Do you have "secret shortcuts" for grokking the way to roleplay particular concepts?

Sometimes we, especially as Referees, roleplay people we've got a hard time understanding with our usual logic (whether it's elves in Glorantha, or Fair Folk in Exalted, or inquisitors who are genuinely concerned about their victims...)

So, how do you go about it?

My example is the Fair Folk in Exalted. My secret is that I model them after "dirtie hippie storygamers playing a traditional game and trying to get their schtick to apply".

Yes, the Fair Folk are the guys and gals who pick a genre and try to behave like the heroes and heroines. And expect the game to accommodate them by inserting the tropes.

And are then disappointed when my NPCs seldom do.

What are your secrets?

Reviews (and a solution) of Kuro: Makkura and Kuro: Tensei

A short explanation: I decided to cover Kuro: Makkura (a.k.a. The Not-So-Great Kuro Campaign) and Kuro: Tensei (a.k.a. the "Where's my kewl powerz?" supplement) in a single post. Why?
They're meant to be linked...chronologically, even. You introduce Tensei after you play through Makkura.

OK, first we're going to talk about the presumed Kuro Campaign...a.k.a. What Asen Doesn't Like About Kuro.
Yes, I'm serious. But it's still presumed you'd be using it...no, don't tell me it's not - everything even in the corebook points you in that direction. The adventure in the basic book is part of it, and you basically have to play through Kuro: Makkura to get to Kuro: Tensei!

SPOILERTIME:
The Incident, the Blockade - they're both parts of it. And they're part of the reasons the setting is what it is.
/SPOILERTIME

So...this won't be the usual review. Instead, I'm going to talk a bit about the campaign, and a lot more about how to salvage it.
Yes, it's that bad, speaking from experience. I've run part of it (readers of my blog can remember that this is one of the very few campaigns I've tried to run...and it's also one of the reasons I'm not actively looking for other people's campaigns).

So, what is the campaign.
It begins with the adventure in the corebook (mandatory - you introduce recurring NPC there), and continues. The point is to get increasingly deeper in the occult world of Shin Edo.

SPOILERTIME 2!
So, first the characters are kidnapped by terrorists and save themselves or are saved, not without the help of an AI (or is it an AI?) they meet in the next building - a laboratory - after the terrorists blow up the floor.
Then they chase a murderer who's obviously not merely human.
They try to save missing students and find themselves in a demon's realm.
Then various shenanigans ensue. OK, that part isn't exactly spoiler-worthy. Oh, and more recurring NPCs are introduced!
FWIW: all the 7 adventures are keyed to the days of the week.
And then they have to chase the demons to prevent a great evil from appearing....but they fail (no questions here).
And then they have the option to return to ordinary lives, or become avatars for the kami who were their ancestors, and to fight demons (though not with this exact wording). You know what PCs are going to pick, right?
(The question, though, is asked as "Do you want to live or die?"
/SPOILERTIME 2!

What's bad about the campaign?
It's frigging linear. Like, I've read a short story ("Regret With Math", by Greg Stolze) that was less linear.
And this is supposed to be a game. But you can change nothing.
If I had to guess what the authors were thinking, it would be something like this...
"The players aren't going to read all about the setting (arguably true in some groups). So, the characters have to reach from A to B by clearing middle points C, D, E, and F, and by the kami, they're going to do it! And the players are going to get immersed in the setting in the process! Those baka players just need to pay attention to the scenery as the train is passing!"
Ahem, maybe not quite like this, but it's what I imagine - not what happened.

Now, for those without the game, and for everyone who might think I'm exaggerating: The adventure in the corebook is, like, the worst example of a glorified railroad you can think of. Or, quite possibly, worse than that!
I mean, it is fully linear. You can't, by design, stray in any direction - short of dying deliberately against obviously superior forces (NPCs with assault weapons and power armour, while the characters are unarmed...exactly how stupid do you have to be in order to stay and fight?) It gives you TNs for checks and stats for NPCs that are going to be fighting. And it also gives you an explanation why, if you fail the checks and have the mind to run, you're still going to pass - and the NPCs couldn't chase you!
Though admittedly, there are brighter moments in the campaign...like the Darkness Demon, amusingly enough. At least you could die for something other than bad dice rolls.
Verdict: Kuro is a great game, and well-researched, but the campaign basically makes all its potential unnecessary, except as a combat engine!

What's good about the Makkura campaign? Why is it even worth salvaging?
The campaign is exactly as bad as it seems, while the game and the setting are exactly as great as they seem. But it is a good way to showcase the setting, and to introduce its darker parts, and unknown beliefs - step by step.
So, how to combine it with an actual, you know, game (where, by definition, your decisions should be able to change the outcome)? I have a solution!
Here's what I actually did, and I'd recommend the same to you as well. It's the adventure in the corebook (yes, that same one) that gave me the idea...
Remember, it is fully linear. So, obviously the authors wanted to tell you this as a story. Should I rewrite it with much effort, or should I run a railroad? "No way" to both, I said.
Instead, I allowed them to do exactly what they wanted (and I recommend you doing the same). I told the players the story.
So, listen: the game begins less than a week after the corebook adventure. The PCs meet and introduce each other, but you tell them that they know each other.
At this point, let the players introduce the PCs.
And then tell them the first adventure as a cut-scene: "Three days ago, you met at the bank that was attacked by terrorists and survived together. Worse, some things you found while escaping point to you that you're all related in some ways! At the least, your names are all on a list." (Also refer to the spoileblock).
Then I read them how the adventure was going to go anyway.
(The players, of course, asked: "why aren't we playing through this?" They were assuming they might do something that might change the events, the poor souls...
Me: "Because it's a total railroad and I can't stand to run it, nor do I have the time to re-write it basically from scratch. And when I say this, I mean it doesn't matter what you're going to try and do").
Then you serve them the actual adventure. See the parts with "adventure seeds" (after the adventures in the campaign, titled "Continuing the Day of..." and on p. 183 of the corebook)?
Those are almost as good as the actual campaign is a failure (for me, at least). They give you suggestions, point out what info about the setting they're meant to introduce, what to focus on...
They are even grouped, so you could pick one depending on the party composition!
So, I'd read each adventure in the campaign as a cut-scene (barring maybe 3 of them, but probably less). The rest of them, and that's the majority unless you're willing to do a lot more work than me, you introduce as cut-scenes.
Remember, they're meant to evoke a mood and progress a plot. Let them do it!
Then you use what you've actually got, and run the adventures that are obvious in the adventure seeds!
And you can decide to stop after some of the events - especially if you don't want to get into playing Kuro: Tensei (where the game becomes less of a horror and more of a supernatural technothriller in a dystopian future...like Eric van Lustbader on steroids. I mean, his ninja guy never met the Japanese Emperor...)
Also, the events from Makkura, which are meant to pre-date Tensei, need never happen - unless the group would like that! Just because you're using them as background, doesn't tie you to that turn of events.
You can even play Tensei without the kami returning in such a spectacular fashion...they players have been considered "worthy", and got a kami's attention. Period. Like so much else in the game, it's a mixed blessing...
Or they might decide to continue the same way as before, without the Ki Powers in Tensei. Personally, I'd love that!
And you know best what your group would like.

