Colline del Vento - Vigna e Cantina

Blog Vino - Colline del Vento

Two Highlights From DETROIT: BECOME HUMAN

Right now, I am playing DETROIT: BECOME HUMAN, a new title by Quantic Dream studio. As its predecessors – Indigo Prophecy, Heavy Rain, and Beyond: Two Souls – the game uses cinematographic language with its mechanics based on decision trees. During most part of the narrative, you must take significant decisions that will affect the course of the game and result in different ends for the story. The trailer below shows the gaming dynamics and main plot:



Besides the immersive narrative and beautiful graphics, I want to comment on two great features of this game.

1) The ending phase screens show the complete decision tree of each chapter. This is a very cool feature from DETROIT, you can observe in details what type of consequence your acts generated inside the gaming narrative. This visual aid helps players understand how each character works in the ambient. Below, there's an example of this feature.



2) The opening screen always has an interesting content. Every time you start to play DETROIT, there's one opening screen with a very sympathetic female android named Chloe giving you a technological trivia. I was playing it in June 7th and she told me that that day was Alan Turing's (the British mathematical genius) date of death. Then, last Saturday morning she told me "this is a perfect way to start a good weekend". The android also takes interesting surveys, asking players about the interface between human and machine. It is just a "content snack", but it helps to contextualize the gaming experience in a more immersive way. Below, I'm sharing some of these moments:



Another great acquisition for my collection.

#GoGamers


DE: Evolution Of A Competitive List

Double-face Archon is the best Archon.

Man, I am freaking excited to write this article.  There has been a lot of questions floating around lately that I want to address and the more I think about it, the more I can root cause it to this very topic.  I want to talk about the evolution of a competitive list, the aftermath of several games after you've finalized your competitive list.  This is essentially the Part 2 of my rather popular Army Building Guide.

Before I begin in the earnest, let's talk about what kind of questions have been asked in the last couple of days.  Yes, I do get Email and comments both on here and on the Dark City forums.  Some of the topics that have been talked about are:
  • How many Dark Lances vs. Dissies?
  • Take me through your thought process after the Big FAQ?
  • General question asked to all: What does a competitive DE list look like?
  • Warriors or Wyches and why?

While all these questions might seem like they don't connect at first, I assure you they do.  At least to the min-maxy type of player like me who likes to play in a competitive setting, all of these questions are completely valid.  They are valid because I've put this list through a lot of thought, theory and practice questions against a variety of lists and opponents.  Some opponents bring harder lists than others, some not so much.  At the end of the day, a lot of these questions can be answered with "well, that depends" because every playing environment is different, and therefore, every meta is different.  Regardless of whether or not you're playing in a local meta or in a GT, you must go into every environment with a gameplan.  This means knowing the meta, predicting the meta, and taking your list through the gauntlet so you can answer what works best for you (in terms of playstyle) and what will be effective on the battlefield.

So, now that you've read through that guide and have a general idea of how I like to min-max my army lists, let's take a trip down memory lane to the very first army list I posted.

This was before the big FAQ:

1998 - 7 CP
Flayed Skull Battalion - 3 CP

HQ:
Archon, Agonizer, Blaster = 91
Archon, Agonizer, Blaster = 91

TROOP:
5x Warriors, Blaster = 47
Venom, 2x SC = 75
122

5x Warriors, Blaster = 47
Venom, 2x SC = 75
122

10x Warriors, 2x Blaster, Dark Lance = 114
Raider, Splinter Racks, Dark Lance = 95
209

10x Warriors, 2x Blaster, Dark Lance = 114
Raider, Splinter Racks, Dark Lance = 95
209

10x Warriors, 2x Blaster, Dark Lance = 114
Raider, Splinter Racks, Dark Lance = 95
209

FLYER:
Razorwing, 2x Dark Lances = 145
Razorwing, 2x Dark Lances = 145

+++

Black Heart Spearhead - 1 CP

HQ:
Archon, Agonizer, Blaster = 91
Warlord: Labyrinthine Cunning
Artifact: Writ of Living Muse

TROOP:
7x Warriors, Blaster = 59
Raider, Dark Lance = 85
144

HEAVY:
Ravager, 3x Dark Lances = 140
Ravager, 3x Dark Lances = 140
Ravager, 3x Dark Lances = 140

>>>
Firepower Analysis:
20 Dark Lances at BS3+
9 Blasters at BS3+
3 Blasters at BS2+
4 Splinter Cannons at BS3+
21 Splinter Rifles at BS3+ with Flayed Skull + Splinter Racks
19 Splinter Rifles at BS3+ elsewhere
2 Razorwing Missiles at BS3+

Possibly the best DE gif to ever exist.

This is not a bad list, but let me take you through all the thought exercises I put myself through while playing with this list over 12 times now.  Remember, when you take your list through a gauntlet, the objective here is to build knowledge and experience.  Knowledge in the sense that you know what every unit in the list is designed to do and what you purchased it to do (very different things), and experience in the sense that in X matchup on Y battlefield in Z scenario, you know what to do with said units.

