Every December, since about two years ago, I've had a tradition of holding a Christmas-themed Roleplaying session. Since I don't have an active group, I decided to do a Crimbo-themed Paranoia session. (Crimbo being a non-denominational abbreviation for Christmas that I stole from Kingdom of Loathing). First, I'll have to describe exactly what I implemented, and then I'll describe exactly what I did wrong.
The idea was to have a Crimbo-themed mission, where the players would have to do away with a "smelly red-clearance man bribing random people to curry their favor in a communist plot against the Computer". Obviously, Father Christmas is a communist. The mission was rather interesting, as it basically involved tracking down Father Christmas, who was leaving a wake of holiday cheer. For example, one encounter was with a group of people who were given a "green needle-tree, colorful boxes, and strings of multicolored lights".
I implemented a few new Christmas-themed weapons. My favorite was the L.I.N.U.S., an acronym that changes meaning every time someone asks. Basically, it's a giant mech, with a small card slot in front of it. In this slot is a baby-blue card with the word "BLANKET" typed on it. When LINUS has his blanket, he's in defense mode. When LINUS doesn't, though, he destroys everything in his path to get it back. Needless to say, I love "A Charlie Brown Christmas". Also making it's triumphant return was the Yule Log, a comically large log which explodes in a shower of fireworks at the slightest provocation, and the Sneaky Snake, which does whatever the GM wants it to at the most convenient time. I also had two "Christmas Cheer" Lasers, each by itself would only make the target feel happy. Both simultaneously would make the target's heart explode.
All of that was very fine and good, and got a fair number of laughs. However, my problem was that, in good Christmas spirit, I invited all my friends. The problem with living in a dorm-like setting is that I can have a game with eight or nine people in it, like this one. Earlier, I mentioned that a large group was only good for Zap games. Well, it is fine for very zap games, but the reason for that is that bookkeeping and quick communication is pretty much impossible. I constantly had a stack of sticky notes, all full of actions that no longer had any meaning because things had already changed too much. It made many of the players feel powerless, which isn't a good thing. They should feel like they have options, even if all of them are damning. Communication seems to be a constant struggle in these sorts of games. So, when will I learn?
Well, I'm going to start trying now. I'm going to try playing with a cap of 5 players. Smaller groups are worlds easier to communicate with. I'll allow others to be involved, but they're going to be involved as "NPC's", who will play various NPC characters I need played and occasionally pull people to the side to roleplay side encounters with secret societies or the like. That should help decrease the workload on the GM and allow for faster communication during firefights and the like. So, I'll tell you all how that goes.
-Flare
PS. It was one of my players' birthday today, so Father Crimbo pulled a cake out of his bag of goodies during the game. Happy Birthday, and thanks to everyone that made that happen.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Again with the bubbles!
So, after last session's absolute chaos, I decided to try the module at the back of the book again, Mister Bubbles. This was a group of three troubleshooters, and it was a rather serious first game. Well, it was serious in comparison to last week's mess.
I'm not sure I am capable of doing an incredibly serious session of this game. It just lends itself to ridiculousness too easily. In this campaign, we have a Computer Phreak who is irrationally afraid of robots, a woman who occasionally (read:when hilarious) responds with animal noises, and a fellow who's going to learn that his 17 in Cash Hacking isn't a 17 in covering his trail. How could I not make that hilarious? Maybe that's why Paranoia always works so well: the situations are so ridiculous that the game just succeeds, almost regardless of anything. (For examples, just look back at all the other disasters I've GM'd.) Oh, and everyone has a lightsaber. Ridiculousness.
Regardless, everyone had fun and good times. So, another roaring success.
-Flare
I'm not sure I am capable of doing an incredibly serious session of this game. It just lends itself to ridiculousness too easily. In this campaign, we have a Computer Phreak who is irrationally afraid of robots, a woman who occasionally (read:when hilarious) responds with animal noises, and a fellow who's going to learn that his 17 in Cash Hacking isn't a 17 in covering his trail. How could I not make that hilarious? Maybe that's why Paranoia always works so well: the situations are so ridiculous that the game just succeeds, almost regardless of anything. (For examples, just look back at all the other disasters I've GM'd.) Oh, and everyone has a lightsaber. Ridiculousness.
Regardless, everyone had fun and good times. So, another roaring success.
-Flare
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Initiation of New Citizens
So, I've moved to a new locale. It's fantastic, but I don't have any of the players that I had before; the people that I learned the game first with. So, I had the wonderful challenge of trying to teach people, en masse, how to play the game. My strategy was... well, this is what it was.