Tensei
So, maybe you played Makkura, or maybe you're introducing just Tensei. Either way, it's assumed that a kami (a spirit of a Japanese hero) has merged with your character. It's not possession, see - you're their descendent, so it's obviously fine!
But no matter, the point is that mechanically, you're introducing Kewl Powerz. (And narratively, you're now becoming one of the movers and shakers...while in-world, your PC is now indeed apart from the common man - or woman - at the street, and risks forgetting who he or she used to be in the 21st century).
Oh, and you now have the option to play one of the Onimachines. Get the supplement to learn what those are...

One of the options is Musashi Myamoto, BTW. Other options are Abe no Seimei, Himiko, Lady Tomoe, Kusunoki Masahige and Saito Musashibo Benkei. I liked the spread. (And I like even more that Musashi is NOT the Samurai archetype. He's a Duelist, the samurai is Kusunoki Masashige).
They all give you access to different abilities. For example, all the warriors except Benkai give you only the techniques Kekkai and Okuden - while Himiko, the Miko archetype, gives you access to Divination, Kagenie, Kamitsuki, Kekkai, Kichiyose, and Kuji-Kiri.
Kekkai, for example, are "areas of supernatural purity, where the supernatural cannot harm innocents". The PC(s) and your opponent(s) simply disappear, and fight in a place with no bystanders (unless you want to protect those...them dying leads to Taint), but with all the structures that were there. Anyone who dies there, is dead, but that's it. You can blow the Emperor's Castle, but no
They've got different "Sacred Gimmiku", different ways to recover Ki, allow you to use different items and amulets. The only thing they have in common: the closer you get to "your" kami, the less human you become - and the more powerful.
And since I know you want it, here's the list of "powers".
Divination (duh!)
Kekkai (see above)
Kagenie (the ability to create a paper doll that augments someone's abilities)
Kami-Tsuki (summoning kami to control things around you, like the kami of a house, a car, or whatever)
Katatagae (teleportation)
Kuchiyose (summoning protective spirits)
Kuji-In (using 9 magic rituals to augment your abilities, cure ills, become invisible to impure beings, or throw energy attacks)
Kuji-Kiri (using the raw power of Kuji-In - regardless of whether you know Kuji-In itself - to generate a terrible energy attack)
Maboroshi (wounding your opponent with terrifying illusions woven from Ki)
Okuden (create weapons of energy or inject existing ones with Ki to improve them)
Shinobi ("the originus of the occult knowledge of assassins, ninja and hinin spies", this Technique modifies your body, changing it to fight or fool an enemy - and it is enhanced by having Taint).


Even more importantly (meaning, I don't see any reason not to use those rules and information in the game before Tensei), you get an in-depth explanation of Purity and Taint, and ways to remove the latter. In fact, I believe this should have been in the corebook!
There's also a chapter detailing which regions of Japan are more or less tainted and what it means for those visiting it or living there. The Shin Edo (the New Tokyo capital, remember?) is given its own chapter.

There is a list of the different factions of supernatural creatures, and stats for some of the supernatural creatures (but fair warning: without the options in Kuro: Tensei or really damn heavy cybernetics, you're toast against one of the weak ones, like Okami-Otoko, or Ybao-Kuni).

There's two adventures. What was said about Makkura, applies here as well, in spades. Except there are no Adventure Seeds.
That's fine, though. The whole book is one giant adventure seed - especially the parts about Taint!

For obvious reasons, I'm not going to rate Makkura.
Tensei gets the following ratings from me:
Style: 5/5
Mechanics: 5/5
Setting: 5/5
GMing advice: N/A
Adventures: N/A

I committed a Refereeing sin! Seeking a penance?

Namely, I just offered a player to use meta-game currency to introduce a sequence of events!
Everybody had fun, but it still feels wrong, somehow. I mean, most of us are used to adding Hero Points to checks in order to succeed: that's easily represented by extra effort.
But using them for introducing a turn of events that's more favourable to the characters? I've still got issues accepting that.

What actually happened:
Currently running BASH: Legends of Steel, and my party has split, as I find that a normal thing to happen in any S&S game.
Some of the players went to explore the rumours of the Forlorn King of Tyros and Aragos...what the one who decided that doesn't know is, she's going to walk into a heavily modified Death Frost Doom, where instead of thousands of zombies, she risks releasing an immortal necromancer king, modeled after Koshtchei the Immortal.
Another player went to explore the star-crossed love story of two scions of powerful noble families. Her, a scion of the Montevaggios, him, a scion of Kapi branch of the Omurt clan, a.k.a. the Capiomri.
Yes, there is a joke for the players in here, too. She noticed it already, too... but I'm not going to tell you what it is (because I might actually get around to publishing this as an adventure! Yes, complete with the in-jokes.

Anyway. She went thinking about the best approach to exonerate the guy from accusations of a murder, so I switched to the other party. When I switched back, she still hadn't decided anything decisive. So we played an information-gathering scene that didn't result in much new data, either (she didn't push an NPC that would have talked, but was unwilling to offer the info freely).
And then I couldn't switch, because the leader of the other group was making tea in the kitchen, and was unavailable. In my group, making tea is A Big Deal!
So I decided to spare everyone some dithering, and said.
"By the rules, you have exactly a single Hero Die remaining, and we can give you some clues for that. Do you want to do that?"
"Sure! Thank you for reminding me, too! You know that I'd have forgotten to use them, if not for you, right?"

Yes, I knew that. I'm the one who reminded her to use a Hero Point last session. That's why she only had a full Hero Die (by the BASH rules, you get 3 HeroPoints per session, and can bring them from one session to the next, up to 10 - or you can spend them separately as a dice bonus. If she hadn't earned some Hero Points for style and daring, and spent even more in a hard fight, she'd have forgotten to use any, I'm pretty sure. I should know, I've been playing with her for over a decade!
Then again, she was fighting a minotaur all by herself. Which is a suitable endeavour for a S&S character, in my book. Stunts like provoking a surprise attack in order to counter-ambush an assailant are also very much in-genre from my point of view - and this is what she did.

So, she got to witness people leaving after an encounter they'd rather have kept secret. Everybody had fun, and considered it in-genre, as I said.

And yet...I haven't used meta-game currency to give leads or "advantageous circumstances" in years. It just felt wrong!
Not sure I want to do that again any time soon.
And I guess that there went my qualifications as a simulationist sandbox Referee? Ah, well, I'd have to live with being a hidden narrativist!

I wonder what a suitable penance would be?


WARNING: The events happened as they were described, but this post might still contain traces of humour!