Here are the thought exercises that I ran through in 12 games.  There might be more, but these are the highlights.  I will write a short blurb about each:

Balancing Dark Lances with Dissies
I started off with a lot of Darklight, and most importantly, a lot of Dark Lances that have 36" range.  This was because my meta is saturated with competitive builds of Imperials (double SR/Dante, Azrael Hellblaster Deathstars, Guard CP bats/Custodes, AdMech Robots/Guard CP, or just Guard CP Tank Park).  While I thought the results were decent, I was finding myself less effective against MEQ out in the open.  Shooting a Dark Lance at a Marine is always satisfying, but it's not the best use of points because it's typically overkill.  It's pretty much just wasted on Guard and less effective vs. Shield-Captains on Dawneagles.  Therefore, I needed to strike a balance between lances for longer engagements and Dissies for volume and more efficient killing those targets I just named.  I can literally go on with this forever, but what you need to do is do a firepower analysis (or whatever your primary killing method is) and range band everything with respect to what units you're engaging.  The targets depend completely on your meta and your predictions for the meta.  More on this later.  Just remember that lances are better vs. T6/7 3+ targets (so basically Rhinos/Robots) while Dissies are better vs. everything else.

Venoms vs. Raiders
This one was an easier decision for me because I wanted more heavy weapons and transport space for Warriors.  It was either more Dark Lance presence for AT or Dissies for general purpose.  Either way, my meta called for less anti-infantry and more heavy weaponry which only the Raider can deliver.  I also noticed that in my first couple of games, losing Venoms also dropped my SCs which was surprisingly frustrating.  The next point will explain more.

Taking Dark Lances on Warriors
This is just playtesting at work.  I originally thought:  Great!  More lances the better right?  Not really, because I noticed that I tend to move around a lot while engaging, and the new Strategems like Fire and Fade kept my army active at all times.  Investing 20 points into a Dark Lance is good, but having it hit on 4+ after you move is not.  This is pretty much a 50/50 and after several games, I wanted to commit to something more efficient.  This is when I started weighing the importance of having a 10 point SC upgrade on my Warriors vs. 10 point Splinter Racks vs. Flayed Skull and the re-rolls.  I found that the Splinter Racks are good, but math says SCs are point for point much better.  It also stays there after you lose the Raider and further increases in damage with respect to range compared to racks.  Boom, made the switch and I've been liking the results so far.  In some ways, I would say that Warriors carrying SCs is more durable than Venoms because they're less of a fire magnet.

Converting from Flayed Skull to Black Heart
You can find me writing a lot about this, but I wanted to bring more units under Black Heart simply because I can take advantage of the Archon's Living Muse on the Raiders themselves.  The more I played with Black Heart, the more I saw an advantage in keeping my Raiders alive and thus, keeping the bulk of my firepower unharmed and alive as well.  As long as my Warriors are inside and shooting, I felt less pressure on my presence on the board and greater pressure on my opponent once more of his things started dying.  This is what I need because as Dark Eldar, you need to keep pressure and maintain momentum and tempo in a game.  Keeping my units alive was more important to me in that sense, and the more heavy weapons I can put in-range of my Archon, the better results I was having.  There's a follow-up to this below, and that's also because Black Heart transports work better for Obsidian Rose units.

Black Heart Air Wing to unlock AoV
I feel like a genius for discovering this and blogging about it, but not really because it was pretty much a braindead choice.  AoV is great and just having it in the army mindfucks your opponent every time he wants to use a Strategem.  Remember again guys, the more you make your opponents think, the higher your chances are of winning.

Min-maxing different detachments to spread obsession bonuses (Black Rose)
OK, this one I will take credit for because I think it's awesome.  My Kabal of the Black Rose is simply the original pure Kabal list min-maxed as much as possible to suit my playstyle.  Since I was already using Black Heart vehicles for their durability, AoV, re-rolls thanks to Living Muse and Cunning, I knew I needed to compliment that with an Obsession that would fit my particular playstyle.  Flayed Skull was great, I've played it a few times, but it was too much of a glasshammer that encouraged overly aggressive plays.  While I normally like that kind of play because I'm a highly aggressive player, my meta matchups needed something more flexible.  I also noticed that the closer I got to Shield-Captains, the more I subjected myself to losing Raiders.  This is more self-enlightenment more than anything else:  I'm an aggressive player but I needed more threat without exposing myself to painful Space Marine assaults.  I also needed something that I can poke and run because my meta have big scary melee units.  Great, Obsidian Rose it is.  Combine that with Black Heart and I have my Kabal of the Black Rose.  Boom.

Trying min-squad vs. decent squad Wyches in Raiders
This feels like the odd-man out here, but I needed to try Wyches because I have like 50 of them sitting in a bin.  They're great, I love them and I think they definitely will see play, but maybe not in a list like mine because the only thing I'm doing is taking away from my firepower.  This is the list schism that I was talking about in my previous articles on how to build lists, and that's if you start to branch off and try to do different things (especially polarizing things), you water down your ability to be effective.  When I mean polarizing, I mean specifically mixing shooting and melee whereas if you take the Meat Mountain + Wyches, you might get better results because there's more of a particular form of pressure that can overwhelm your opponent if they're not ready for it.  Either way, I see merits in both min-squads vs. the larger 8-9 man squads of Wyches in a Raider.  I still think Raiders are their best method of delivery, especially when you have shenanigans like Enhanced Aethersails and Fire and Fade (with a Dissie-mounted Raider) on T1.  If I wanted to play more casual, I'll mix up my lists some more, but if I wanted to just play the ranged game and shoot with my Black Rose, I will go for more shooting, period.

