Attending the School of Lumpley of Roleplaying

[Joshua Bearden]

I just want to share a perspective I developed this week in which I (1) completed a game of Sundered Land:Doomed Pilgrim with members of my local 'indie' scene (actual play here)
and (2) played my second (technically 3rd) game of Murderous Ghosts, actual play summary report here.

The sensation both games gave me was that they were training me to play in a new (and probably better) way.  Sundered Land:Doomed Pilgrim in particular suggests a new relationship between GM and Player.  (In SLDP one player sets the scene, then petitions an open crowd of "GM's" for environmental threats, actions of opponents, parameters of success).  I came away from the game wondering whether I could use Doomed Pilgrim style queries in other roleplaying games (ie. d&d-alikes) to make player/GM interaction more productive.  Eg. instead of, "I proceed down the corridor checking for traps every ten feet."; "I proceed down the corridor.  What do I see or hear that suggests the place is trapped?"  Sure the GM could simply say 'nothing' but the question immediately invites the spontaneous invention of interesting colour.

In my recent post about playing Sorcerer set in my home town I got lots of encouragement to base demons on the karma unrest caused by peri-nautical tragedies. To play with this concept a little I chose to have the player in Murderous Ghosts infiltrate an abandoned naval shipyard and encounter the spirits of unionized ship builders who died to to corporate malfeasance while building massive ships of war. What Vincent seemed to be teaching me in this game was how to kill player characters. The game mechanics are designed to be deadly, but there is still discretion.  Early in the game, things went badly enough that the player should have been murdered by ghosts.  I availed myself of legitimate (by the rules) opportunities to let him live longer but compromised the tone of the ghosts slightly.  At the end the player thought the game had been fun, but had gone on too long.  I realized that colour or tone should be as determinate as random rolls in deciding how hard to play. In one case a group of ghosts pushed the player through a band saw. He survived by drawing well and kicking the blade off the saw before he was thrust through it.  It was totally legitimate to allow the ghosts to proceed mindlessly pushing him through a broken saw.  What I did wrong came a round or two later when he passed up the chance to escape the room and ends up attracting their attention again. When the Ghosts meet him a second time, there was no good reason for them to be less bloodthirsty in attitude. They should have continued on full assault mode rather than dithering.  Instead I chose to have them "investigate and lose interest". 

Actually is that really what I should have learned from the game?  I'm not sure. The one thing I'm sure of though is that these tight mini-games of Vincent's are have a not-so-subtle effect on my techniques. I'm excited to see what will become of me as I keep playing with them. 

Anyone have similar experiences? 

[RangerEd]

Joshua,

I have a thought and GM experience about killing characters. One contradicts the other, so neither are probably the best answer.

The thought is that a good game helps players suspend disbelief and prevents the phenomenon of seeing through the fourth wall (a theater reference I think). From an endogenous perspective on the fiction, a setting ought to work exactly as advertised. Gameplay needs to match the theme, genre, and other setting specifics. If a player wants to test the boundaries, sometimes the character pays with her life. Usually, kill one character and the fiction gets a bit more dramatic from then on. I like it that way. It is a sort of sick reward cycle, I suppose.

The GM experience that contradicts this thought comes from a game I ran for something like six weeks at a local game store years ago. It was a pickup group ranging from a guy ten or more years older than me to a couple of teenagers. All was going well until they decided to rush an assault on a final objective (they had played so smart up to that point). The situation ended in a TPK. The last potential survivor got wasted from long range after he thought he made it out. I got some hateful emails from some of the group and the older guy sent me one that hurt a lot worse. He said he was disappointed in me for letting the game go the way it did. It was a terrible experience. I lost my table at the gaming store along with my local reputation as a GM.

I try to be explicit with the social contract before a game starts now. The setting is dangerous. Characters may die. While running a game, I am constantly checking to evaluate if they believe those rules. Even that doesn't work sometimes. Three years ago, I invited a work buddy to play. He just sat there dumbfounded when his guy bit it. He never came back to our table.

Bottom line for me: You are an artist of gameplay. It's your game and your call. Just be willing to live with the results.

Cheers,
Ed

[lumpley]

Thanks, Joshua!

(I think you may find the crowd here skeptical of my later games. Uniquely skeptical! It's a funny thing.)

-Vincent

[Eero Tuovinen]

Skeptical is good, it encourages cardio-vascular health.

For my part I'll be purchasing my gross of each of these new-fangled Lumpley games whenever I get my own book done and have the time to do maintenance on our retail store. For now I'll take it on fate that Sundered Lands and so on are interesting works, as that's what everybody tells me.