Unfettered or Fettered: GMing styles and modules

"Before I learned how to play and GM with gamebooks and RPGs, playing pretend was testing whether you could deal with X, and ALSO was telling a story, AND the story had to make sense - that includes not violating what I know of munitiae like sword swings and your state of mind when someone is trying to push a blade into your skull*.
When I learned gamebooks, and later RPGs, I discovered the Three-fold theories (both of them!), and suddenly the game EITHER was about what you do to deal with X, OR about telling a story, OR about respecting and exploring munitiae like sword swings or conversational tactics, or whatever.
Now I understood Unfettered GMing, also known as Lazy GMing, and I'm just running a game that explores the munitae of details, and that produces a story, and people at the table treat it as a game."
Asen R. G., your host

Ok, that was a rather clumsy way to paraphrase well-known sentence ("Before I learned martial arts, a punch was just a punch and a kick was just a kick. When I studied martial arts, a punch was no longer just a punch and a kick was no longer just a kick. Now I understand martial arts, and a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick." - Bruce Lee, who was in turn paraphrasing Takuan Soho, AFAICT).
Anyway...
After reading Ron Edwards's Sorcerer (the annotated edition), I noticed that he's saying the campaign when he was "just playing the NPCs, and this generated the narrative" as one of his most successful ones).
I'm doing the exact same thing "the father on Narrativism" recommends - although I consider myself a Simulationist. Then again, I've heard the same advice from mainly Gamist players.
Yeah, the divisions in the RPG hobby are mostly BS, indeed.
I had discovered the "just play the NPCs" GMing approach in, more or less, the same fashion as Ron Edwards. I was running a game; the game was set up with interesting characters from both sides of the screen. There were conflicts and alliances between them to give a pause to any Vampire chronicle.
So I just asked myself "why the hell should I prepare it in advance, if the players aren't going to do what I expect anyway - and I find it fun to catch this kind of surprise shots and return them?"
The answer was "no fucking reason in Hell", and so I ran the next session... two hours after the one that had just finished.
At the end, I had more material than I had before, because no PC ran from conflicts. The players laughed, and cried - for real, not roleplaying - and were exhilarated.
Years later, I almost got a beating when I announced ending the campaign...
But all of this was because the players knew that risking your character is fun. To the PCs, that's no doubt the analogue of playing extreme sports...but then most PCs should be extreme sports enthusiasts.

The end conclusion is, to me: You need to teach unfettered roleplaying to the players, if it doesn't come naturally to them. After that, you can be the Unfettered GM.

Most books teach you to be the Fettered GM. Take an adventure, self-made or not. Start the PCs so and so, says the adventure. X happens... After that, Y happens. After that, Z happens (and hopefully, that means you get to meet Zorro). That's how I began running games, too.
But right now, I only need a setting book and easily applicable rules. Everything else, including genre supplements? Yeah, nice, but largely unnecessary. "Just play the NPCs", and if it needed to be said, make them interesting. (Nobody is completely uninteresting in real life, either. If you didn't learn that in English classes, learn it now, and practice. Talk with a boring guy and find something that makes him non-boring).
I mean, the guy that makes your accounts might be a Combat Sambo champion (yes, I know such a guy!) The plumber next door might be an ex-convict, or just having had an interesting youth. You** probably have a hobby that's out of the ordinary for your profession - namely, roleplaying. And you're reading RPG-related blogs! In your FREE time! Seriously, do you have any idea how obscure that is to everyone else? (I guess you have an idea, indeed).
Yeah. People with no unexpected interests and skills are so rare, this makes them interesting. So, yes, it's impossible by definition to be boring.
Don't be afraid your sessions would be boring - just make them interesting.
You don't need pre-planned adventures for that. You just need to have the GMing tools internalised, too. And that means "playing the NPCs as logically as you'd play a PC".
And if your playing PCs is lacking, you should work on that.

Or maybe I should just write a module the way I imagine it should be done.

*Yes, that's for the kind of first-hand experience that I haven't asked for.
**The "you" that's reading an RPG-related blog.

Reading Sorcerer RPG: does it work as a manual for simulationist GMs?

I purchased recently Sorcerer RPG by +Ron Edwards from Adept press. It was in a Bundle of Holding, or I might not have bothered.
Then I started reading and went "wow" (not as in the notorious MMORPG - it was more of "wow, that's what I'm trying to tell my friends - the ones I'm teaching GMing"). Because, well, that's what I call Simulationist play. As in, "pretend to be the character to the point that you only bother with what the character is thinking - no story arcs, no pre-planned plots, no nothing".
And that's almost word-for-word what +Ron Edwards is advising you to do as part of his "Narrativist" game. Even more, that's THE game for narrativist players - AFAICT, storygames started with it!
Still, so far, I only disagree with one sentence in his advice. "Don't play the setting". Well, no, you can't do that if you need to play the NPCs...because the setting is an NPC, too (just like any other organisation)! But that's ONE sentence.
I usually disagree with half the GMing chapter in "traditional" games. Seriously, guys... ONE sentence? That might as well be written by me (no, I'm NOT claiming credit-I discovered my current GMing style long after Sorcerer has been written. I just haven't read it, for various reasons that are kinda besides the point).
And then I remembered that the OSR advice has similar points, where I'm nodding my head in agreement.
The only other games where I agree with the GMing chapter to such an extent? Atomic Highway, Fates Worse Than Death, Crimson Exodus/Fantasy Dice RPG, Legends of the Wulin, Apocalypse World/Monsterhearts. Runequest 6 also comes close. But that's not even 10% of the games I own...
Still, all of these games are from wildly differing "schools". Seems like good GMing is good GMing, no matter who's doing it. (Well, if it's "open-ended" GMing, at least. I've run games that were going against this, and the players were still happy. So it might be called "good" GMing - although I'd consider my current style to be far superior both in terms of simulation and in terms of story - but it would be wildly different).
Just food for thought.

And in the meantime, I purchased the Sorcerer supplements, and I'm looking into other games by the same author, too. He's got a KS campaign for his "S/Lay w/ Me" game (which I discovered the day after buying the PDF). Of course, I'm now a backer.
The only other KS I'm currently backing is the one by +Levi Kornelsen for his zombie apocalypse game. But that's another story and should be told in another blog post.

RPG.net just gave me the image of a party of adventurers asking the dragon to give them a fetch quest. He doesn't have anything for them.
Let me share it with you.
"I am Lue the Dragon, and I'm bored of all you, adventurers that offer to bring me whatever I want. Bring me a tankard of ale, while you're at it...no, I'm not going to give you anything for it. But we could talk.
Thing is, do you think I need you clumsy, earth-bound humans to fetch things for me? I think I've got a bone somewhere nearby, but the only thing you'd get for fetching it to me is another bone... like my dog did.
So, what do I really want?
Worship me! Be my high priests - meaning, if you fail me, I'd get you high in the sky before dropping you. Ever heard about great power and responsibilities?
Yes, I want you to worship me, become my priest, and intimidate - or persuade, or seduce them, I could care less only with negative numbers, which most of you don't know - so, [B][I]make[/I][/B] those guys over the hill worship me as well! I don't care if you use an army or an anthill, three pieces of flint, a piece of polished glass, and some feathers.
What? No, that's not a cunning plan I'm suggesting. I was just talking about junk you could offer them for trade. That is, if they were stupid enough to trade worship for that. Their forefathers were, a couple centuries ago. Not any more. I'm missing my tribe!
Once you accomplish the conversion, though, you could leave with even a nice diamond from my treasure. I'm going to promote other people among them to be my chief priests. And you? You'll be the patron saints that the Lue the God of Fire can invoke. Win-win, don't you think?
If that doesn't work for you, I could take something else. See, there's this trading caravan. If someone was to hire themselves as their guides and then lead them near my lair at night, they could easily become rich from the spoils I can't carry, or have no use for. But bring them at night! Normally, they're passing nearby during the day, because then their nasty crossbows give me pause. But in the darkness? Yeah, screw them.
You don't want to bring them to their deaths? Ah, I see, fellow humans. Well, then, can you go to the other dragon lair over there and plant this small thing to the wing of the male dragon? The only catch is, he shouldn't notice. Once you do that, light a fire on the hill in front of it, and get back here. Your payment will wait.
Sorry, but your lot seems conditioned that we dragons want people to fetch things for us. I had a dog for this, and it had fiendish intelligence, so it was good company. Until it died last millennium.
so yeah, much to your surprise, you'll find that I want much the same things you do: power, riches, influence, sex - with my own species, I take princesses only in the usually vain hope they would be good company.
If you wonder those hills long enough, you'll find that the same is true more or less with every sentient and sapient being here.
Oh, and I want my own prejudices confirmed. Though I don't mind new information that could teach me what they are. Unlike the rest, however, not everyone in those hills would appreciate such knowledge."