Switching to Dark Lances on my Razorwings
After a bunch of games, I started noticing one thing:  Once I converge with my Razorwings on that first initial high-five with my Living Muse Archon, they flew off to wherever I needed them to go.  I never saw them within ass-slapping range of my Archon ever again so I knew something had to change.  I knew I still needed Dissies, but just how many of them?  This goes back to the question about balancing Dissies with Darklight, but after even more min-max testing, I decided that Ravagers were enough for now.  Having 9 shots that are always in range of re-roll 1s to Hit and Wound was giving me the right results, whereas I've had more success moving Dark Lances to the Razorwings.  The range threat was still the same, but the big difference for me there was that my lances need 3s to wound most things I wanted dead vs. the 5s that I would need with Dissies.  Without the re-rolls, 3s are much better than 5s when dealing damage for sure.  The other factor for me was that I found my previous firepower analysis was a bit biased towards Dissies:  Having 15 Dissies and less 36" range lances.  My first couple of turns in my meta is more probing and poking, and I definitely needed some added long-range weight before I pounce forward with my superior threat range.  Notice how I'm using my experience in games to guide my decisions with what the list looks like in accordance to my meta and playstyle.

What my lists look like after the big FAQ
Well, the good news is that not much really changed for DE.  I min-maxed some shit here and there but overall, the Black Rose emerged pretty victorious after all the dust settled.  My lists are not overly ridiculous with more Ravagers than a bag can hold, and I typically build for more balanced lists than something completely over the top.  OK, the 20 36" lances were kinda hilarious though.  What I need to pay attention to going forward is not how my lists adapt, but how my competitive meta evolves.  I have initial predictions that I will see more Guard players because I think they came out pretty good with the CP boosts for Bats and Brigades.  Armies that relied heavily on alpha-striking with CC and dropping in the first turn also got hit, which further strengthens the power of gunline-oriented armies.  With that said, I need to think about which armies out there will take advantage of the FAQ the most and prepare my list accordingly.  For now, I think my mix is pretty decent since I just converted more units to carry lances, but only time and more playtesting will tell.

Well, there you have it folks.  The first list I posted was on the last day of March.  After all the experience and games, this is what I landed on today:

An artistic expression for my contempt for bad lists.

Kabal of the Black Rose
1999 // 10 CP

Obsidian Rose Bat +5 CP

HQ:
Archon, Agonizer, Blaster, PGL = 94
Archon, Agonizer, Blaster, PGL = 94

TROOP:
10x Warriors, 2x Blaster, SC = 104
10x Warriors, 2x Blaster, SC = 104
10x Warriors, 2x Blaster, SC = 104
10x Warriors, 2x Blaster, SC = 104

+++

Black Heart Spear +1 CP

HQ:
Archon, Agonizer, Blaster = 91
Warlord: Cunning, Living Muse

TROOP:
7x Warriors, Blaster, BP = 69

PARTY BUS:
Raider, Dark Lance = 85
Raider, Dark Lance = 85
Raider, Dark Lance = 85
Raider, Dark Lance = 85
Raider, Dark Lance = 85

HEAVY:
Ravager, 3x Dissies = 125
Ravager, 3x Dissies = 125
Ravager, 3x Dissies = 125

+++

Black Heart Wing +1 CP

FLYER:
Razorwing, 2x Dark Lance = 145
Razorwing, 2x Dark Lance = 145
Razorwing, 2x Dark Lance = 145

>>>
Firepower Analysis:
11 Dark Lances at BS3+
9 Dissies at BS3+
9 Blasters at BS3+
3 Blasters at BS2+
3 Razorwing Missiles at BS3+
4 Splinter Cannons at BS3+
41 Splinter Rifles at BS3+

Is this list perfect?  Hell no.  The big question up in the air right now is what the new competitive meta is going to look like.  However, you bet your ass that I will be actively thinking about all the topics I went over today as we keep on murdering our opponents.  Luckily, I've had enough games with the list above that I'm feeling pretty good, so I'm currently testing other lists to gauge which is more competitive.  That's another story for another time.


Status

Too long without a post.

Hopefully this  won't be the last post on the blog. I am still in draft three of a book, and don't seem to be getting much writing done or even seeing many movie. Distractions and all.

I still have an unfinished story. An unfinished book of parsha shiurim. Several half-baked and nearly baked game designs on the shelf.

However, I am still employed, having a social life, going on a vacation next month. My daughter is married and thriving, my son is thriving, too. Which is all good.

Still have weekly game nights and still get new games occasionally. I just got Concordia, Sushi Go Party, and I am expecting Gentes Deluxe and Haithabu. I am expecting a few thousand new Magic cards soon.

