfinder Society -- has a greater barrier to entry than troupe play.

Stated Barrier: I don't get these rules.
Translation:  The rules, or just the presence of rules, probably seems too complex for the character.
Solution:  One easy solution is to just take away the rule book and handle all the system for them.  Some games make this easier than others (though even in something as detailed as Pathfinder or 4e D&D, there's a class for this sort of player).  A better solution is to start slow.  Starting slow is good for pacing in general, but it also works for people shy about rules.  If your sheet is a tangle of numbers and everything you try fails, you start to feel like you can't crack the code.  If, instead, you tend to succeed at almost everything, you'll start exploring and trying crazy new things.  If those don't work out, you don't feel like it's your fault for not understanding the system.  There is a problem with starting slow:  Poor party balance can prevent this solution from working.  If you start off with easy rolls, to give a newbie player a 90% success rate, but the rest of the table has optimized sheets, they'll be pushing for insane stunts (because they can) and the newbie player will go back to feeling like he can't crack the code.  Games where character build is important (Vampire LARP, Pathfinder) tend to experience this problem more often.

Stated Barrier: ...
Translation:  This player is a wallflower or is feeling excluded.
Solution:  Wallflowers, you can draw out by giving them opportunities and challenges.  Reward their contribution, and make them feel like how they responded to the challenge or how they took advantage of an opportunity was a clever choice.  Empower their contributions and they will contribute to the point where they're comfortable -- but usually not more.  Some people are just naturally wallflowers.  Another solution for wallflowers is to make sure your eager players know to step back.  Step forward/step back is a facilitation technique used by professional meeting facilitators to remind participants that some people just talk more than others, and it's OK as long as they know to consciously step back and wait after they've finished. 

Stated Barrier:  I feel like they don't like me.
Translation:  You may actually have to draw this one out of the player.  They may appear as a wallflower for a while before expressing this to you, if ever!  They feel excluded.
Solution:  There isn't always a solution.  If a player is feeling excluded, there's one of two problems.  One, it can be because the other players are excluding them.  This is common and typical human behavior toward someone you don't like.  You may wish to talk to the opinion leaders among your other players to see why.  They should tell you if they don't like the new player (see below!).  Groups of friends don't always accept a newcomer, though, so it may be irreparable.  You may just have to remove the new player.  There should be no hard feelings.  I have friends I wouldn't play golf with or talk about politics with or game with.  They're perfectly cool people, but sometimes personalities clash!  Alternately, it could be because the player feeling excluded perceives that he is being excluded and is afraid to participate -- but the other players like them.  Usually it's the other players' behavior making the new player feel excluded inadvertently.  Geeks can often geek out about things.  That's what makes them geeks.  Anyone "not in the know" will naturally feel excluded.  If all your old players are Trekkies and the new player isn't, he might feel like all the Trek-geeking is intentional snubbing -- especially if it's a Star Trek RPG!  In this case, you can get the other players to help the new player feel more included with social interactions outside of game, talk about personal lives, other hobbies, and other OOC chit chat. They may still be at a disadvantage in Trek talk, but they'll know it's not intentional snubbing now.

Stated Barrier:  None.  You don't like this new player.
Translation:  Someone invited a new player you don't like.
Solution:  Tell the person who invited the new player immediately -- or at least as soon as you realize that the new person is more unpleasant than you can handle (this might take a several sessions, unfortunately).  You don't have to be mean.  Here's a script.  Feel free to use it without attribution:

"I don't think the new person and I get along.  I don't feel good about having them at game.  I'm sure they're nice and cool and all -- it's just we don't mesh."

NOTE TO MY PLAYERS AND CO-PLAYERS:  I like you all!  This is not about you.

Storytellers, Puppet Masters and Toymakers

Pretend this is Cosmopolitan magazine for a minute.  The cover has a photoshopped female celebrity in fashionable but practical seasonal clothes, plus splash graphics about losing weight, celebrity interviews, or sex secrets... and there's always a quiz:

...So let’s skip to hypothetical page 24 and do that quiz! 

1. When preparing for a game session I first envision what...

A) The protagonists will be doing on their adventure.

B) The antagonists need to do next to achieve their sinister goals, or how they will react to what the protagonists have done recently.
C) Dramatic questions I would like the protagonists to face.

2. More than anything else, campaign or adventure plot is a framework for...

A) Scenes of cool things that the protagonists get to try to do.

B) Sinister plans the antagonists will attempt to perpetrate.

C) Generating complex challenges for the protagonists to resolve.

3. NPCs are most important because they...

A) Help me tell the story, providing information, motivating protagonists, or serving as enemies to be defeated.