Evolution of a GM, through a Storyteller, to a Referee

The discussion of GMing styles reminded me of how my style has evolved. Only read if you're interested in such personal history.

Still here?
Actually, mission-based was actually the way I started, you could fail or succeed, but this was the mission (although objectives could change on the way, and there could be alternate, though tied missions). That was natural to me, since I've been a fan of gamebooks long before I knew about RPGs.
Then I let myself be persuaded by (probably well-intended, but still deficient) advice on Internet that railroading is the supposed mode. Then I discovered illusionism, again by Internet advice (and the GM advice in some books confirmed it). Then, after several years of alternating these two, I almost burned out and left the hobby.
And then I tried something that looked like a sandbox, again inspired by my gamebooks, and what I had come to believe a game should be in order not to cause me burnout. The Internet actually said there's no way it could work, but I figured, what the hell, I'm leaving anyway if it fails.
It worked.
I almost started a thread about my discovery, but when I mentioned it, some people on RPG.net mentioned they're already playing in this way.
So I began looking for more info, and found such both in the indie community and in the OSR community. Both advices improved my style markedly, I might add:D! Along the way, I discovered and tried some more "narrative" style of running games, too, which don't work well outside of their respective systems.
And now I've decided what doesn't work for me, and I'm happily using everything else. That includes the mission-based approach that I started with.

How to use the Turn Mod from EABA v2 in GURPS 4e and ORC-C? A.K.A. On short rounds and lethal systems

That's just something I've been discussing lately, and thought you might care to know my conclusions.
Basically, are short rounds realistic? Do they prevent more complicated actions?
First, here is how Mailanka advises to run GURPS games. I totally agree, and this applies for every game with short rounds, BTW.

"GURPS is at its best when it flows quickly. In most games, I'm fine with people taking their time, but in GURPS I will count down from 5 and if you haven't decided, your character does nothing. The point, in addition to emphasizing the speed of combat in a gritty game like GURPS, is to get people to decide swiftly. A good GURPS action sequence feels like an action sequence and not these distinct turns. It's not "Oh, it's my turn? I do this group of related things, and then relinquish control to the next player." Instead, it's "This is a time slice full of things going on in slow motion. What are you doing in this time slice?" So, of course, in some of those time slices you're slotting the clip into place as you slowly fall back from your opponent; Your pulling the slide back into place with a satisfying click as you hit the floor; You're lining up the shot as you're sliding away from your opponent (sliding is an acrobatics check, BTW, totally RAW) while your opponent is also drawing a bead on you; you're firing: Blam blam blam, down he goes.

You have to keep that moving, bam bam bam. None of this sitting around, tapping your chin and picking out your action card/daily power/whatever. If you do that, then players get frustrated with "wasted" turns aiming. No, if everything flows, then it fits. And the benefit of that is that when players do sacrifice turns aiming, they know what they're losing. Then nothing feels like a waste. Of course, there are characters who can dispense with a lot of that and just drop 3 people a second: Gunslingers and weapon masters, mostly. But cinematic heroes are cinematic (and contrary to popular belief here on RPG.net, GURPS does cinematic very well)"

Here's a link to Mailanka's blog.

However, for melee, I find it better to start with short rounds, and progress to longer ones as soon as both opponents stop to just try and trade blows (usually happens with evenly matched opponents, after they've been trading blows for a while - it's a common saying that fights that don't end fast tend to become drag-out punchdowns). Short rounds account well for the former case.
To simulate the latter, I'd adopt the increasing round durations from EABA v2. (Keep in mind, that's going from a realistic point of view, but the same rule has "narrative" uses as well. Its other use is for more "dramatic" fights with more back-and-forth. That's appropriate for some genres, less so for others). I usually start applying Turn Mods after the 3rd round, and frankly, no fight in the last 5 sessions has lasted over 3 rounds!
Bear in mind, that's for melee. Ranged fights have their own quirks. But right now, due to the setting's specific (and my hobbies), I'm mostly interested in close combat fights.

With that in mind, let's see how to use the "increasing length rounds" and turn mods in GURPS 4e (because I've got better ideas on how to apply them).

Both systems start with 1 second rounds. As the turn gets longer, add the Turn Mod from EABAv2 to your actions, splitting it between your attack(s), defences, Fast Draw actions and allow reloading for expending (as many Turn Mod as it takes rounds in GURPS). Remember the rule that you can't add more Turn Mod to a defence than was added to the attack. Meanwhile, again, the Turn Mod is getting bigger, but it means expending more ammo, and the turn is getting bigger. Refer to EABAv2 (or at least the quickstart) for details on how the rounds increase and what you can use it for.
Done. Yes, it's that simple, IMO.

Now, I still need to deciding how to use the same mechanic for ORC-C (yes, for my Fates Worse Than Death campaign, again). Given the pre-decided number of actions, that might be harder.OTOH, you can and probably should use split actions against a good opponent (or against one who doesn't care about defence). Since the penalty about split actions in ORC-C is big, that's one possible use for the Time Mod. Maybe blind allocation between attack and defence?
I need to think more about it. And maybe for a re-working of the health system of ORC-C, to make results (even) more random.

How to create a party in a historical game set in Europe?

That was actually something prompted by a post on +Gianni Vacca blog. I like him a lot, and owe him and his "The Celestial Empire" setting a lot of fun times!
That said, his post that in East Asian settings make it easier to form a party because collectivism s. individualism, really wasn't helpful. To begin with, for most of history, people in Europe were seen as part of a family first, and individuals only after that. That's not so different from Asia. Western myths and stories might be perceived to have a single protagonist, but that's not exactly how it works.

So, how to put different PCs in the same party? Well, it's not any harder than putting them together in an East Asian setting.
Let's see what examples of "natural PC parties" I can come up with.
Students of the same fencing academy/teacher that go drinking together.
Soldiers in the same regimen, assuming roughly equal rank.
A noble, his son or daughter, and their hired guards.
Members of a gang.
Extended family, especially if they have been wronged.
Members of the same Guild, who often practised together as a militia.
Knights of an order.
A Viking expedition, or just members of the same crew.
A knight, his squire, and the mercenaries and conscripts that are just necessary to keep the nobles from encirclement.
A noble and his retinue, including advisors, heirs, relatives and suitors for his daughters' hands, acrobats, jugglers and minstrels.
Members of the same occult cabal or heresy.

...just to make it clear, that's far from an exhaustive list!

There are lonely heroes, like Conan, an wandering knight, a xia, and Li Flying Dagger. There are also most other people in the setting, be it China or Europe.

Why I don't use adventures (as a general rule), or an insider look at the history of RPGs in Bulgaria

WARNING: Don't read this unless you want to learn about the history of (a sub-set of the people) playing RPGs in Bulgaria. As that's the early history, to boot, it might be interesting to some of you.
Of course, I'm giving you my perspective on it, and mention people who played differently. But I'm going to talk about what I know.