I and my boss have been playing games with three non-gamer coworkers at work every Thursday. It's been half a year, and, aside from Codenames, we have rarely repeated any games. Looks like we may start soon.

The magic of games, those little points, seem insignificant, but it's astonishing how they take a play activity and make people focus on a goal, a start, and an end. It's almost hard to understand why, but it must have something to do with: not only feeling great when you succeed, but wanting others to have a chance to feel great, too. If it didn't, the whole concept of multiplayer games would just fall apart. As long as we still play games together, I think humanity still has hope.

Peace.


The New Angry Birds Game Is A Master Class On Hyper Casual Game Design

I have already discussed this subject here and here, but, from time to time, I like to bring it up again just to remind myself of the huge potential of hyper casual games in the contemporary scenario.

The inspiration for this text was the new Angry Birds mobile game named "Dream Blast". Created by Rovio Studio, the game is an excellent example of how it is possible to create an interesting gaming experience using hyper casual game design. 



The game mechanics consist of a very simple touch-screen gesture where you must destroy two or more connected balls of the same color. If you destroy four or more balls, you will create a red bird. If you create two red birds side by side they will become a yellow bird; and, finally, if you create two yellow birds side by side you will create a big black bird. Each one of them, when touched, explodes in a different way destroying more or less of the scenario. 

The interesting part of the gaming experience comes from how the levels show interesting and varied challenges just by using a touch movement in the screen. The video below shows the intro and some of the main features of the gameplay:



Obviously, Dream Blast uses a business model based on virtual coins that the player can earn by playing or just buying them from the game store. 

Another interesting point of this subject is: how platforms like Google Stadia and Apple Arcade will change the "ecosystem" of the hyper casual games. Will they attract this kind of players to simple experiences with multiscreen possibility? But that's a subject for another post.

#GoGamers


Recent Painting/Basing

Just some recently finished bits and pieces.

3x Panzer IVs with various gun options.
Plastic, Battlefront Miniatures

Fiat Cr.32 "Chirri" for the Nationalists in Spanish Civil War
1:100 by Minairons

It's a cool piece but a little fiddly to put together.

Goblin Pyros for Pathfinder
Reaper Bones


Storium Basics: Narration Basics

One last article of "Storium Basics," here - this series has been focused on the player side, but I would be remiss in not addressing narration at least somewhat.

It's hard to spell out absolute basics for narration, and hard to really learn it without diving in and doing some narration. Unfortunately, there haven't really been good ways to get a beginner narrator game going the way we can for beginner players. But here, I'm going to try to give at least a general overview, and link to some articles that can develop things further. I highly encourage going through at least some of the articles I link to below, as there's just no way to adequately explore narration in one or more "basics" articles.

In Storium, a narrator is the person who is in charge of setting up the story, creating scenes, defining the story's focus, and in general guiding the story along. It is the narrator who creates the game's starting concept and advertises it to players, who selects the characters who will enter the story, and who creates the scenes and their challenges and outcomes to give players writing cues and situations to address.

Over the course of the game, the bulk of a narrator's time is going to be spent setting up scenes, and setting up challenges. Storium makes this pretty straightforward technically - it only takes a few clicks to set up a scene and start creating a challenge - but philosophically, it can be complex.

While scenes can be set up without challenges, the bulk of them in your average Storium game are going to focus on one or more challenges, and that's honestly how I encourage beginning narrators to think through their scenes: Focus on what challenges the scene is going to be about, and then work on the actual scene text. It may not work for everyone, but for me, I found starting out that starting with the mechanics and moving to the story text made my story text more focused.

So, let's start out with challenges.

I've always had a bit of a problem with that term: "Challenge." It puts Storium narrators in the mindset that these are things that are meant to "challenge" the players, in some sort of tactical sense. They aren't.

A challenge, in Storium, is simply a focal part of the story - a situation which can turn one way or another, and lead the story in different directions. One of those directions (the Strong outcome) feels better for the main characters or for the overall tale, and one (the Weak outcome) feels worse. There's nothing tactical about it. It's a writing cue.

When you set a challenge out, what you're saying is "this is the situation I want you to write about for this scene," or "this is the focus of this scene." Think about things in that mindset. You aren't trying to challenge the players - you're setting up something for their characters to deal with, but as far as the players go, you're just giving them something to write about.

A challenge can be one of two types: a Character, or an Obstacle. Mechanically, these work identically, and there's not much of a difference that I've found about them philosophically. I use the two types more to just keep things sorted than anything else. Conceptually, a character challenge is one that focuses on dealing with a specific character (or sometimes specific group), whether that be by communication or by combat or anything else. An obstacle challenge is one that focuses on other things that can get in the player characters' way or complicate the story, whether that be ancient artifacts, natural disasters, crumbling hallways, dangerous river crossings, corrupted magical energies, messy crime scenes, or anything else. Choosing the type of challenge you're making is more something to keep things sorted as you get a lot of cards, in case you want to pull out a challenge again later, and to highlight to players what the focus of a challenge is.

When you create a challenge, you're going to have to describe it. The challenge description will show up on the challenge card when players click on it in game. The purpose of the description is to give a basic overview of the challenge and help players understand its focus. If it is a character challenge, what is that character doing now, or what do they want now? How does the scene revolve around that? If is is an obstacle, what are its characteristics and how is it in the way? How does the scene revolve around that?