1) Hook people. I gathered some of my friends and told them about the game in a quick, 2 minute bit, outlining the basic point of the game. "The computer hates traitors. Traitors come in various forms: Communists, Mutants, Secret Society members, and people who hate the computer. The thing is that everyone playing is all of those things, so you have to prove they're traitors and kill them before they kill you." I managed to get 8 people interested, which was a tall order.
2) I randomly generated characters for everyone, tics and all. (Resources can be found here:[http://paranoia.polyatomic.org/] and here:[http://gmftp.paranoia-live.net/max/wheelOfTics.swf].) Then, I handed them out and explained the perversity system and how to roll for certain stats. Other than that, I left the players in the dark.
The game was absolutely chaotic. Incredibly zap, with people falling left and right. People were coming into and out of the game like crazy. Furthermore, mutant powers and secret societies were mentioned only once. Strangely enough, everyone seemed to have fun, even though it basically consisted of everyone messing around. I never consulted a table once: it was entirely making stuff up.
It seemed to chaotic to be fun to me, but when I asked, no one had a sour word for the game. They all enjoyed it (not immensely, like I had hoped, but they all had a good time) and wanted to play again at some time. I always find this game amazing in that no matter how chaotic or unplanned things may be, or how terribly things went, everyone enjoys themselves. It's a mystery that I may never be able to solve, no matter how I may try. I did collect some notes, though, that I'd like to share.
First, put a limit on the number of players, unless you like really, REALLY chaotic games. I'm fairly certain that that's where a fair amount of the chaos came from (we had 8 players at one point, and people kept coming in/out of the game). Also, I felt like I couldn't give everyone the attention they needed, and that's not a good feeling.
Second, when including new players, keep it simple. Play a zap game with few rules, just to start. You pick up hardcore D&D people and casual ones alike, and the chaos is kind of enjoyable. Next time we play, I'm going to do something more serious, maybe even have a written campaign, but always start simple. Especially if you want to start playing fast.
I believe that's it. Hopefully next time I can curb the chaos and start having serious fun. But honestly, I'll take any sort of fun. GM's are pretty desperate like that.
Until next time,
Flare
PS - Someone planted the idea of using the Paranoia system in a different environment: perhaps present-day or something like that. Maybe later. First things first: making players that can play.
1) Hook people. I gathered some of my friends and told them about the game in a quick, 2 minute bit, outlining the basic point of the game. "The computer hates traitors. Traitors come in various forms: Communists, Mutants, Secret Society members, and people who hate the computer. The thing is that everyone playing is all of those things, so you have to prove they're traitors and kill them before they kill you." I managed to get 8 people interested, which was a tall order.
2) I randomly generated characters for everyone, tics and all. (Resources can be found here:[http://paranoia.polyatomic.org/] and here:[http://gmftp.paranoia-live.net/max/wheelOfTics.swf].) Then, I handed them out and explained the perversity system and how to roll for certain stats. Other than that, I left the players in the dark.
The game was absolutely chaotic. Incredibly zap, with people falling left and right. People were coming into and out of the game like crazy. Furthermore, mutant powers and secret societies were mentioned only once. Strangely enough, everyone seemed to have fun, even though it basically consisted of everyone messing around. I never consulted a table once: it was entirely making stuff up.
It seemed to chaotic to be fun to me, but when I asked, no one had a sour word for the game. They all enjoyed it (not immensely, like I had hoped, but they all had a good time) and wanted to play again at some time. I always find this game amazing in that no matter how chaotic or unplanned things may be, or how terribly things went, everyone enjoys themselves. It's a mystery that I may never be able to solve, no matter how I may try. I did collect some notes, though, that I'd like to share.
First, put a limit on the number of players, unless you like really, REALLY chaotic games. I'm fairly certain that that's where a fair amount of the chaos came from (we had 8 players at one point, and people kept coming in/out of the game). Also, I felt like I couldn't give everyone the attention they needed, and that's not a good feeling.
Second, when including new players, keep it simple. Play a zap game with few rules, just to start. You pick up hardcore D&D people and casual ones alike, and the chaos is kind of enjoyable. Next time we play, I'm going to do something more serious, maybe even have a written campaign, but always start simple. Especially if you want to start playing fast.
I believe that's it. Hopefully next time I can curb the chaos and start having serious fun. But honestly, I'll take any sort of fun. GM's are pretty desperate like that.
Until next time,
Flare
PS - Someone planted the idea of using the Paranoia system in a different environment: perhaps present-day or something like that. Maybe later. First things first: making players that can play.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
A New GM
So, a while back, one of the players expressed an interest in being GM. I agreed, and on his request let him borrow the book and read it over.