Recently, I realised there's something about me and the people I play with that I don't see as much on Western RPG forums. Namely, some people seem to need adventures in order to run a game.
I don't even read them most of the time. Why? I simply don't use adventures, pretty much never*. The books the help me running a game would be setting material, especially if it presents some faction's or religion's outlook on some major conflict in the setting (something like Caste Books/Masters of Jade for Exalted...which are setting books, if you're unfamiliar with Exalted lore. Or the Sunward in Eclipse Phase. Or Behind the Eyes of Madness for my current FWTD game).
I'm double more likely to use some setting material if it leads to social upheaval, BTW.  Like "here are those inventor guys we mentioned in passing before. Yeah, they've perfected water mills, and now use them for forging stuff as well... so they can mass-produce armour if they get the raw materials".
(That would be boring and like-a-handbook to some people. I can center a campaign around such a detail. I guess "boring" is relative).

But - back to the topic - I'm simply not used to using adventures. I'm used to passing without them, to the point that it literally takes me longer to read and prepare an adventure, than to construct one myself. I mean, I'm using about 15 minutes per session, for major campaigns, usually in the bus while travelling to the place we've decided to gather that week. I need longer than that to even read a 32-pages module, and even longer to extract the information I'd see as "useful".

Yet some of my players wanted to write a novel, a series, or a short story****, about my campaigns. I guess it's not impeding my ability to have fun stories emerge in gameplay.

See why I like the "Lazy GMing" moniker and proudly display it on The Big Purple?

So, in short: we couldn't get adventures when I was learning to GM. Hence, we learned to make our own early. It's still largely expected the GM would be running their own campaign, too - I think I've seen less than half a dozen people asking about which adventure to run next.

Actually, the last one said "now that we finished (a customised Keep of the Borderlands, I think), I've got time to cook my own campaign. But just in case I'm not ready, what would you recommend me to run in the meantime?"

The answer was "X isn't all that bad until you settle on something more long-term". Long-term games are definitely expected to be "GM-prepared". Again, it depends on the group - but that's an almost unquestioned consensus on the Bulgarian RPG forums. Yes, it's not in any way unique about me and my groups.

NOTES:

*I've tried GMing some modules for the regulars, just to see how it works. They effortlessly broke the railroad/plot-based one - I just rolled with it, but it means I could only use the opening scene. Next time I tried it, they almost effortlessly ended the events-based one prematurely, without really trying. Keep in mind, their actions were entirely logical, or I wouldn't have rolled with it - I actually wanted to run a module. Just to see what it's like, if you can imagine what it is to have run games for around a decade without ever using anyone else's adventure.

Still, the only one that worked has been a mission-and-events based one adventure from the FWTD, and that was as a part of a larger game where most PCs didn't even know about said "mission".

I'm now wondering what they would make of a site-based adventure. I suspect they would make of it...fun. Last time I showed them some OSR material detailing a whole city, the comment was "Did you say OSR or OCD? Seems like OCD to me to detail all of these NPCs in advance" (and she's studying for a psychologist, so it was doubly more funny. Of course, it was obvious she didn't mean it).

BTW, that's not in any way unique for the Bulgarian GMs, especially those of the "first and second generation" like me. Most of us simply had to make do without anyone's help and without additional published materials... often for purely financial reasons**. So we've had to gravitate towards GMing styles that only use setting info and what the player's backstories contain. I remember a thread from a Bulgarian RPG forum - the biggest one - where one of the "more fortunate" GMs (meaning one who had the means to acquire adventures and was used to running them) posting a poll. "Do you prefer site-based or events-based adventures?"

The answer was a pretty overwhelming "Fuck that, character-based for me!"

Keep in mind, I'm not complaining! Just explaining why I have almost no use for something most GMs in the USA and UK use widely. Personally, I find my GMing style only got better by the lack of pre-packaged materials. Because it's always custom-tailored for the campaign, and according to my players, this shows. And I'm now in the habit of not using adventures.

Consider this: first-and-second wave GMs in Bulgaria have been running games since about 2000-2001. That's nothing compared to some people on RPG.net, but the fact is... it's enough to learn a certain style of GMing, or more than one in my case (I've fluctuated a lot). Since we've never had to use adventures, and most of us couldn't even if they wanted, until recently, it means we've already learned some styles of GMing where the adventure is simply something that doesn't exist.

And we're the ones teaching the new GMs. So, unless they're self-taught (since today, they could possibly afford an adventure AND a rulebook), they would be running it like us.

Funny enough, when Vincent Baker, the author of Eberron, came to Bulgaria (he wrote about it in the Escapist), he had met some of those guys that had the money/connections to get adventures back then. They're also a much less of a DIY crowd, as their whining about lacking polyhedron dice*** showed.

**In Bulgaria, most of those the first-and-second wave of GMs had started GMing at the end of the 90ies or the beginning of the 2000s. An adventure from Amazon could easily reach 50% of a monthly wage for what people in the beginning of the 2000s were making, or - hold to something - more than a montly salary in some years of the 90ies. Well, I wasn't playing in most of the 90ies, but you get the idea.

A new adventure every month? As you can imagine, that wasn't possible for most of us, period. So, we litterally couldn't afford having adventures.

***Several other groups just emulated the spread of probabilities in polyhedron dice with d6. And I mean with equal probability for every number.

For example, a d12 isn't rolled by just rolling a 2d6. It's rolled with two clearly distinctive d6, one of which is to be the "number" die, and the other, the "heads or tails" die, because it's acting as a d2. You use distinctive dice (my favourites being a black and a read one) in order to be able to to throw them together, but to read them separately. All the methods of emulation were based around it.

So, take the number the "nimber" die is showing. Heads, leave it as is. Tails, add 6 to it. You've got a d12 now! (Alternative method: multiply the number on the "number die" by 2. Head, leave it as is, tails, subtract 1. That was actually what I was using, since multiplication is as fast as addition to most of us). And you can do the math, if you don't believe me - it's got exactly a 1 in 12 odds to roll any particular number!

Admittedly, rolling a d100 was more complicated, and usually required rolling 2d10 in order, not together. But it worked, too.

The only reason we even bothered to get polyhedron dice were the dicepool systems. Some got them for WoD, I personally wanted to play TRoS, and others wanted to play Exalted. I already had got a standard set of 7 dice just for the d100 rolls, which I needed for d100 systems.

****Curiously, all of them cited different things they had liked - but then, these were different campaigns.

One of them thought it's been an epic story (it was a mythological steampunk with strong ecological elements).

Another wanted to make a short story from another campaign, because they thought it "feels like life and not fiction". Yeah, that's exactly what I was going for, indeed.

Yet another felt another campaign has been like soap opera...except with sex and violence.

In all 3 cases, that was the feeling I have been going for. I'm proud with all 3 offers (as you can tell). Sure, I'll believe any of them might carry through with it when I see the first draft. But the offers sure were nice!

Honor+Intrigue: Good news, a final and maybe a new beginning

Our GM (the one we're trying to teach running games) informed me that she wants to cut short the H+I campaign. Obviously, she got a lot into V:tM and wants to run a high-powered campaign.