B) Are the primary way I determine how the plot moves.  They drive the plot with their plans and actions.

C) Can be used as obstacles themselves or hooks to pull the protagonists into conflicts.

4. The most important thing about an NPC is...

A) How I can make her interesting to the story - either as a cool enemy, intriguing source of information about the story, appealing hook, or colorful ally who takes action to advance the story.

B) What her long term plans are, how that informs what she's been up to lately, and how that offers challenges or opportunities to the protagonists.

C) How she can be used as a challenge for the protagonists, resource by the protagonists, or how I can use her as a hook.

5. My campaign notes most resemble a…

A) Novel outline or summary

B) Pile of CIA dossiers on various terrorists and illicit conspiracies
C) Therapist’s or teacher's notes on each of my players’ characters listing things each cares about, ways those things could cause trouble in their lives, capabilities at overcoming challenges, favorite challenge types, etc.

6. My session prep notes most resemble a…

A) To do list of cool events that are probably going to happen, with either/or options in there to allow player agency.

B) Series of conflicts and why they are happening, relating back to NPC and faction plots and conspiracies.

C) List of the challenges that the protagonists could encounter given their current goals and intentions.

Scoring:  For each A answer, give yourself 1 point.  For each B answer, give yourself 3 points.  For each C answer, give yourself 5 points.  High scores aren’t necessarily good and low scores aren’t necessarily bad.  They just place you on this continuum…

6-10 points:  Consummate Storyteller:  You rely on your charisma and enthralling storytelling abilities to craft exciting and captivating adventures for your players.  They probably feel that they can do just about anything.  Your greatest challenge is keeping them from feeling like your arbitrary whims determine the limits of their characters’ actions.  Your second greatest challenge is keeping the world from becoming too easy on them by letting them have everything they want.  Balancing between arbitrary limits and permissiveness keeps them feeling like they can affect the world, but that the world can still affect them.  Try to think more about what the protagonists “must overcome” than what they “will be doing.”  Examine the hooks you’re using and make sure you’re not being too heavy handed.  Give your players more options and choices if you are.  Your primary creative agenda is probably “Narrativism.”  For you, the system is good if it lets your players participate as Storytellers as well; and bad if it only lets them interact with your story by escaping or resisting it. 

11-15 points:  You share characteristics of the Storyteller and Puppet Master.  Your stories probably rely on a lot of colorful NPCs, though in an individual game session or scene within a session may be more about what the protagonists do than what the antagonists do.  Try to let yourself think like a Toymaker sometimes, and don’t plan for the protagonists’ actions as much.

16-20 points:  Consummate Puppet Master:  You use NPCs to drive the plot, so your world feels very real to your players.  Events all seem to fit into patterns and themes, and when your players push, the world pushes back in a believable and rational way.  Your greatest challenge is making sure that the story makes sense from the players’ perspective.  Your second greatest challenge is making sure that your NPCs are always creating interesting challenges for the players, rather than just info-dumps or ambush attacks.  Your primary creative agenda could be just about anything.  For you, the system is good if it lets you create interesting challenges quickly so that NPCs can react to PCs’ actions immediately.

21-25 points:  You’re a Toymaker who links everything back to a few NPCs or factions.  One of the Toymaker’s greatest challenges is stringing the challenges he makes together into a coherent story, and you use NPCs and factions to serve that purpose.  One of the Puppet Master’s greatest challenges is making sure that the NPCs are creating challenges that interest the players, and your lean towards Toymaker tends to take care of that.  Both the Puppet Master and Toymaker are encouraged to put themselves in their players’ heads and imagine what the game looks like to them.  Seeing things from the player’s perspective helps you to plan challenges where some of the possible solutions are the players’ favorite activities at the table.  It also helps you to make sure that the story is coherent from their point of view.

26-30 points:  Consummate Toymaker:  You love to create situations and see how your players will react to them.  You rely on your knowledge of the players and their characters, and a well-tuned system to create challenges that thrill and excite.  Your greatest challenge is making the individual events cohere into a narrative flow that makes sense and feels real.  Your second greatest challenge is giving the world life, so that NPCs and settings have character and story beyond their utility as “toys” for you to challenge your players with.  Your primary creative agenda is probably “Gamism” or “Simulationism.”  You like to draw maps, especially if there are multiple ways to go and places to visit.  For you, the system is good if it lets you build a variety of challenges that are carefully balanced and thrilling to resolve no matter what strategy the players choose.  It also helps if your system injects story and setting into your challenges or conflict resolution mechanics for you.

Comments are welcome!