Mining: The Exorcist (FOX tv series)

It's October, that magical time of year when everything comes up horror.  Rather than digging around, trying to find scraps of horror in movies and television, we get a banquet of content.  Books, comics, even music all turn a darker shade of crimson as the leaves turn and the pumpkins dominate the entrances to stores and homes all over.  On this table of bounty, I have been enjoying a number of horror offerings.  One of which is the new Fox series The Exorcist (I know, it will probably be cancelled after its first season, but I can't help myself).  I went in extremely cautious, and after 3 episodes I can say without reservation that I have moved to cautiously optomistic.  

A quick review before I do a quick mining session.  The first episode sets the stage and as such, moves fairly slowly until the very end.  We are introduced to the young priest, the old priest, the victim's family, and the victim herself. This is not a rehash of the movie, though, and the show makes sure we know this.  It also ties to the movie very briefly with an article in an old paper mentioning the tragedy at the end of the first movie. But this show is definitely a new entry in the world of the Exorcist, despite the initial similarities. There are some segments that give you hope that we will have a true horror series and not just a family drama, but it is really the last 10 minutes or so that fills you with hope for what the series will become.  I am excited to see where they go with this show, and if the horror elements of the episodes so far are an indication, it should be a fun ride.  As long as Fox execs don't screw it up...

So what can we mine from this that we can't get from any other possession story?  The one nugget in the three episodes so far that could be used for gaming purposes is the way the possession occurs.  Most posession stories show the posession from the witnesses and not from the victim.  In this show, we see the descent from the victim's perspective.  The demon is given a face, it interacts with the victim, and most of all, we see that the possession is not entirely unwilling.  We see a broken girl with issues that give the demon a way to work its way into her willingly.  It is not a hostile takeover.  It is a seduction.  What we see is a girl, hungry for attention and tired of being second best in her family, despite her successes.  At first she resists, but the demon wears her down, acts as first friend, then loved one.  This is so far one of the strongest pieces of the show, and also the nugget of rpg usefulness that I am mining from the show.

So how do we use this seductive possession scenario in our games?  From an non-player character (NPC) perspective, they are not a victim.  The seduced NPC that the player character (PC)s are meant to save may actually resist their attempts to help.  They do not see the entity as an enemy, but a friend.  Perhaps the way to defeat the entity is not an epic boss fight or intricate ritual, but a social contest with the NPC victim themselves. They must convince the NPC that the entity is an enemy and that it is the NPC's fight to win and not the PC's.  Perhaps the "final fight" requires one or more PCs to continue to convince the NPC to fight while the rest of the party deals with manifestations caused by the entity to delay or eliminate the party.  In this, we have more than a two-dimensional possession scenario, and one that can create more depth for the story and for the NPC, as well as the entity itself.  The entity is not some boring bag of experience points, but something with motivations and character.  A three way social contest between PC, NPC, and entity would be a highly entertaining final battle.

The other way the seductive possession can be used is on an NPC.  Perhaps the entity comes from a particular item the PCs pick up.  Perhaps it latches onto a PC when they visited a particular area.  Or perhaps the game master (GM) sees a particular PC flaw on a sheet that would be a powerful invitation to an entity to start its seduction, something that happens completely unrelated to the current game story line.  During play, the GM could privately send messages to the PC, tempting them with help or with ideas that could get them out of sticky situations (at some sort of cost, of course).  These can be played as social contest requiring dice rolls, but it depending on the player, it could be pure choice.  Accepting the help gives the entity another tick in possession, however the GM decides to track this.  After a certain number of ticks, the PC begins manifestations, then potentially loses partial control of their character as the entity asserts itself.  This could even happen in the middle of an adventure, so suddenly the focus is on understanding what is happening to the PC and helping them.  This could even set up a choice for the party:  help their party member and fail the quest, or finish their job at the risk of the possessed PC sinking deeper into the entity's clutches.  

There are a number of ways to use the seductive possession in a game, both on PCs and NPCs alike.  It creates an interesting dynamic, an enemy that can't be chopped or shot, and one that is not a brute, but a cunning and manipulative entity that preys on the weaknesses of mind and spirit that exist in any individual.  It is a frightening concept, much more frightening than the faceless, angry spirit that most possession stories show.  It forces a confrontation of self and of flaws that we may not want to acknowledge.  That is a horror of a different sort...

Player fun versus character logic: A dilemma

 

A shorter post from me for today.  I have been mulling over a decision as as player for a while now, so I thought I would tell you the scenario and see what you think.  Maybe you have had a similar sort of question, or perhaps you can just tell me that I am thinking to hard about this.  Which may very well be the case. 

