It Slices! It Dices!

In my Amber Bits blog you may have read my struggles with designing games for the convention setting. There is a distinct difference in the design between that and that for FtF or PBeM. (The short synopsis is: very different expectations. The slightly longer one: too used to playing with my group. Anything longer and it would no longer be a synopsis.)

If you look at my games for AmberCon NorthWest 2001 you can read my extensive notes for the games I ran, most of which were very successful. (Heck, if you wanted to, you could take them and run your own games. I don't mind.) You will note that they are far more developed than, "Coyote. Bird. Evil. Evil," the sum total of notes for a game the previous year.

Why? Because I'm a wargamer at heart, and I need charts and definitions! Frankly, out of self-evaluation. I finally took a very long, hard look at what was failing in my (and others') games and what was succeeding. While I was capable of creating plots and descriptions on-the-spot, my time and energy was thus being tragically misspent. Even having a list of "descriptive words," in an adventure could keep me focused on the actual GMing, not the designing.

It would be a crass generalization to suggest that there are only two kinds of convention games: exploration and puzzle-solving. Of course, I was similarly crass in suggesting that there were only two types of LARPS (mysteries and treasure hunts) so you should be familiar with it. [When it comes down to it, there's only two types of people in this world: people who separate things into categories, and people who don't. (grinning)]

"Puzzle-solving" games are fairly straightforward. I tend to prefer them because the conditions for success or failure are more defined. Determine the pieces, put them in order, and voila! Game is clear-cut, has a beginning, an ending, and everything is neatly tied up one way or another.

"Exploration" games, however, are by their very nature more nebulous. Whether the exploration is of the characters' psyche, the political situation, or even an old-fashioned dungeon crawl, it relies far more on the GM to expend energy to present the design.

My PBeMs tend to be exploration games. There's a meta-arc, and there's a list of "victory conditions," but most of the game pace is spent in character development outside of the impersonal demands of plot. Where in a puzzle-solving game the plot insists on a certain pacing, a certain amount of screen-time, the exploration game has the plot attending to the characters, rather than vice versa. My FtF tend to be a combination, each meeting intended to be a bit more "episodic" with a "victory" or "failure" in each session, continued in an overall exploratory plot.

I have been in games of both types at conventions. Puzzle-type games tend to frustrate me a little because I have a perpendicular method of approach. [grin] Exploratory games, however, have had as many "failures" as "successes."

What makes it successful? I don't know. Sometimes it may just be the energy level, GM, and combination of players. I do have three basic observations that stand out as being significant.

1) Player comfort with their characters.

The GM has responsibility here in making sure the character goals are succinct, satisfactory to the player and scenario, and are fairly feasible. This applies to player-generated as well as pre-generated characters rather equitably. The more easily a player can slide into character, the easier the character will slide into the plot.

Sometimes I think that the GM's job is mostly as a host. They need to fluff up the pillows and make things available for the players, keeping them comfortable. I don't want to feel like a guest: I want to feel like someone who knows where everything is in the kitchen and can help myself to a bowl of cereal. OK, and also to the breadknife when something tries to make it through the window. The GM has no obligation to make the characters' lives comfortable; in fact, it may be just the opposite.

2) The GM's enthusiasm, encouragement, and involvement.

Remember that "perpendicular" comment? I need a GM who can make me feel like I can cast out for far-out ideas and connections, but who will reel me in a little so we're not wasting time. I need feedback. Too many times the GM will sit back, "so as not to give anything away," whereas this kind of game almost needs the GM reacting as a fellow player.

My groups tend to be the "raze and pillage" sorts. If it's not nailed down, they'll take it. If it's nailed down, it'll be burnt to ashes. The GM needs to understand, "damage control," and where to pull back on the reins, and when to apply the crop.

3) Strategy for character interplay.

The exploratory game is supposed to rely on the way the players take control and have their characters interact. This has, in my experience, worked best when the GM has outlined why the characters will have a certain style intrplay. Initiative is fine as far as it goes, but not everyone will have the same level of it.

I played "the nice guy," in an Elders game whose verbal barbs were vicious. I didn't mind as a player, but I could see no reasoning behind the sparring. That meant it hard to understand in-character.

These are three imporant differences between leaving openings for the characters to gently divert the game, and leaving huge holes that jarringly derail the experience. It's like the difference between applying "direction" and "dictation" to the experience.