Cut to about a month later, we've got a group together and we're gearing up to play. I say, "Hey, do you want to GM?"; "Gee, I don't know, I don't really understand the rules or how to do it..."; "Do it anyway. If you're totally stuck, ask me."
And he did. A man who's had no real experience with the system other than playing twice (because he didn't read the book). The game was absolutely fantastic. Everyone had fun. He just emulated the playstyle and made up scenarios that would be fun. So, I've realized experimentally that it doesn't take an especially skilled person to GM, or even a person with knowledge of the rules. So, what does it take? What makes a good GM? This is a rather difficult question, and it seems to be different based on which game you play. The only thing I know for sure is that the GM is chosen by the players. The GM has to be what the players want. What do you guys think?
Also, this has given me a few ideas as to GMing in our group. I want to give everyone a chance to GM, to try it out, and see how it feels. (Of course, if they want, and I'm sure they will.)
One of the players (acutally, same one who GM'd fantastically above) suggested we play musical chairs. We seat everyone at the table with a character sheet in front of them, and one behind the GM screen. After we play for 30 minutes, everyone stands up and shifts a chair to the left without moving the character sheets. Every 30 minutes you have a different storyteller, and you're playing something new. I think Paranoia is one of the few games that can do this because the characters don't exactly have epic back stories or complex personalities (it's pretty much limited to 2-3 tics), and the GM doesn't have to know that much or invest that much time into things, as shown above. I tell you all how it goes.
Until then, citizen.
-Flare
ALL HAIL OUR FRIEND COMPUTER.
Cut to about a month later, we've got a group together and we're gearing up to play. I say, "Hey, do you want to GM?"; "Gee, I don't know, I don't really understand the rules or how to do it..."; "Do it anyway. If you're totally stuck, ask me."
And he did. A man who's had no real experience with the system other than playing twice (because he didn't read the book). The game was absolutely fantastic. Everyone had fun. He just emulated the playstyle and made up scenarios that would be fun. So, I've realized experimentally that it doesn't take an especially skilled person to GM, or even a person with knowledge of the rules. So, what does it take? What makes a good GM? This is a rather difficult question, and it seems to be different based on which game you play. The only thing I know for sure is that the GM is chosen by the players. The GM has to be what the players want. What do you guys think?
Also, this has given me a few ideas as to GMing in our group. I want to give everyone a chance to GM, to try it out, and see how it feels. (Of course, if they want, and I'm sure they will.)
One of the players (acutally, same one who GM'd fantastically above) suggested we play musical chairs. We seat everyone at the table with a character sheet in front of them, and one behind the GM screen. After we play for 30 minutes, everyone stands up and shifts a chair to the left without moving the character sheets. Every 30 minutes you have a different storyteller, and you're playing something new. I think Paranoia is one of the few games that can do this because the characters don't exactly have epic back stories or complex personalities (it's pretty much limited to 2-3 tics), and the GM doesn't have to know that much or invest that much time into things, as shown above. I tell you all how it goes.
Until then, citizen.
-Flare
ALL HAIL OUR FRIEND COMPUTER.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
A Straighter Game
We haven't gathered since my last blog entry, but some of my players have talked to me about the game and their opinions about it. The general concensus is that players die too easily and with too little flourish. It's too easy to just get shot and that's the end of it. In other words, the game is too "Zap".
For those of you who aren't aware, the game can be played in three different ways: "Zap", "Classic", and "Straight". Zap involves random shooting, dying, and absolute silliness. As in, Yosemite Sam find a job working at an explosives and china figurines factory kind of ridiculous. "Straight", the other end of the spectrum, is absolutely serious and focuses more on the mood of a dystopian future. As in, George Orwell finds a job at the Ministry of Truth. "Classic", the middle ground, is a mixture of fun, gunplay, and a serious mood. My efforts were towards classic, but apparently it's been too silly. So, I strive for a more somber game.
First of all, I've decided to change the system for eliminating traitors. Now, instead of the Dirty Harry style of shoot-first ask-questions-later, players must get a warrant and prove their teammate is a traitor first. This will keep players on each other, gathering evidence until someone manages to get a warrant first. Things become less about who can pull the trigger fastest and more about who can outthink the others first.
Secondly, I must BE EXPLICIT IN MY MISSION. While keeping the players in complete misinformation and sending them on a wild snipe hunt is great for the mood of Paranoia, people get discouraged if the don't have a clear goal. I need to make the goal explicit enough to be attainable, and lead the players along some sort of track to keep them focused on a goal.