Now, I think that V:tM+high-powered is a bad idea. But it’s not set for a day my schedule allows me to play, so my opinion is moot. And that’s the good part!

I mean, remember that the point of this campaign was to get her confident enough to run a game?

Yeah, seems like we managed that, if she wants to run something...

So, mission accomplished: we've got another GM that's ready and willing to run games.

Now I just have to talk to the other players and we’ll decide whether someone else should take over the Refereeing part, or whether we should wrap the campaign. But that's the easy part.

Of course, unless we decide to continue it, the H+I updates would stop coming. That means I've got more time to work on my FWTD posts, though!

This actually reminds me, I've still got to finish describing last week's game.

Once again, with feeling: Low power level isn’t disempowering!!!

It was recently pointed out to me that many if not most of my games are gritty, relatively low-powered. That much is true.

However, I was also reminded that many players equate “low power level” with “loss of player agency”. All I can say* is that it’s patently untrue for my games.

Sure, you can’t play a superhero in my games. They don’t exist in the setting, period. Find another GM if you want that – I find them boring, and only use superhero games after reskinning them for other genres. Most GMs I know take the same approach, but if I come across someone who wants to run that, I’m going to give them your contacts.

However, that doesn’t mean the PCs aren’t important enough, can’t make a difference, and so on. Far from it, they can do that. It’s just that their influence is going to be on a more local** scale, up to a nation-state or international organization. Of course, if they manipulate their local scale smartly and get to the upper end of it, they can influence the whole world. (What else are Company rules for?) But, as they say, this would need player skill as well.

And no, they couldn’t do that by kicking the ass of all the world’s armies. A SWAT team or a single detachment is more than likely to be the end of them if they get into a conflict where a SWAT team is called.

However, I don’t see that as a bug. It’s actually a feature. Violence can’t solve long-term problems, but it excels at solving short-term ones (like surviving an assault – although you could conceivably play a whole campaign without getting in such a situation, if your PC has good avoidance and de-escalation skills). And I DON’T WANT violence to be even a possible answer to all problems. So, if you want a large group of people to listen to you, make them listen. Yeah, it’s that simple. It’s just that intimidation ain’t going to work.

Which brings us to social skills. They work on a lengthier scale, but are better at solving non-immediate problems. Anybody surprised? Again, feature and not bug. You might get a hefty bonus if you’re a war hero, but it’s a circumstancial one.

And last but not least, mental skills are needed for the lengthiest individual projects (finding a cure for a sickness, inventing a new machine that helps subsistence farmers, or inventing a new science – cue Sir Burton). They’re also needed, along with social skills, for the lengthier mass projects that could lead to improving the life of people (like reforming a country’s bureaucracy).

In short, you need different skills. If you insist on playing the brick, you’re not going to be much use for situations where bricks aren’t useful. If you insist on playing the face with no combat skill, don’t get into fights, but re-read the “6 ways to stop a fight” advice from Unknown Armies.

And, most importantly… the opposition doesn’t get super-powers either! Unless it’s a “deal with superior forces” situation. But from what I’ve heard, even some superheroes get to confront those. If that turns out to be the case… think outside the box, is all I can say!

*Of course that’s not all I can say! Sometimes, I wonder why this notion even exists. My conclusion, and talking with people who have been playing for far longer than me, is that this perception is due at least in part to the “killer DMs”, some of which kept the party at a low level. They also explained this with realism. “Realism my ass”, as many real life people could tell them – if they were looking for examples and not excuses, that is.

Granted, I’ve been called “killer GM” because I warn players that everybody can die, and PCs don’t get plot armour. That’s an accusation that amuses me, however, so I don’t plan on answering it. Yet.

**As someone who has a degree in International relations and holds a MD in International security, I can also attest that most gamers don’t really know what they need to change on a world scale to get the desired effect. So even global-level power would still be wasted, or worse, might easily lead to the opposite results of what they want to achieve. However, I’m not going to comment on that part, because I hate, Hate, HATE, HATE political arguments over Internet – especially with non-specialists. So, no, you’re not going to stop world hunger, unless you get most countries to follow you. But your PCs can do that. It’s just going to be the result of a whole campaign.

And if you think that's disempowering, you've never had another Exalt trample the nation you've been striving to build, out of boredom.


Many thanks to Benjamin Grant, author of Dream Factory, for reminding me of this topic!

After the one-shots of the decades: Old-school or New School?

The new guy in the group is going to run a game today. It's the homebrew setting of one of his classmates (she's written a novel with a wizarding school). The game will be run via FU the RPG.
So, we're just taking a system that's light enough, beating it into shape to fit the setting, and using the setting that has inspired the GM. Which leaves me wondering: Is that the old-school or the new-school approach?
Yes, it doesn't matter, I'm just curious.


Oh, BTW, quick advice based on the events of the session:
If you're playing in a setting based on a book, before the events unfolded (it can apply to, say, Star Wars) - kill a main character as fast as you can. Fun is bound to follow!
When in a school for delinquent wizards, don't, and I repeat, DON'T play them against each other to make them feel jealous, unless you've checked their files FIRST. You could even get laid, but the risk someone might die as a result is unacceptable!

Are goodness and honour their own reward?

I just posted on the Big Purple, detailing how I see my honourable PCs. Because some people seem to think that being good should be just as optimal a choice. Obviously, the GM is looking to make a narrative point otherwise...
(For those that don't know me, I seldom if ever am trying to make a narrative point. Following the events as they develop is good enough in my book).
So, here goes the post.
"KK, this is possibly the greatest mismatch between our gaming styles, though far from the only one!
It seems you're expecting good choices to be an equally useful option, including tactically.
I'm wondering, if we assume this to be true, why all those people would say that the path to evil is easy, while the path to goodness is hard?

Hence, I'm expecting that the universe is being as uncaring as it actually is (as an aside, any GM I'd call "good" provides an uncaring universe, barring some narrative games that request otherwise). In this case, being good and/or honourable means taking the suboptimal option!
(I'm going to mostly use combat examples, because immediate consequences for failing to win are obvious).
What does being good and honourable entail?
It means you don't poison the wells of your enemies with slow poison, so they only find out after everybody has had some water. Although that would be solving the issue with an invasion with minimum expenditure of resources.
It means you don't just wait for your enemy to fall sick and then shoot him in his bed, because you're better than killing the defenceless. Although that means risking that the next fight might not go your way.
It means you don't hire thugs to break the hands of a good shooter that you need to duel the next morning. Neither do you run, for it is beneath you! Although this might mean him shooting you, you stand there, and try to aim faster and better than him. Or, if you're taking turns, when he shoots wide of you, you don't return the favour by shooting him in the heart. Because it would remove a political rival, but it would mean shooting a defenceless man who just spared your life.

But the more convenient option, in all of these cases, is to poison the wells, to kill him in his bed, to hire the thugs, and to use the fact that he didn't shoot at you to kill him.
So, yes, good isn't optimal. It's wasting resources, skipping opportunities, and taking the hard path to victory generally.

