Interdimensional Bureau of Standards and Statistics

"Then one day they were there, occupying a tower at that nexus between realities, coming and going as if they had always been. Hats, notebooks, briefcases, odd note-taking and measurement devices. One would open a window to some far-off place, shake his head, and pluck a cyberblaster from the grip of an ape-man, replacing it with a tree branch. Mostly, they catch these things as adventurers travel between worlds. Adventurers being the types they are, they usually look down at the changed items and shrug, ready for whatever comes next."

"It is said they have no emotions, no true existence, only their effect. To keep up appearances. To maintain balance. To shore up boundaries. If all realities were allowed to bleed into each other without someone maintaining the borders, the whole thing would become unmanageable. Realities would collapse.
My companions lie bleeding as I hide behind this crevasse, the last standing, waiting for a shot at the dragonne's weak spot with this crossbow. Yes, I miss my blaster, my laser-sword, but I would miss existence more. Besides, this was the whole point - I left home to find a challenge."

This is mainly in support of Zzarchov's blog post, and other various discussions on G+ lately about powerful things from some ConstantCon/Flailsnails games coming into other games where they don't really fit. It's vital to keep the games fun to run for the DMs, and if things get too crazy with genre or power level, some might get sick of it. Go to Zzarchov's blog and suggest your own Flailsnails import restrictions. EDIT: SCRAP has some good ones.

It's no skin off my back if anyone changes or doesn't allow items from my games in theirs. Physics, and meta-physics, probably just works a little different in your world.

I actually feel a lot of historical precedent for this, as the (older) gaming community I was in at a young age ran a lot of one-shots or mini-campaigns by different DMs and was kinda like an in-person, ad-hoc FlailSnails/ConstantCon. Some DMs let you bring in whatever, some were fairly ruthless with magic items and abilities from other games, and we rolled with whatever, 'cause we were there to play.

I do think there is something to be said here about players having a responsibility to keep their character sheet items organized and in one spot on the character sheet if they are going to hop between games a lot. If weird items and abilities were in a separate, easily-browsable list from the rest of the character's stuff, it would be less of a time-suck for a DM to look things over and say "yes" or "no". The DM has enough to worry about, so I do feel players should be doing at least 75% of the work here.

...I also think having agents of the I.B.O.S.S. just in the background, or showing up to take some measurements in the middle of a dungeon, has some milage for creating a nice atmosphere of mystery, conspiracy, or humor if handled right. I imagine them like the Observers from Fringe (I only know the first few seasons), but they could look like anything - a floating, ethereal fat man, a bubble of glowing energy, whatever.

JOESKY TAX: WHAT IS THE I.B.O.S.S. AGENT HERE TO DO? A 1d10 TABLE:
1. It gives the PCs a really vague prophecy that it feels is really important. (The Vornheim Fortunes table works well here.) It will not explain further, and leaves.

2. Will follow the party silently, smiling if acknowledged, but doing nothing more than nodding and taking notes. Will disappear after the next fight or if attacked.

3. Wants to measure the Fighter's sword swing, will talk up his/her potential, then tut-tut and speak of how poorly s/he measures up to the last subject before disappearing.

4. Would like to observe the Thief hiding from everyone, bring a lot of attention to the Thief then wants him/her to hide, doesn't understand how awkward that is.

5. Asks the Magic-User to cast some spells while it takes notes.

6. Has brought along a very tough group of monsters from deeper in the dungeon, is all smiles and good intentions, "You seemed bored. I figured you'd enjoy helping me take some measurements!" Is no help in a fight, just takes notes.

7. Is talking to the big boss bad guy when the PCs enter, turns to them and disappears when they make their presence known, big boss bad guy is like, "Who? I wasn't talking to anyone."

8. Is pissed at the last dimension-hopping adventuring party for taking some treasure from here, returns 1d6x10 gold the current party were supposed to find. Will hide it or lock the chest where it's supposed to be right in front of them.

9. DIMENSION TAX! Asks PCs for 1d20+10 GP, or an item brought in from another game. Is VERY adamant and can do some creepy reality blurring magic stuff to try to scare them, but can't really hurt anyone.

10. Tells PCs where the next really interesting thing is, "You are meant to ________ it," but may not mention traps/monsters along the way before disappearing. Maybe he gives them a map.