Once you've come up with a description (and, optionally, added a picture), you "Play" the challenge. This puts the challenge into the game, and brings up a new window where you'll set three things: points, strong outcome, and weak outcome. Let's take these in order.

The "challenge points" represent the number of cards which will need to be played on the challenge in order to complete it. One card equals one point, and a challenge can have anywhere from 1 to 9 points on it. So, if you set up a challenge with 4 points on it, the players will have to play 4 cards to complete it. This could come in various combinations - maybe 4 players each play 1 card, maybe 1 player plays 3 and another plays 1, maybe 2 players each play 2. What matters is that at the end, they've played 4 cards.

How do you determine how many points to put on a challenge? I think of two things.

First: the level of focus I want this situation to have. The more points a challenge has, the more moves it is likely to involve. If I set a challenge with a single point on it, no matter what, it will take only a single card to complete - which likely means it will be around for one move. If I set a challenge with three points, under default settings a player could complete it in one move, but it'd be a complex, multi-card move...and more than likely, it's instead going to be played across at least a couple different moves. If I set it as 4 points, under default settings, I'm guaranteeing that multiple moves will happen as no player can play that many cards in one move. And at 9? I've just defined it as a major, perhaps singular focus for the entire scene, a huge situation that will take many moves to get through and let players play a lot of their cards and explore a lot of elements of their characters.

The more points, then, the more focus the challenge receives in the story. If a challenge is important, if it provides a lot of opportunity for drama and interesting writing cues, and if the situation feels complex and fun to write about, add more points.

Second: the number of players I hope to see involved. I mentioned this a bit above, but by default, a player can play only 3 cards in a single move. What that means is that you, as narrator, can encourage challenges to involve more than one player - you just have to set the points at or above the upper limit of what a player can play. If you set a challenge at 1 or 2 points, you may end up with only one player playing it. If you set a challenge at 3 points, you're probably going to end up with more than one player playing on it - players, as they get more experienced, tend not to want to blow all their plays on one move. If you set a challenge at 4 points, you're guaranteeing  that more than one player will play on it, because one player can only play 3 cards. And if you set a challenge at, say, 7 points? Now you need three players to complete it. All by default card settings, of course.

The more points you put on a challenge, the more players will play on it - so, if things feel like they should take more group involvement to complete, or feel like good opportunities for character interaction among the heroes, put more points on them.

Be aware, though, that you have a point limit: You cannot put more points on challenges in a scene than the number of cards your players can play in that scene (because, after all, we want challenges to be completed). So if, say, you have 4 players who can each play 3 cards, you will have a point limit of 12 for that scene. If you put down a challenge with 9 points, that means you only have 3 points left for any other challenges you want to do in a scene.

Except...in my experience, it's actually not a good idea to use all of your points. If you do that, and one player is away or unable to play for a bit, you get yourself into situations where challenges can't be completed and you have to work around it, which can be detrimental to the game. So, my personal rule is to hold back one player's worth of points and not use it. At a basic level, then, if I have 4 players who can play 3 cards each, I hold back 3 points that I won't use: So instead of thinking of my limit as 12, I think of it as 9. So if I spend 9 points on a single challenge, then, I won't use those remaining 3 points that scene.

Now, once players have completed a challenge, they get to write the ending...and for that, they look to the appropriate outcome.

The outcomes, then, are the potential endings for the challenge. There are lots of different ways narrators have found to write outcomes, and I'm not going to delve too deeply here - suffice to say that you will find many of those in the links below - but let's look at the basics of them, in any case.

Your outcomes are the challenge's potential endings, and they come in two flavors on the challenge card: Strong and Weak. In both cases, what you're writing is a quick look at how the challenge ends...an overview of the ending, with room for the player to make it fit his character's actions and explore the specifics on his own.

You don't want to spell out every little detail here - you just want to give the players what needs to be in the story for that ending, or how the situation goes more in general. You want to lay out what's important, what needs to be specified, and let them play with the rest.

Now, as I mentioned, there's two different outcome types you'll be writing here: Strong and Weak. In general, the difference is simple: Strong is better for the player characters and the story situation than Weak.

Storium suggests that in general you use the following interpretation:
  • Strong outcomes mean that things worked out well for the players.
  • Weak outcomes mean that the situation was overcome but at a cost or with an interesting complication.
I agree.

This doesn't have to be what you do all the time, but it's a good philosophy to follow. Stories are most interesting when they keep moving forward, and they keep moving forward if, generally, the heroes are finding their way through situations. So, for Strong outcomes, I tend to write up outcome text that suggests an outright success for the heroes. Strong outcomes are pretty easy to understand how to write, honestly - I think we all get "the heroes succeed," right? The main thing to worry about for Strong outcomes is making sure to give them the proper amount of success - if it feels like something should be more involved and not fully resolved, that's fine - stories are full of really complex situations that can be resolved only in part. Just make sure your outcome text suggests that.