Why bother? Because you don't want to stoop to the level of the guys you're fighting. But you also know well that honour is something you do for yourself, not for others. So you put yourself at disadvantage, and fucking well hope the opponent would actually use it!
Because it means the opponent is beneath you, and if you win, the better man won. If he also doesn't, whoever wins, two honourable men had to fight and one of them died because of their differences - but nobody could claim being more honourable than the other. So, despite winning, you'd know you have killed another honourable man.
If he takes the unfair advantage you gave him, it would be so much easier being in peace with yourself afterwards!
That is, if you win. Because honour is something you do for yourself, you also don't expect it to grant an advantage - except with other honourable persons, and only a social one. But because honour and goodness are also the harder path to take, you know you stand a sizeable chance of dying for your ideals, in that very instant!
And you take that risk, or you don't and play as dirty as the next guy. That says nothing in particular about you.
Until you face someone that never tried cheating, even after you did. Then, after you defeat him, you might want to consider whether the better man won this time.
It would have been so easy if you haven't used your tricks, long ago.

But that's my point. Being good and honourable often puts you at tactical disadvantage while giving you a psychological bonus after the fight (to the Self roll, if you were using Unknown Armies... and if not, you should import the stress meters anyway). OTOH, being the meanest bastard out there means you've got better chances to win.
Pick one, and stick to it, because you aren't getting both. Doesn't work like that, neither in life, nor in my games.
And if you want to call that "my narrative choice", then I can only shrug. I've got enough reasons to believe that it's how things work in reality (and yes, that's not a concern for some players - more ou, either). But even if it was a narrative choice, it's still one I like. And I don't see it as an inferior one. In fact, I prefer it, because I see it as being by far a superior choice narratively as well - but that superiority is probably just my bias speaking. So I'm willing to settle for them being equal, but different options."

Yeah, I know this is just something I posted on RPG.net. But I put some energy and emotion in it, unlike most of my posts, and it would help explain my approach to many games (that is, to all games, unless the ones that I have to play/run differently).
Besides, it might be a good starting point for a discussion.

Organisations are people, too!

I found out that I agree very much with Mike Talsorian's take on organisations. (Or he agrees with me, but him being the more famous guy, I guess I'm the one agreeing with his views. Whatever, that's besides the point).
So, I think more Referee/GMs/Wulin Sages/MCs/Whatever, should use organisations. I also happen to think that they could be used better than for nameless, faceless opposition. It's just that the name of the opposition in a cyberpunk world might be the same as the brand of the clothes you're wearing.

For clarity, read the current Mike Talsorian's rant.
http://www.talsorian.com/mikerant.shtml

"MetaCharacters: The Referee as a Player

One of the things that bugs me about being a referee is that I'm often a babysitter, not a player. As Referee, my NPCs should be my main method of expression-the characters I play in the game, but since they are cast in opposition to the players, they become faceless threats (like level bosses in a video game), rather than interesting characters to play.

Let's take a corporation, for example. As a Referee, your typical corporation is an amorphous mйlange of bad guys, stuff, offices and plans. But there's no sense of the corporation as an ENTITY. It has no personal goals-no real direction. Which makes it a really boring villain. An exciting villain has goals. He has weaknesses. He has master plans. He knows when he's been hurt and exacts revenge. In short, a good villain. But Corporations in the Cyberpunk world are rarely, if ever, more than one dimensional.

But it's not really true. Four and a half years working at Microsoft has taught me one lesson I never knew-Corporations ARE entities. Microsoft has a body-that's all of us 'softies working in the trenches. It has hands; the various VP's running the divisions. It has a brain-two in fact--Bill G. and his right hand man Steve "I wonder if he's gonna keel over at the company meeting this year" Ballmer . And it has weapons, armor and tools-its hardware, software products, lawyers. Heck, Microsoft even has its own language, which took me most of a year to learn, even "drinking from the firehose" as I had to.

So what if WE treated the corporations of Cyberpunk not as faceless enemies, but as real live NPC's? What if we gave them a brain, hands, parts of the body, weapons and defenses-just like an integrated "real person?" What if it had a Lifepath-a character sheet even? I call this the Meta Character. The meta-character represents a character built out of an entire section of the world. A meta-character is no longer just a faceless amalgamation of bits, but a living organism that protects itself while moving towards distinct goals. It thinks smart, acts smart, because if it doesn't, it loses "body parts" and "dies."

MetaCharacters have a:
- Brain: This is the main controller of the MetaCharacter. The brain directs the goals for the MC, based on his or her own personal goals. The Lifepath of the Brain can integrate into the Lifepath of the MetaCharacter, but the MetaCharacter goes on even if the Brain changes. However, since taking out the Brain will seriously cripple the MetaCharacter, there will be more of a reason to defend the Brain and make it hard to get to-no more player characters tackling Saburo Arasaka one on one, anymore than you're going to face down Steve Ballmer over a bug in your copy of Word.
- Hands: These are agents of the MetaCharacter. They direct and control it's weapons and defenses. They may have their own agendas, but these are always sublimated to the goals of the Brain. Hands have their own styles; ways of doing things. One hand is usually more dominant than the other, just like people are "handed."
- Body: These are the assets of the MetaCharacter. In a corporation, this could be buildings or facilities. The body could also encompass special types of projects or vehicles.
- Weapons and Defenses: These are the ways the MetaCharacter can defend itself or attack new opposition. For example, having a personal army is a good way to defend your corporation. All those Arasaka guards? They're all Defenses. Militech's tanks? Weapons. Since the MetaCharacter has an actual list of Defenses and Weapons, it's less likely that it will spend them in a random, unplanned way, because, like a real character, the resource are limited.

Let's try this on the obvious level-our aforementioned Corporation. Let's call it Megatechnix. It's brain is going to be it's founder, Dr. Roberto Lanzing. As Brain, his goals are to dominate the world's market for consumer electronics and to make enough money to forget his upbringing as the son of a once high level Corp thrown out onto the Street in a layoff (the Lifepath)

Its hands are it's two Vice Presidents; Ms. Jax Staley, the sociopathic Operations VP who controls Megatechnix's Marketing division, and Dr. Klaus Hammersmith, who runs the R&D Group. Jax's goal is to supplant Dr.Lanzing and move Megatechnix into military hardware; however, they share the goal of dominating consumer electronics first. Hammersmith's agenda is to combine all the functions of cellphones, digital media and wireless into a single handheld device. He doesn't care about personal power, but he will support Lanzing's goals becaue this will get his dreamed of device built. The body of Megatechnix is incorporated in its Corporate Headquarters in the SanDiego Zone of New Night City; the body includes three main Projects controlled by the Brain and its two Hands, 100 million dollars in capital, and a secret research lab in the Nevada Wasteland. If these are destroyed, Megatechnix will also "die." To defend the "body", Megatechnix's Defenses are a horde of robotic soldiers and factory workers controlled by Dr. Hammersmith's advanced telemetry programs, plus ten super powerful ninjas who carry out Jax's black operations against the Corp's enemies.

Now Megatechnix is more than a faceless enemy, It has several goals, several weak spots that it will defend rabidly, and a specific way of defending itself. This will drive much of it's actions against players-if the 100 million in capitol is threatened, odds are Dr.Lansing will act first, because money is key to his well being. But if the labs are threatened, Hammersmith may drive the reactions, protecting them, with the robot workers. Thwart Jax in her quest to get military contracts and he's more likely to send her ninja after you. In each case, the Referee plays the corporation as a character, not just a target. He gets to really invest Megatechnix with personality, reactions and ambitions. And if he sees Megatechnix's starting to lose "body" points on the character sheet, he may elect to strike back, find a way to heal back by curtailing operations, or even enlist other "friends" to help in an operation.