Things I must remember about DMing the home game

I've been trying to figure out what feels wrong when I'm DMing the home game, and I've got 2 conclusions.

1. The degree to which I make things up on the fly makes me feel responsible for their outcome, and worry that they aren't fair. Thus, I fudge in the party's favor, which they usually pick up on. They have commented more than once that "If that's what happens, it happens," when a character's about to maybe die and I'm waffling about numbers or dice. THIS IS BAD.

2. While C&C is close enough to 3ed to be comfortable for the players to play, it is not a good fit for me as a DM. Too fiddly, too badly edited, and the math doesn't line up with my 2e and Mentzer background in a few important spots so I feel less confident about improvisation.

Here's what I need to do:

1. Prepare more in advance, but efficiently so that if they do something unexpected I have many scenarios ready. Figure out the minimal amount to prepare so that I am confident it is fair and don't appear to be making anything up on the fly, but can be totally impartial. I need to move away from such a narrative style or unwanted fan service and towards a Zak or Jeff model. It is not "the story of these characters" but "the game these players are playing and the story we are collaboratively telling."

2. Figure out the best system to switch to on my side of the DM screen. Have them keep C&C characters, or convert to hacked 3e. Work out more explicitly how ability checks and combat work so I'm not making it up new every time in the moment.

I am good at making shit up on the fly, but the degree to which I'm doing it is working against me. Everyone seems happy with the game and my DMing so far, but they don't exhibit a lot of tension.  I haven't been able to enjoy it as much as I should be. Time to fix that.

Blame the Elves.

(D&D thoughts about this Charlie Stross article I just read. You should go read it when you have time and your thinking cap/bottle of brain-helper. You probably don't need so much of those for this post, though.)

Three questions (ok 5 or 6), two notes:

1. Does the need for dungeons & treasure necessitate settings with a "mythology of a distant golden age in the past" a la pre-18th C Enlightenment? Is it 'cause D&D settings are mostly emulating pre-18th C times? What if there wasn't an ancient civilization with their buried shit everywhere?

2. Are PCs "actually discovering how the [campaign's] universe works, and improving [their] lives" as functionally post-Enlightenment agents in a pre-enlightenment campaign world? 

Do the answers to those questions trend differently in old school D&D play vs new school?

This question may be wanky overacademic bullshit, I haven't decided.

3. Do we blame the Elves? In a lot of settings (based on a lot of mythology) they have an old, decayed kingdom that humans/etc built on top of. Dwarves may be implicit here too. Also, for some of you G+ perverts*, aliens and reptile men. 

The above questions are related to concepts in paragraph 1. They have probably already been asked. Feel free to school me.

Note 1: This sentence from paragraph 5 states this idea the most clearly that I've read: "What we call "hard SF" today mostly isn't hard, and isn't SF: it's fantasy with nanotech replicators instead of pixie dust and spaceships instead of dragons."

(one reason why they have such a big audience crossover?)

Note 2: A big reason (for me) that Zak S**'s drawings and such are awesome are that a lot of them give me the "Sense of Wonder" or "eyeball kick" as mentioned in paragraph 8ish.

Recent examples.

*I love perverts.

**for some reason I called him Zak S, which is how I see him mentioned on other gaming blogs.

The Story/Game Sweet Spot

I started my first ongoing campaign in something like 10 years a week and a half ago, and we're meeting again tomorrow. After lurking on G+ and OSR blogs, I was kinda ready for charge-in-and-get-ourselves-killed gaming - that's what I've mostly experienced before. I haven't gamed with these players before, though, and most of them haven't gamed for years. Of course, they surprised me completely.

It became clear during our first session that this group plays their characters as if life is precious. They are careful, and none of them are fighter types (A C&C Thief who is more of a spy, a C&C 0-level magic user, and a 0-level Mountebank jacked from the writeup here initially but will be cut to fit), and all are interested in a level of roleplaying I haven't gotten the chance to do in awhile.  It's going to be an investigator/spy/discover the big conspiracy type of game, but a kill-stuff-and-take-it's-stuff type game.

I couldn't be more pleased! However, I realize that I haven't played in a game like this in awhile that I felt came off successfully. When you take frequent combat off the table, you take out what constitutes the 'game' portion for a lot of people. My concern becomes: how to hit the right combination of 'game' and story.

