Apparently people like quick and easy posts with numbers, so while I still stray on the teal deer lines, here's something I whipped up from reading about a bazillion management articles this morning. [1]

1) Really interact with the other PCs.
Seriously, even as a GM, ask questions of them: how, why, who ... and allow room for description. (And as a GM? TAKE NOTES. Don't be too quick to say, "But that wouldn't have happened in Takatakastan.") Same with NPCs; the more you ask, the more opportunity you have to flesh things out and make the game better for everyone.

2) Remember that everyone is better than you at something.
That's what the idea of not overlapping your niches is about... so let someone else's character shine at a scene. Better yet, help set them up to be awesome. If you know that the person who sits on the end makes great characters but is nervous playing them, can you prompt them a little?

3) Give positive feedback.
Compliment your fellow players on something they've done during the game that impressed you. Tell your GM about something that you liked about the game that you might want to see more of... Often we don't give feedback and the GM is just thinking, "They came back to play again. They laughed a lot. I guess I'm doing something right...?" As a GM? Ask what they liked about it, or what they learned from it.

4) Show a little vulnerability.
Quiet or at least argue with your inner voice when you're worried how you'll look at the table. Tell people, "Okay, this might be a stupid idea, but what if...?" Let your character fail, because that's going to be an awesome story. Ask the people around the table what your character should do in a similar situation.

5) Use all your resources.
Assume your opponents are smarter and better than you. Play to win, not just to deflect. Bring all your creativity: why are you still carrying that ten foot pole?

6) Don't insist on playing nice.
Imagine the worst that will happen. If we all "just get along," we become bland. Avoiding inconvenience and having everyone "be good" and "constantly aware of possible disparagement" is almost the same thing as ignoring what needs to be brought to attention.

Sometimes it seems there isn't a real objective criteria. [2] It's hard enough to figure out IC versus OOC some times, so is your character a jerk, or are you trying to get women out of your game? Having fun conflict with another PC is a good thing... but it has to be fun. Remember that in a healthy group, we want everyone to feel like they have influence and that their values are respected.

Sometimes that takes conflict in order to find the real boundaries. This isn't the same as suggesting people aren't responsible for their behavior.

Oh, and always brag about your mistakes. That way you remember them and they become a legend.

[1] Half a bazillion. I was also reading reviews of LED projectors because my workplace needs a new projector.

[2] ("I'll know you're being a jerk when I see it.")

I was responding to a post by the marvelous Andi regarding experiences of sexuality in gaming, and it started to get a bit long, so I thought, "Well, I should probably post about it, then."

I've talked before about my first time having a relationship in a game wherein sex came into play, let alone sexuality. I didn't even blink that it was two women characters.

Damascus (my "heart character" if I have one) loves fully and fluidly. In the Bete Noire campaign she got married to save one of the other characters, and it didn't even occur to her (at least at first) that there was anything unusual in the fact that she was marrying another woman. In the assorted texts of her adventures since, she's shown that same disregard for anything but consent and lack of (Uncle) Caine.

I've mentioned "being surprised" by my character's sexuality, though. In the "Phoenix Exodus" campaign, I truly had no idea that my PC Jelica was attracted to women. Until a particular NPC really got to her and I realized it, it wasn't even something relevant to the adventure, and it certainly wasn't anything I had talked about in her otherwise extensive background. (The other players, however, were not surprised.) My Skyrim character is attracted to men. It's changed how I worked some in-game opportunities even though the culture doesn't seem to make any big deal about it.

That's all character, though. It's background information in a lot of cases; it's something that could be used as a hook, or could be ignored just as easily in a lot of scenarioes. For me, unless someone really made a point out of it or if it got raised as some kind of boundary, I'd just presume that it's all okay and available.

So what makes it interesting to talk about? I am not the type of gamer who gets into it to play themselves. The fact that Damascus and I have anything in common is almost coincidence (although in the years since I developed her there may have been some bleed...both ways. [grin]) It wouldn't be fair to suggest that because I have the sexuality I have that all my characters are the same way.

What gets tricky is how it interacts between the people behind the characters. Not just in projecting between the people playing, which can be awkward, but I realized last year at ACNW that I kind of shy away from portraying the types of relationships that reflect anything "real" for me. I've had bad relationships in games and with gamers, don't get me wrong. I've been at the table and even been a part of discussions where the metacommunication and what the characters were saying were both pointed. I've cried for the love of some of our long term fictional friends, and had my heart broken along with the character I was playing. Far from implying that I don't make a genuine investment into my gaming, I think my not wanting to make people uncomfortable may have prevented me from exploring some opportunities.