Also, on that note, two explicit missions must be available. The first is the computer's mission, which the team has to work together (generally) towards. The second is a secret society mission, which should dissent and conflict with each other. However, they should STILL BE EXPLICIT. I'll see how the players respond to having two explicit missions. Hopefully that'll make things faster and easier.
Finally, one of my players has asked that I focus more on spreading challenges out to cover all six categories. And he's right. In zap games, violence and stealth reign supreme. Management is okay, but all of the knowledge skills are mostly neglected. I'll have to brainstorm some ways to make these skills more useful, and I'll report back to you whatever I do in-game.
All hail the computer!
-The GM (Flare)
For those of you who aren't aware, the game can be played in three different ways: "Zap", "Classic", and "Straight". Zap involves random shooting, dying, and absolute silliness. As in, Yosemite Sam find a job working at an explosives and china figurines factory kind of ridiculous. "Straight", the other end of the spectrum, is absolutely serious and focuses more on the mood of a dystopian future. As in, George Orwell finds a job at the Ministry of Truth. "Classic", the middle ground, is a mixture of fun, gunplay, and a serious mood. My efforts were towards classic, but apparently it's been too silly. So, I strive for a more somber game.
First of all, I've decided to change the system for eliminating traitors. Now, instead of the Dirty Harry style of shoot-first ask-questions-later, players must get a warrant and prove their teammate is a traitor first. This will keep players on each other, gathering evidence until someone manages to get a warrant first. Things become less about who can pull the trigger fastest and more about who can outthink the others first.
Secondly, I must BE EXPLICIT IN MY MISSION. While keeping the players in complete misinformation and sending them on a wild snipe hunt is great for the mood of Paranoia, people get discouraged if the don't have a clear goal. I need to make the goal explicit enough to be attainable, and lead the players along some sort of track to keep them focused on a goal.
Also, on that note, two explicit missions must be available. The first is the computer's mission, which the team has to work together (generally) towards. The second is a secret society mission, which should dissent and conflict with each other. However, they should STILL BE EXPLICIT. I'll see how the players respond to having two explicit missions. Hopefully that'll make things faster and easier.
Finally, one of my players has asked that I focus more on spreading challenges out to cover all six categories. And he's right. In zap games, violence and stealth reign supreme. Management is okay, but all of the knowledge skills are mostly neglected. I'll have to brainstorm some ways to make these skills more useful, and I'll report back to you whatever I do in-game.
All hail the computer!
-The GM (Flare)
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Virtual Players (Online/IRL Hybrid)
I ran an experiment today, to see if I could run a game with people in real life and people online.
It does not work. At all.
It simply gets too jumbled up to be playable anymore. The game starts to feel more like you're forced through it and less like you're messing around with friends. The players really didn't enjoy themselves that much. After all, the happiness of the players is the highest priority.
Happiness is mandatory.
In other news, the random gun was a huge success. I'm bringing it back. Definitely. If any of my players have favorites, please share.
Now I have to wade through all the personal secret-society stuff that's happened: See who's completed their mission, who hasn't, and run all the consequences with that. I have a week, though. That does make personal plot one of the easiest parts of the game.
Terrible online stuff aside, it was a good game. Almost everyone died.
Flare-U-BVT-3
It does not work. At all.
It simply gets too jumbled up to be playable anymore. The game starts to feel more like you're forced through it and less like you're messing around with friends. The players really didn't enjoy themselves that much. After all, the happiness of the players is the highest priority.
Happiness is mandatory.
In other news, the random gun was a huge success. I'm bringing it back. Definitely. If any of my players have favorites, please share.
Now I have to wade through all the personal secret-society stuff that's happened: See who's completed their mission, who hasn't, and run all the consequences with that. I have a week, though. That does make personal plot one of the easiest parts of the game.
Terrible online stuff aside, it was a good game. Almost everyone died.
Flare-U-BVT-3
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Blog Under Construction
As I sit here, in the dim light of my darkened suite, I realize that the past may not know where I write from. These might help:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Paranoia
http://www.crd-sector.com/
I, myself, am a fan of CRD sector, even though some of it is red clearance. I'll continue to write to you as I plan more trials and tribulations for my players. Since I never know who's listening, I'll have to wait before writing again.
-Flare-U-BVT-3
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Paranoia
http://www.crd-sector.com/
I, myself, am a fan of CRD sector, even though some of it is red clearance. I'll continue to write to you as I plan more trials and tribulations for my players. Since I never know who's listening, I'll have to wait before writing again.
-Flare-U-BVT-3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