What I mean is, I and my players prefer to play out things like skill use (there aren't really skills per se as it's Castles and Crusades, but I'm talking about situations that would be skill checks in 3.x and 4.x D&D). I like there to be some mathematical randomness of outcome, and don't want my judgement to be the sole arbiter of success or failure. What, then, are some good strategies for incorporating the more 'game' elements, so it doesn't become amateur theater hour?

What are some good situations that can hit that mix of dice and roleplaying that aren't combats? What are the best ways to balance those?

I have some ideas, of course, and am looking at the story-games forums and various DMGs, but I thought I'd throw it out to see what advice people have.

Which games fit these SF movies?

I'm trying to figure out where to focus my SF game research, as I played mostly fantasy games growing up - but watched and read mostly sf & horror movies and books. I'm probably picking up Thousand Suns next paycheck, but I know there's a vast array of SF games out there.
What games would the following movies most easily fit into? (This is less "would the movie fit into the default setting" and more "what game's mechanics do the actions of the characters / logic of the narrative / feeling of the movie's world fit most elegantly into.") Answering even one of these is helpful, so thanks!

-Blade Runner
-Total Recall (1990)
-Alien
-Alien 3
-Star Wars
-Fifth Element
-District 9

and which best fit the following TV shows:

-Cowboy Bebop
-Lain (anime)
-Ghost in the Shell
-Red Dwarf
-Battlestar Galactica (2000s)
-Falling Skies

And lastly, what game would the comic Battle Angel Alita fit into best?

What's your relationship to the battlemat & minis?

In a few mere hours, I begin DMing my first homebrewed campaign in many years. It's got me re-evaluating some of my basic assumptions about how to run and play, and I'm curious what other people think. At the moment, I'm wondering about the battlemat and minis.

Playing 2E in the Dallas area in the 90s, I played with a large community that used the battlemat in a specific way. Pickup games (at cons etc) used it the same way, if I recall correctly. From what I've read on some OSR blogs, groups in other areas didn't use battlemats or minis at all until 3.0.

When first sitting down to play, the battlemat would usually already be down, totally blank. Players tended to put their minis in front of them at the table. Everyone usually had a painstakingly painted mini. During setup and initial RPing, the DM might draw something out to help players visualize it occasionally, usually not to scale. The mat would be largely blank and minis unused until things turned hostile. All parts of the game before the first fight did not use minis at all unless a fight was likely.

When we had got to the first fight, or an RPing situation turned hostile, the DM would draw the area out on the mat and would dictate or negotiate where each character's mini was at the start of the conflict. Then movement, weapon/spell range, etc would come into play, and the mat/minis would be used. After the last creature was defeated, trap disarmed, or chest searched, the mat and minis would be largely ignored until the next conflict. 

So, even trap disarming or searching weren't mapped unless related to a fight. Occasionally, it would be used in a situation that was only likely to cause a fight - sneaking past the Orc camp, for instance. Once in a while it would be used for long wilderness travel, to show the players the general area and track progress between random encounters. Of course, there were exceptions for situations where position was vital, but they were rare.

This method caused some interesting metagame tension. If the map came out, or if the DM drew an area to scale and had players place minis, you knew a situation was likely to turn hostile or a monster was around the corner. Players tried not to overtly let this metagame knowledge affect their character, but some would suddenly be more cautious or ask, "Do we hear anything?" 

A clever DM would use it to their advantage - even if no fight was planned. If the players or characters were getting unfocused, bored, fighting with each other, or feeling directionless, it was a tool to bring focus back to the game. It said, this next part is important. This only worked if the majority of times there actually was a fight coming (or narrowly avoided), but when used judiciously, the players never knew. A DM could use it to create tension, and players would feel impossibly clever for having avoided a fight/explosion. (...or players spoiling for a fight would rush back in, banging pots together to attract the fight you thought you had avoided!)

In the 4E games I played after coming back into the hobby (and before discovering the OSR), the mat was used for everything. If something happened in-game at all, the battlemat was used. Peaceful interactions? On the mat. character intros? On the mat. I know this is likely unique to the groups I played with, as is the method above, but I found it very video-gamey - the mat was the virtual world, and everything happening to one's "avatar" had to happen on it, not in your imagination. (not edition warring here, relating my subjective unique butterfly feelings about a specific group. I know 4e can be used differently, and with the method above.)

So how did/do you use the minis, and battlemat?