Weak outcomes can be more difficult to understand. For Weak outcomes, I tend to write outcome texts that still show the situation ending up resolved in their favor in some way, but with complications or costs, or that show the situation partially resolved in their favor but partially not.

This keeps the story moving forward, but perhaps even more importantly, it makes Weak outcomes often interesting for players - things they will intentionally decide to play towards at times. This is precisely what you want. You want your players to sometimes get Strong outcomes, and sometimes get Weak outcomes, and to be engaged with the story either way. An outright failure can be interesting, but more commonly, it serves as a brick wall that stops the story. If you outright fail to find evidence, well...where does the story go? But if you find the evidence just as the villain's big, burly henchman comes in to try to destroy it, and now you have to run away from him, well, that just added a new twist to the tale. Primarily use complications, costs, and partial successes, and you'll find that not only will the story move more smoothly, but the players will be interested in seeing the Weak outcomes come up.

The best experiences I've had in Storium, as a narrator, have been when I've played a challenge card into the game and players have looked at it and said, "Oh, wow - I hope this goes Weak!" I love that.

This is actually a technique that I've found in a lot of recent tabletop games. Fate uses it, and so does 13th Age, for two. You can find it under various names - Success at a Cost, Success with Complications, Fail Forward - but in all cases, the idea is that if the rolls don't go well for the players, the story should still move forward. In Storium, things are a little different - the players aren't depending on dice rolls or luck of any kind, and they may outright choose the Weak outcome - but the principle is similar: Keep the story moving forward, and keep things interesting for the players.

Again, this doesn't have to be your theme all the time. You can do a Weak outcome that's an outright failure on the part of the characters (note: the characters, not the players - never think of a Weak outcome as a failure on the part of the players, and never think of it as a punishment for them), and you can even do a Strong outcome that is a failure on the part of the characters, but a less painful one than the Weak. Those can and have worked for me. But by and large, stick to the philosophy above, and you'll have an easier time.

Now, there is one more outcome type: Uncertain. This comes up when the challenges comes out neutral, with equal numbers of Strength and Weakness cards played on it (or none of those, just neutral cards). When the Uncertain outcome comes up, it is your job to write an ending for the challenge, rather than the players'. This is easiest if you spend a little time thinking about things before the challenge starts, and leave yourself a little room "between" the Strong and Weak outcomes that you can use for your Uncertain, but that isn't the only way you can do them. Uncertain outcomes are a great chance to put in twists or send things a little sideways. For the most basic level, though...try to write something that feels "between" the Strong and Weak outcomes. You can get more advanced with these later and have more fun with them (see my article on Uncertain Outcomes for more on that!).

Now, it bears mentioning that you can have more than one challenge in a scene - either by playing more than one challenge to the game at once, or by playing a new challenge to the game as a continuation after the first challenge is resolved. The point limit I described above applies, but otherwise, it's up to you how you want to handle it. Just be careful: It's important not to have challenges that clash - if one outcome could prevent another simultaneous challenge from being resolved, they probably shouldn't be out there at the same time. And you don't want to undo the results of an earlier challenge, generally - so don't play a follow-up challenge whose outcomes will undo the outcome the players just got.

Once you've set up the challenges, then, it's time to write the scene's actual text. When you're doing that, use the challenges as your guide. What's going on? What's important? Those are the things you want to call out in the scene text. The challenge descriptions are the basics, but here is where you get to dress things up a little bit and make it actually exciting. If you've got a challenge about a charging army, for instance, you don't just write "the army charges" as your scene text. Delve into how it looks. How it sounds. How the army is equipped. How the player characters' allies, if any, are reacting.

What you're doing isn't just mechanically kicking things off, though that's part of it. What you're doing is setting the scene and giving the players things to use. This matters. Setting the scene with the enemy army charging, talking about how they're heavily armored and well-equipped, and how the players' allies look like they're about to break and run, is very different than if you describe the charge as that of a massive but untrained and poorly equipped rabble, and the players' allies as confident and heavily armored themselves. In the former, players are going to write moves about finding ways to blunt the dangerous charge or work around it and encouraging their side. In the latter, players are going to write about knocking back the charge and working with their confident allies. The tone of the challenge will be very different.

Your outcomes can affect this too, of course - I talk about this on the player side, but outcomes both describe the ending and set a range of things that can happen during the challenge - but your scene text is going to be a much larger impact.

Aside from just setting the tone, though, as I said...you're giving players things to use. Cues. A lot of narration is setting up cues. It's what you do in the challenge description, it's what you do in the outcomes, and it's what you do in the scene text. You leave openings for players to fill in the blanks. You give details that they can use to expand their storytelling. You lay the groundwork, the foundation, that they will build upon to complete the story of the challenge.

That's the basics of narration in a nutshell. Look...there's more, a lot more, but narration, at heart, is doing the above...over, and over, until the game is complete. A lot of the rest is style - there are a lot of different narration styles, a lot of different priorities, and a lot of different ways a narrator can make Storium work for them. I go into those a lot in the articles below.

Above all, remember: You are narrating to help the players draw out a story. It isn't your story...it's yours and the players'. Narrate to help them write. Narrate to make things interesting for them. Your job isn't to challenge them as players. Your job is to help them as writers. Have fun, be a fan of them, enjoy what they write, and look for ways to help them bring out the themes of their characters.