Next weekend I will be attending a weekend session for a very long-running post-apocalyptic roleplaying game (Aftermath!, for those interested in the game, though heavily modified because the rules as written are...mystifying) .  In this game, I have a player character (PC) that has survived many years of game play in a game where the life expectancy was a session or two at best, but somehow has been able to survive getting shot multiple times, getting blown up multiple times, giant rat attacks, winged apes, crazy survivors, terminator robots, and a host of other dangers that plague the everyday scavenger. Even gravity itself hates my character in the game, as is evidenced by the fact that I have fallen so many times in the game and survived that the game master actually created a new skill just for my character:  falling.

My character seems to be in a good place in terms of skills, equipment, etc.  He is a gunsmith and armor smith by trade and the party finally found a base with an awesome workshop that has almost everything he needs to ply that trade.  The base is in a community that would value his contributions.  As a character, I always had in mind he was a reluctant scavenger and survivor.  He would much rather pass his time tinkering in the shop and helping the community rather than crawling around the ruins of the city, looking for things to kill him or holes to stumble into.  Impossibly, he has found what may be as close to a happy place as he could hope to find in the miserable world in which he lives.

As a player, I enjoy playing this character.  He has some great skills that can help the party, and not just the smithing skills.  He is actually a really good combatant and is not too shabby at scavenging.  I have lived with this character long enough that he is easy to get back into, even after extended stretches between play sessions.  I would love to see the whole arc of this character, especially considering the amount of time I have put into him and his story.  As a player, there is still plenty of story left in this character.

So where is the dilemma?  As a player, I want to keep playing this character for the fun and the utility of his contributions to the group.  But lately I have been thinking about it in terms of the character.  It seems like, for this character, he has found a place that he could comfortably "retire" from adventuring and settle down.  He could work in the base, outfitting the party and repairing what gear they need fixed before their next adventure.  He could be a huge, constant help to the community around the base, making arms and equipment for better defense, and teaching others his craft so that more people could help in the same way.  It seems like, given a choice, the character would happily slip into an NPC role.  The game master has even offered to come up with a system to continue to improve the character's skills as an NPC in order to avoid suspending all growth after becoming an NPC.

I am torn between what seems like the best choice for the character versus my enjoyment (and perhaps others in the party who may like adventuring with this character).  I know I could make another interesting character that would be a different story and journey, and the idea that I could have a mini game with the original character as an NPC is tempting.  But I like the character I am playing now and as I have said, i wouldn't mind completing his journey.  So there is the choice.  What would you do?

In the end, I think I will keep playing the character.  My enjoyment ultimately outweighs the potential choice a character might make since this is a game.  Games should be fun.  If I am having fun, then keep on keeping on, right?  Of course, you do know what this means:  the next session, my character's luck will finally run out and instead of becoming an influential and essential NPC, he will probably find some hole in the street, fall in, and be devoured by giant rats.  I guess that would just be par for the course in the harsh, sadness-inducing game world in which he exists...

Keeping the straight man fun

We just started a new tabletop game a few weeks ago. I have been trying to get my head around my character. Some characters just click, they have a hook that makes them interesting and easy to play.  My last rpg character, Bracket, was an easy one. He was an exchange student from Brazil, and also a semi pro star craft player and steamer. I instantly had a lot of hooks to make the character fun to play and memorable.

My new character captain Slocum, is a different story. He is an industrial star ship captain, who was riding out his career as a cruise ship captain when an evil AI started a war and space faring civilization blasted itself back to the industrial era.

Now he is in his sixties working as a smuggler when our game begins. The party consists of a drug dealer, a permastoned space hippy, and an idealistic naive doctor. This puts me in the position of being the level headed one, the practical planner, the wet blanket straight man. This kind of party dynamic is common in rpgs. What fun is it to play the brash rogue without a palladin around to vex? But how can the lawful good pally still have fun role-playing without falling into the wet blanket party dad role?

I think it's important to not make the conflict between your level headed character and the more rebellious trouble making characters your defining character trait. It can be fun sometimes, but can grow tedious quickly, and you have to leave room for the other players to do their thing. If all you do is try to enforce your characters rules on other characters, a few things might happen. One everyone does what they want anyway, and your character becomes ineffective and unfun for you to play, or you impose your will on everyone else and their characters become less fun. Or the other characters start cutting you out of the plans and have to do everything behind your back. Find some other angle, personality trait or motivation to take center stage for you.

If you do find yourself in a situation where your moral character is getting marginalized, bypassed, and isn't very fun to play, it is probably time for some out of game conversations with the other players. Talk to them about what you want out of the character, and how you don't think things are going well. Find something to bring the characters together. Make your character less judgey, hopefully they can make their characters less evil. Embrace the power of compromise and communication.

With Slocum I'm thinking he is one of those guys that thinks everything was better when he was younger. In this case he is probably right. He feels that honor and trust has been destroyed, leaving people to revert to their selfish motives. So he has a nostalgic side. Even though he works with criminals as a smuggler, he holds himself and those he works with to a higher moral standard. Having come up in the civilian sector, he doesn't have the beatings will be administered until morale improves mentality. His management style is softer. So I'm going to play him as even tempered, perhaps a bit frustrated, but not one to get angry. Still boring, but at least a motivated boring. As a humor gimmick I'm going to call back to his cruise ship captain days and make terrifying announcements over the ships coms in a soothing captains voice. It's already happened once, "if you look out the side Windows now you will see the asteroid about to crush us into oblivion".