If I have the kind of table where people can play who they want to play, and have their characters love who they want to love, why would I keep myself from having that same freedom?

It's hard to run Amber. The rulebook gives suggestions as to how things work, but even those running games very close to the canonical view have to answer a lot of questions as to how things work in a new situation. The overall rule of Amber is, "You succeed unless something has an interest in stopping you." You can pick any lock, speak any language, go where you wish, unless there's an active force opposing. Cosmologies can be created simply on a new aspect of how the powers work (and I ask questions about that on the Amber blog.)

On the other hand, there's a certain feel to Amber. The lack of "wuss Amberites" rule. When I play Amber, I want there to be the big challenges, the personal triumphs, and the destructive possibilities. You should dance on the edge of, "Over the top," simply because of being living legends.

So when we joined this Amber game, I was excited. I created a deeply flawed character, (Chantal) a thug with a penchant for, "cold currency and hot blood." The first day was great, with mechanical creatures and magical items, and then... the game seemed to be someone's old AD&D game ported to Amber.

That wasn't the stinker, though.

The stinker was because the GM (and a couple of other players) were so determined to keep their secrets that we had nothing to do.

And the puzzles were killing puzzles.

In a game where everyone should be larger than life, there should be a decided lack of down moments. Yes, there's a definite timing for revealing secrets, but when you're stalling the player chemistry because of it, you need to think of something else. Tell us the secrets, and the characters can still be in the dark.

And while I appreciate a good puzzle, if the players keep banging at something and not getting anywhere, it's time for a clue.

The game didn't last very long for us, but it's the first campaign I've ever joined where I was dreading going to it so much I actually found myself coming up with excuses to not game. I'm sure some of it was just that it was a bad game match, but it's definitely going down in my mind as a Stinker.

Interrupting my other series because I'm having trouble narrowing down parts four and five (I think I've got number four, but there's this caveat that I have to get through first).

Shadowrun on TAG¹

The very loose premise of the game was that Benjamin Stryfe, a corporate vampire, wanted the 'Runners to "house-sit" for him for a few days while he was out of the country. Why he needed such a large and varied team was that he was expecting "trouble" at his manse, well, and he might have been feeling a mite peckish. He'd laid some strange traps and there'd been existing pieces of his myriad collections that were troublesome, after all. So, it started out as a dungeon crawl, like so many other games have...

...and then there were the characters. Honestly, there were too many and I loved each of them in their own dysfunctional way. Gourmet, the investigator. We used Gourmet in a few other games; she's one of those characters where they have a ton of contacts who help her out, so she's a great character for a PBeM style game. (She gets involved later with Scaramouche, an old wizard gentleman.)

Lightshadow. The mercenary who knew the somatic ingredients for a major destructive spell, despite not being able to cast anything.

"POGO BALL HOO. HOO. HOO." The Troll.

And of course, our rigger, Maxi I've mentioned as being the character whose player deflowered me in a gaming fashion.

What made the game great was just the grand sweeping scale of it. Eventually they found all the secrets and blew up the mansion, of course. It was my first really successful game on a BBS, and some of the quotes and scenes from it persist as part of our vocabulary to this very day.

¹ Anyone who knows me has probably heard vague rumours of The Assassins' Guild BBS that was probably at least 2/3rds of the reason I fell in love with the man I did... this Shadowrun game may have been part of that as well.

REVERB GAMERS 2012, #17: What was the best reward you've ever gotten in a game? What made it so great? How much do you need tangible rewards (loot, leveling, etc.) to enjoy a game?

the LintKing says:

I'm not entirely sure about the `best' reward - "winning" comes to mind, though. I've actually, distinctly won a few Throne Wars (and Throne-War like games), and there's a very nice feeling to that. But for the in-game rewards, I have to note that for a long time, mostly I've played one-shot games, generally at conventions - so the character rewards are either fleeting or irrelevant. In a longer term game, though, yes, they're something I very much look forward to and enjoy - especially in a system that gives you choices as you advance. (Incidentally, I find that's a big factor in how much I like CRPGs, in particular.)

the Fierce says:

The best rewards are those grown organically by the game, and are usually in the realm of special reputations or funny character stories. Heck, a memorable quote is sometimes an awesome reward in itself, especially if someone else brings it up years later. Honestly, experience points are pretty passé by themselves in my way of thinking. I mean, if the system requires them, sure, you can have them for gaining experience at something...but I'd much rather invest them immediately into something that happened in the game. Like the giant weasel my daughter's character just got. Far more interesting than simply treasure xp, if you ask me, and especially at her age, less pointless math and more interesting drama.