For more on narration, you can see the "Storium Narration" category overall, but here are some articles I particularly recommend:


As Long As I'm There...

I started to clear the table this morning but it seemed a shame to clear it after a single game so.......



Now that my 54's are back on their Volley & Bayonet/Morschauser style 3" unit bases, the grid is less useful than it was. I still had the measuring sticks I made a couple of years ago with brightly coloured 3" segments. It is easy to use and read in dim light even without glasses and also makes the grid less useful as long as all ranges and moves are in multiples of 3".


Since it's not quite a Square Brigadier game I quickly scribbled a one page variation but decided to experiment with getting a bit more radical and  leaving out  even more detail and removing more unit action options since I was going to be playing a Thomas scenario anyway. By and large it worked and a play through only took about an hour using roughly 1/2 the planned total number of units per side.  I think I want to bring back a bit more colour and more player decisions but its going to take some thought and experimentation.


GameFly Experience (Monday Musings 77)

Addendum:
I returned Sekiro and by the next day, GameFly already shipped out a new game! I'm very happy thus far with my GameFly experience.

I decided to take advantage of GameFly's free month trial, and place Sekiro at the top of the list. Given that Sekiro was recently released, and GameFly noting that there's "low availability", I was surprised to see the game shipped out the day after I signed up for the trial! I signed up Monday, shipped Tuesday, and received Friday.

Given the popularity of Sekiro, I thought I had to wait a couple of weeks, at least, to receive the game, so I was pleasantly surprised to see "shipped" when I checked the status the next day. However, I'm not sure how quickly you can receive a game that has just been released that day. Would I have received Sekiro four days after its release date?

Looking through the list of GameFly games, I was impressed that they not only have the triple A titles, but also some niche ones including the Atelier series, that appear to come out yearly. I enjoyed Atelier Sophie, but not to the point where I want to buy future Atelier series at the $60 price point. 

You can keep the game for as long as you want, and once you finish the game, upon receipt, they mail you the next game.

Games in my queue are newly released Days Gone, Dragon Quest XI (as I was considering buying the game), soon to be released A Plague Tale: Innocence, and Red Dead Redemption 2. I'm curious to see for myself if I'd enjoy RDR2, and GameFly gives me the opportunity to do so free, as opposed to having buy the game and not enjoying it. 

As difficult as Sekiro is, even if it takes me 2 months to complete, the rental is nevertheless cheaper than buying the game full price. However, it does appear to be a game I'd like to buy on sale, once the Bundled edition comes out (From software always releases DLCs), so I can return Sekiro and hopefully get Days Gone (also "low availability").

Indeed, a strat that you can use, is to write down a list of all the game titles you're considering purchasing, sample these games, spending a few hours to see if this game is up your alley, and then return quickly to receive the next game. If a game appears to be a must own, then you can buy it without buyer's remorse. 

If you're a slow gamer like me and you like to take months on a game, then GameFly may not be a good option, since it costs $15.95/month for one game out at a time, or $22.95/month for two games out at a time.

So far, I've had positive experience with GameFly, albeit it's only been 1 week's experience. If you have a GameFly membership, please feel free to describe your experiences with them.

The How Of Happiness Review


LTUE Playing Evil Characters Panel



Probably every person who plays role-playing games (RPGs) at some point considers playing an evil character. The reasoning is likely because they want to play a character that has no limitations on the type of actions they can take. Before playing an anti-hero or villain in a game there are a number of considerations.

At the Life, The Universe and Everything Symposium (LTUE Website), I was on a panel covering some areas character players and game masters should consider before playing or having an evil character as part of their adventuring party.

The concept of having an alignment in terms of good versus evil is only in a few select, but well-known RPGs. Games without an assigned alignment to help guide a player still have the concept of evil being present. For the purpose of this discussion alignment was limited within the context of assigned limitations.

For all games, character action is a representation of a character's code of conduct or alignment more than the words written on the character sheet. I bring this up because I have seen players, through their character, perform amazingly evil acts and then claim they are not evil by pointing at their sheet. How to handle that is another, completely different discussion, but there might be some ideas you can take away from our panel discussion.

Motivations for Playing Evil Characters

Some players never consider playing an evil character, while others will push for the opportunity. Don't consider this to be anything bad about the player. RPGs are about exploring differences and that is one of the reasons players want to play evil, they can't be that way in real life. It is similar to playing a character of a different race, sex, physicality, skills, etc.

Sometimes players want to create chaos more than they want to be evil. In many cultures the chaotic individual is seen as being evil. In fantasy settings this is a major point of the Elric stories.

As a game master (GM) you have the right to put limitations on your game. If you don't want evil characters, don't allow them. I know GMs who have been running different campaigns for more than 20 years who don't allow evil characters. They've even pushed back on character actions and reminded the players that they are the heroes.

Character Motivations

Evil characters are harder to play than most people think they are. One of the first things to remember is a concept that is used in writing stories—the villain is the hero of their own story. This means they have motivations and characteristics like every hero. Their reasoning may be flawed, but they still see themselves as achieving something of greater good, not as the evil megalomaniac wanting to control the world just for the sake of power.