Now let's go a bit further down the scale. The MetaCharacter this time is the Totentanz, a bar in the lower levels of New Night City. Its brain is One Scar Max, a shadowy broker of information. Its Lifepath shows that it was inherited from an old war buddy of One Scar who died in a turf dispute with a rival owner. Its hands are Rafela Chance, the bartender, and Silent Bill, a gambler who watches the bar when Max is out. Its weapons are an integrated laser system with four remote lasers that can attack one corner of the bar. Its other weapon is an AV4 delivery van with a chin mounted machinegun.

The Totentanz has far fewer "body points" than Megatechnix. So you can expect that the AV4 will NOT be showing up all the time, and neither will One Scar. Threats will be dealt with in the bar, but anything that threatens the bar itself will be dealt with using maximum force. Already, you can probably see that you're going to need some motivations for this MetaCharacter-what are One Scar's goals for the Totentanz and how do Rafela and Silent Bill support them? What are their goals? Since Totentanz hasn't got much in the body and weapons area, you can already surmise that One Scar's going to be trying really hard to increase these areas-maybe by recruiting some regulars to help defend the place, or by adding a few new side businesses (maybe a takeout service or a gambling op in the back room) to generate more "body." In short order, the Totentanz will evolve from being a place you layer storylines onto, into a character which generates its own storylines from its needs and fears. And that make it fun for the Referee to play.

Looking at a group of NPCs as MetaCharacters can change how you relate to your Cyberpunk gaming, by giving those characters some solid motivations and adding a real "global" threat to how the MetaCharacter deals with the world. They have things that really scare them-stuff that motivates them despite the actions of the players. It's an interesting way to look at the art of being a Referee, and a great way to get back the excitement of playing a character in your game, rather than providing cannon fodder for your players.

maxmike says check it out sometime."

Amusingly, I found that I've agreed with it years ago. Well, actually, I wrote about it in an RPG.net column, although that was just a few months ago.
http://www.rpg.net/columns/tricksforgms/tricksforgms3.phtml
So, yes. Organisations can be the BBEG that you face down in the end.
It also means that an organisation can be cut down by the players. Many Referees forget that, and they really shouldn't!
Granted, just like taking down the BBEG, nobody's saying that taking them down should be easy. Just that it could happen. Or at least the ability of a corporation or other organisation to operate in a given field or region can become subject to penalties.
Then you have the organisation in a death spiral. Just like what you do to a BBEG, hopefully!

Are some preferences incompatible?

There was this debate on G+, where Elliot Willen mentioned that some people don't like that according to some theories, some preferences are always going to clash.
However, this is a fact of life. If I only eat meat-based meals, and you're a vegan... we're not going to share many meals from the same bowl. Sure, I can eat a vegan meal once in a while, but that would be a once-in-a-blue-moon event.

Back to RPGs, yes, some motives for playing always clash. Simple example, imagine someone who wants to create a setting along with everybody else, trying to play a game where the GM believes setting-building is his or her task and only the GM's task.
Conversely, imagine a GM that believes players should add stuff to the setting. And now imagine a player that wants to only explore and change the setting from the PC's perspective! Is the GM likely to think the player is "leaving the whole work to him/her"? I'd say it's likely.

Now, can these people achieve a compromise? Sure. Well, maybe. But the point is, it would be a compromise. No game I know that allows for collaborative setting-building allows only the GM and some of the players to add to the setting. It's either all players, or none of them.

And I see virtually no chance at compromise if the parties can't articulate their respective desires... that, or they should have someone else identifying them for them.

So yes, some preferences always clash. If you play to make Monthy Python jokes, and someone else plays to "visit another place"? I don't see how you could even achieve a compromise. Maybe it's just me, though.

GM Preparation: Canned or Home-made?

I just read this post on Zak S' blog (which is very much NSFW, even if only for the name).
Edit: As I understood it, he's challenging people to compare which one is cheaper and more satisfying to the group-preparing to run a module, or preparing the session by themselves. Then he invites them to post the results.
Now, Zak called me after this post was published, and explained he meant nothing of the sort. He merely invites people to do both and compare the experiences, not to look for the "superior way"! Therefore, it was my misunderstanding that sparked the following post.

Even so - I still think it's worth trying both. Especially if you're using modules, I invite you to participate in said experiment.
(Personally, I'm sorry, but I simply can't join. I need more time to prepare a game from a module! Yes, tried that long ago, the difference is about 300% more time when using a module. Therefore, I couldn't compare the two, as one would be in unequal position. If I was to use the same time I use weekly in order to preparing for running a session from a module, I wouldn't get to run the module for about 4 weeks!)

Really, guys (and gals, and whatever other word you might like being called) - screw modules!
No, wait, that's a fate too good for them. Rather, forget modules!
You can do better by yourself. You really can. And it's going to feel a lot more entertaining, because it would be tailored to your specific group.

Does it mean I see no value whatsoever in modules? That would be wrong.
Modules can be used as a short-hand way to showcase a setting. You can use them to show typical NPCs, typical conflicts and themes in a setting. So, I like having one, max 2 modules, as addition to the setting's book (provided they aren't some railroad schemes - I learn nothing out of those).
And of course, I don't mind them provided they aren't taking too much space. In Fates Worse Than Death, the book itself has 2 modules, and I don't mind. But the book itself has a great setting, and it's 485 pages setting+system combined!  If the book had less than 200 pages? I would have minded even 1 module.
In short, there are some uses for a module. But making running your games dependent on having/purchasing a module? Come on, people, you can do better than that!

Robin Laws and player typology

Recently read Black Vulmea's post on his blog about Robin Laws. And since I've read the same sentiment expressed in different places, I kinda decided to post my comments.

When reading Laws' typology, it''s important to remember that parts of your "main trait"'s description aren't going to apply to you.
That's normal. The description of Tactician in Robin Laws' book is like the description of Tactician, if somehow you got a Tactician 100%, (Method Actor+Butt-Kicker+Storyteller+Power Gamer+Specialist+Casual Gamer)=0% player.
Tactician is more about approaching any situation as a problem to be solved using the principles of tactics - resource management, looking for weak spots to maximise your efforts, creating temporary advantages, and so on, and so forth. These all apply to relationships as well as dice games as well as battles, as you probably noticed. Yes, many Tacticians would prefer battlefield problems, but they might apply the same skills to emotional manipulation, or to constructing a narrative.

The same applies to the other archetypes.
Let me give you an example: It says I'm a Tactician, too. It's true. I also think battlefield solutions are best left for last resort (unless I'm playing someone who just likes fighting and wars).
It also says I'm a Method actor, which is my second highest, and therefore don't care whether the system supports me. That's... flat-out wrong as anyone knowing me can attest. But that's because I'm not just a Method actor.
So, all of the "archetypes" in Laws' book have characteristics, but they only apply in as much as they don't clash with another one. Otherwise, it would be impossible to combine them, as they're often in direct opposition.
How do you determine which one would apply? Well, look at the whole range. Than make an educated guess. If you doubt about something, ask the person whose reaction you're trying to guess. And if you're sure about your guesses, ask for confirmation.
In my experience, some time thinking how a given person's trait pay off well when you're starting a game. Or they might be totally useless. But something that works more often than not is still better IME than having something that only works some of the time. And for me, Robin Laws' book works more often than not.

Enough rambling for a first post.