REVERB GAMERS 2012, #15: People often talk about the divide between what happens "in game" and "in real life." Do you maintain that divide in your own play, or do you tend to take what happens to your character personally? Why?

the LintKing says:

Well, yes and no. I do think it's important to keep that line, especially, for example, in a more competitive game - in a Throne War, for example, I'm not going to get mad at someone because their character betrays mine. But at the same time, I do get sad if something bad happens to one of my characters, and happy when something good does - I'm not sure what the point of playing would be, in a lot of ways, without some level of vicarious identification.

the Fierce says:

In general, I don't believe in 'vicarious identification,' but I have known some people who have insisted on making it personal. Sometimes I do try to put in little bits that I know someone will like because of how I know them "in real life," but in general I do my best to respect some strong boundaries. I can play with thresholds on my own time; placing other people into the kind of chaos with which I have familiarity is nonconsensual and akin to assault.

REVERB GAMERS 2012, #14: What kinds of adventures do you enjoy most? Dungeon crawls, mysteries, freeform roleplaying, or something else? What do you think that says about you?

the LintKing says:

Another `favorite'? Kinds of adventures...hm. I like to have room for socializing `in character', but you can find that in almost any kind of adventure. Again - it depends on mood and the group, and, I suppose, the system. About me, it probably says I'm totally not stubborn.

the Fierce says:

It's not the "stubborn," it's the "discerning" we wonder about... [tease] Or the desperation. I've been really wanting to play some highly political games, but I've been running dungeon crawls. Sometimes it is cathartic to play Moria-style where, "If it moves, kill it," is a reasonable expression of your character. Sometimes we decide that the little Hat would totally buy the Electric Company, but would pshaw against paying the price for Baltic Avenue. My orc in Skyrim had to make a completely irrelevant-to-the-game-play choice last night of supporting a daedra lord or telling the lord in question to take her sword and shove it where she doesn't shine. [ahem] Let's compare it to how we loved "The Witcher" because the game choices included sarcasm... that's hard to do. [I love KotOR, for example... but the light side and the dark side of the force ought to be more than, "I'm going light side because the other choice is to be rude. Where's the Polite Sith option?"]

And yes, this all has to do with what kinds of adventures I enjoy because I won't enjoy the adventure with the wrong character or the wrong game play. We've done the multiple play throughs of Dragon Age, and boy it would have been nice to have some actual choice in events along the way. Then isn't that the major complaint about Skyrim? That your event choices are nigh infinite but they still don't really matter? I like dungeon crawls that do affect the political structure. That's how I design them, anyway.

REVERB GAMERS 2012, #13: Who's the best GM/storyteller/party leader you've ever had? What made him/her so great?

the LintKing says:

Well, she does this thing with...oh, great *as a GM*. Right. Meera really is my favorite GM. And I don't just say that because she knows where I sleep. Admittedly, my overall feelings about her may color my perceptions, and I'm sure some of it is that a lot of my playing style has shaped, over the years, around her GMing style, so of course it works for me, but...whatever the reasons, she's decidedly it. She's exceptionally descriptive. If you've read any of her writing, it's like that - evocative and poetic, and she does that without having to spend hours polishing. Combined with her otherwise fairly casual attitude, and her style lets me slide in and out of immersion pretty smoothly. And for all that one way her GMing has hugely improved over the years has been in her game planning skills, she's brilliant at improvisation. As long as she hasn't had any Nyquil recently.

the Fierce says:

I asked tLK and apparently, the next couple of words were, "[his] cerebral cortex."

Over the summer I was doing a slow series on my favourite games, and the GMs had a lot to do with those, of course. Picking a "favourite" or "best" doesn't quite work. I could do the "honourary favourite" which would be my Dad, of course, because he got me into gaming and made me laugh (hysterically at times.) I could do the "long-term favourite," which would have been our friend Samir, who was just twisted (and encouraged me to be twisted as well.) Roger, the GURPS guy was just fabulous at knowing the system and really emphasized what I learned about "system matters," and Doyce, of course, ran just the right balance of "system knowledge" and "story" that was excellent. I could probably say good things about all the GMs I've played under, even if for a few I would be stretching it.