Characters can have the same motivation but see the path to accomplishing the goal differently. This is a prime difference between what is considered good and what is considered evil. Peace may be had by negotiating treaties or by killing all of one's adversaries. In many stories the evil lord is only trying to bring order and peace to their realm.

When wanting to play an evil character, you need to understand why they are evil, not just that they are evil. This will help define their motivations and how they will react. In reading novels, you will see where the evil characters are willing to let small victories go as they pursue their mission.


Pitfalls

Know what can be in store for you. I had two players who wanted to bring evil characters into an existing campaign. They thought it would be fun to disrupt the party from the inside. I tried to convince them it wasn't a good idea. They remained persistent after the warnings, so I allowed it. Their characters arrived outside the fort the party was helping to defend. They were allowed into the courtyard under strict guard and after a detection spell was cast were promptly slain. In games where evil can be identified, especially in settings where there is a strong storyline of two opposing sides, other players may be very willing to attack the evil characters before there is a chance for them to turn on the party.

Evil characters cannot act uncontrolled. I like to give a warning to players first looking at playing evil that they are not free to go through and kill everyone because they are simply evil. There should be consequences. If evil leaders killed on a whim followers or commoners that displeased them, they would soon be alone. If this was the common aspect of evil characters, every adventure in a tabletop of electronic RPG would be fighting only the final battle because the main boss would have already killed their minions. They have a plan and have enough underlings to sacrifice in the time of need. Player characters should have the same basic ideal of their fellow party members—the party is there to protect and keep them alive until they are no longer needed or become a hindrance.

Evil characters who are rash usually don't survive for long.

Final Thoughts

Playing evil can be enjoyable when done correctly.

Everyone on the panel had stories of games they had run or played in where an evil character provided a great storyline. One of the better ones was provided by Quiana Chase when she was running the DnD 5e Ravenloft adventure. It was a great example of how a single character willingly slipped deeper into an evil persona to achieve a greater goal they felt was for the better.

I have had the experience of playing a character who eventually became an assassin. During the campaign his best friend and comrade in battle was a paladin. They both embraced the aspects of being lawful and enforcing the laws and agreements made amongst the party and with others. Their tactics of enforcing the rules is where they differed.

If you have a desire to play an evil character, make sure your GM is willing to work with you. It is very important to keep a strong line of communication with them to make sure the character fits into the story you're building. Depending on the players, you may want them to know or not. Work that out with the GM also. I've always found that when you are keeping your motivations hidden from other players you should make sure you don't start doing something that others haven't seen. Gamers are quick to see a change and will cue on it, even if they don't intend to. For consideration, start passing notes to the GM early on and continue to do it. Don't pass the first note when you have defeated the enemy and you're preparing to divide the spoils.


Dancing in the Dark: How to Get the Most Out of Playing Evil Characters (from the program)

Evil characters can be fun and challenging to play but can cause both campaign and interparty issues. Are there solutions to these problems, or are they inherent in the type of play?

Other Panelists

Natalie Whipple

The author of fifteen novels, a pro gaming fan, a dungeon master, and perhaps the largest consumer of diet Mountain Dew Code Red on the planet. She graduated from BYU in English language with a minor in editing and is currently spending all her spare time being too extra for her D&D campaigns.

Quiana Chase

She creates simulations. She has helped produce large-scale simulations put on by Heroic Youth, Simulations Week, and others. Her jobs include working at the Lion's Gate space center, as an elementary school educator, and heading the Que Branch, which exclusively publishes work written by teens. Oh, and she writes novels. She also has a YA science fiction novel in the process of publication.

Jess Lindsay

She loves writing, theater, and making costumes. She takes turns running D&D campaigns with her regular group and takes her husband everywhere.

Ravvyn

They have been a nerdy creator all their life. They're something of a real life bard; they do a little bit of everything. They're a writer and game designer; they designed FUNdemental RPG, which is a d20-based TTRPG system. They stream regularly on Twitch with both TTRPG-based and variety streams. Additionally, they are a professional photographer and has done their fair share of cosplayand prop building as well. Their passion is bringing people together through art and games. patreon.com/TheRavynEvermore.

I'm working at keeping my material free of subscription charges by supplementing costs by being an Amazon Associate and having advertising appear. I earn a fee when people make purchases of qualified products from Amazon when they enter the site from a link on Guild Master Gaming and when people click on an ad. If you do either, thank you.

If you have a comment, suggestion, or critique please leave a comment here or send an email to guildmastergaming@gmail.com.

I have articles being published by others and you can find most of them on Guild Master Gaming on Facebookand Twitter(@GuildMstrGmng).



UCLan Games Design Christmas Party 2019!

Great Christmas Party! Great Company! Lots of fun. Happy Tutors :)

The photos speak for themselves:

Wishing all our lovely Games Design students a very Merry Christmas and a wonderful, happy and healthy New Year 2020!







































Have a great holiday and see you next year.











































































































































Copyright © 2006 Colline del Vento di Mario Castangia - Sito Ottimizzato per Internet Explorer 6.0 - Best View 1024x768px