He possess important skills that nobody else has, and similarly has contacts everywhere. So I think he will garner his share of game spotlight naturally, without the need to force the matter awkwardly. I can keep his personality subdued and still have fun with him. My goal is to let the other players indulge in their crazy with mild disdain and simmering frustration rather than anger. I plan on keeping him from being the alpha character by deferring the big choices to the naive doctor who in theory will own the ship we fly. I will give options, and take options, avoid the "my way or the airlock" style.

I still think he still needs a little something more to make him a standout character, but those kind of things often emerge during game play. I like to think I have my basics covered. I know my main role is to keep the ship and the plot moving forward. Secondarily I serve as a foil to the other characters. My goal is to have a good time enabling the other characters as much as possible.

Be a good PC Part 1

There are a ton of articles about how to be a good GM, how to prep, how to yes and, how to do npcs, how to use your GM screen to watch porn while you play. It seems pretty endless. You would think that the success or failure of an rpg rests solely on the shoulders of the game master, but they are just one person at the table. You could have the best gm in the world, but if all the players are slugs, it won't matter the game will still fail. So! This is the first in potentially a series of blog posts of advice for being a better player.

Also this is hopefully the beginning of something resembling a schedule, look here Monday Wednesday and Friday for something in the way of content.

"That's What My Character Would Do!"

Whenever you hear someone say, "Not to be a dick but..." you can be pretty sure they are about to say something dickish. The same goes for, "Not to be rude" or "This probably isn't my place to say" or even "You know, every time I say this I end up in jail..." If you find yourself about to say any of these things you are probably better off not saying anything at all.

There is a similar line that has been played out endlessly by troll players no doubt since the age of Gygax. It is of course, "But that's what my character would do." Every time a player steals from his party, or spends the whole session trying to get drunk in the tavern, they always lay the blame on their misbehaving character. As if they didn't have any control over what happened. As if they didn't have any choice in the matter, and everyone else at the table has to be cool with it.

The attitude that the sanctity of a players control over their character is inviolable is pretty common. After all the players have control over a single thing in the game world, their character. So it follows that a player shouldn't have to curtail their actions, that the game is there in service of the player. There is some truth to this, the interplay between players making choices and changing the gm's plans is the best part of rpgs. It is the magic that makes rpgs so memorable. But it is a mistake to think that the players obligations lie only to themselves. The players are there to work together with the GM, and the other players to make all the pieces come together for the best game possible.

Even a good player can fail on this front. They will take perfectly reasonable actions, that are entirely consistent with their characters, and the game world, but at the same time they still work counter to the overall enjoyment of the game. A good example is a character not showing up for some climactic battle because they feel their character would instead be busy rushing their family out of  city that's about be devoured by a giant salamander. Sure that is what a reasonable person would do, but it puts the GM in an bad spot. Now they have to consider a few courses of action, do they find some awkward way to bring all the PC's together for the final salamander battle? Do they nerf the salamander so that an under powered party can fight it? Do they just let the salamander destroy the rest of the party while the errant player saves his family? Also does the GM have the obligation to keep things entertaining for the player who decided to split the party?

A player's obligation to the general enjoyment of the game is equal to his obligation to be true to his character. It is a fine line to walk. A player who just does what the GM expects might as well be on the dreaded rpg railroad, but one who just goes crazy with their own agenda can take the game to a spot the train wasn't even headed. Some games tolerate more extreme character freedom, but I don't think that is true for the majority of rpgs. Even in the deepest sandbox, it can't hurt a player to consider how his actions will impact  both the game and the other players.

So what can a player do when they find themselves presented with a choice between doing what their character would do, and doing what the plot of the game wants them to do? The first resource in a situation like this is the other players at the table. Make it a role playing moment where you let the other characters convince yours. To a lesser extent the npcs that are important to the characters can be used in this way. If a character's husband implores the PC to go off and fight the Nega Salamander, it gives more depth to the relationships there. Even back to the trolliest action like stealing from other player characters could potentially be an opportunity for roleplay between players.

The second thing you have to consider is if what dissenting action you are doing is a worthwhile moment with your character that warrants the whole table's attention. Is this the moment that you want your character to stand for, to be remembered by. If the moment really feels like a bridge your character should die on, embrace it, but be ready to deal with the repercussions. In fact give explicit permission to the GM and the other players  to allow real consequences to come to the character. If you steal from the other players, don't expect them to bend over backwards to keep your character around. Decide not to show up for the fight with the big bad, don't be surprised if you are asked to leave the party after the fact.

So it's time to retire, "That's what my character would do."

Let's replace it with "I'm ready to deal with the consequences."

Or even the preemptive, "Someone talk me out of this."