I like that it included, "Party Leader" because I've loved the "Loremaster" role from Dream Park for a while. and I'm really considering setting up a LARP with a couple, maybe.

REVERB GAMERS 2012, #12: Do you prefer collaborative or competitive games? What do you think that says about you?

the LintKing says:

Hm...I'm not sure it's a legitimate dichotomy. Any game is collaborative, almost by definition - if people are competing, it's because they've agreed that's what they all want to do. But on the more `overt' level, I like both, really, it depending on my mood and the group. Of course, when you step past "competitive" and into "cutthroat"...well, I still certainly can enjoy that kind of game, but it starts getting harder to find a group I'll enjoy it with.

the Fierce says:

Despite my saying I had broken up with someone over a game of Illuminati!, that was just because the game play was a reflection of the reality of the relationship. And I did give this person a chance afterwards to determine if that was the dealbreaker. As tLK knows, I don't play ultracompetitive, because if I have to play to win, I will win, and I don't like the person it makes me become. Which isn't to say I don't like the occasional throne war or board game, just that it does have to have a certain remove to it. For example, I like the recent deck-building games because while it is a competition, I feel like I'm playing against the board more than the other players in general.

REVERB GAMERS 2012, #11: Have you ever played a character that was morally gray, or actually evil? Why or why not? If yes, did you enjoy it?

the LintKing says:

Absolutely not. All of my characters are completely pure and honest, and if you ever game with me you should totally trust them, every one.

the Fierce asks:
"Hey, hon, have I? I don't recall doing so..."

"--Well, there's Samantha. (Phblt...hehe...) I could make a case for Pikabu, too. But that I can think of offhand, as a *player*, no, I don't think you have, actually - you gravitate a lot more to the Paladin-esque. Sometimes (like with Pikabu) to the point where they could be argued as wrapping around, but even there, an actual argument would have to be made, and I'm not sure it would hold up very well. I'm thinking that in all our games at ACNW, there must have been *one*, but, you know - only Ariel comes to mind, and I had Zephyr's viewpoint...still, in fairness, I couldn't see either of those two as being actually much better than `gray.' They were a little too focused on `winning' to be overly concerned with morality."

"I keep thinking I must have, as a GM, run someone who was evil. As a player, I mean, Jinx-Jobina thought nothing of eating someone if it was in context. She'd never be impolite. Satyr thought morals were for suckers, but he'd never do anything malicious, just playful. Damascus, well... I kind of think she operates on a different level. Maybe I'm just good at all of them having the delusion they're the good guys?"

"Given a more realistic take on morality, you could say that about anybody; but no, I think `grey' is the worst your characters get. Despite [the Rainbow Kat]'s immediate `yes', she can't think of any, and neither can either of us, and I think that's a pretty strong point -and even those are usually in places where it's part of the context. Like, May certainly sounded to have her bad points, but, you know, [the game was] `Hellcats' - I was frankly having a hard time thinking up anything bad enough for Kokone to be involved in to fit in. So you might think about why not, because I think that's where your answer to this one really falls."

With that in mind, I think the truth is that "good" and "evil" aren't destinations for my characters' development. They will do good and evil things in order to get to their goals, but I don't think the descriptors really apply... and that's kind of where "paladin" comes in for me. It's not the "lawful good" paladin situation, it's the faith-driven goal-inspired passion of a paladin. My characters in general do what they believe is the right thing to do in the given situation, even if they're wrong. I don't like apathetic characters, although I'll occasionally run a character who is paralyzed by choice.

Thinking about it, the character (Sienna) I ran in Doyce's "Ironwall" game was supposed to start out evil - her quest was for redemption. She sold her child for power... yeah, that's evil. So I found one...but she did repent.

She also tore hearts out of her enemies. So yeah, paladin.

Last night in picking up a session with the kids, the boy tried again to draw his sword on his sister's character for being annoyed. I took a deep breath and looked at him. "If you want to attack your party members, you character will become evil."

Now, this is a huge step forward for him, because he always wants to play evil characters. That this actually stays his hand is a "win" for me.