Sequels, Adaptations, Remakes, and Star Vehicles

I'm not sure if it's really a new thing, but Hollywood films really seem to have become very conservative - almost every big film seems to either be a sequel ("Fast & Furious 7"), an adaptation ("Captain America: Civil War"), a remake ("Ghostbusters"), or occasionally a star vehicle (whatever the latest thing starring Johnny Depp or Tom Cruise is). You get the occasional exception, but if it's going to have the big bucks behind it, it seems it's going to be one of those four.

But are RPGs really any different? For a supposedly creative industry, there seems to be a remarkable lack of new things coming. And we most certainly have our share of sequels ("Shadowrun"), adaptations ("Firefly"), remakes ("Curse of Strahd"), and star vehicles (whatever the latest thing done by Monte Cook or John Wick is). Thinking back, I'm hard pressed to recall the most recent big-name game that wasn't one of those four - was it really as long ago as "Mutants & Masterminds"?

I suppose it has always been thus: in the early days the market was dominated by the "fantasy heartbreaker" - a D&D near-clone of one sort or another that basically had one good idea that set it apart. Later, it was d20 material that proliferated. And there have been plenty of sequels and adaptations along the way. I guess the star names are somewhat new... it wasn't until Gary Gygax left TSR and started making games for other people that that was even possible.

But is this it? Where's the new newness? Or is the industry now coming to an end, where innovation basically amounts to doing the same old things in slightly different ways, leading to inevitable stagnation and the end of days?

Also: get off my lawn!

Episodic Play

I was talking to Captain Ric at the weekend, and he asked if it had become normal for RPG campaigns to be structured more like TV series, with distinct episodes, and story arcs, and the like. Well, I don't know if it's the norm in RPGs in general, but it is true that I tend to structure my RPGs more in this vein these days.

There's a reason for that.

Back in the day, I used to play pretty much every week, generally on a Saturday afternoon for 6-8 hours at a stretch. (I suspect the length of the session is less important than the frequency and regularity of the sessions.) Campaigns would last for six to twelve months, or until we either suffered a TPK or rebelled against the concept.

What this meant in terms of game-play was that we'd sit down, play for a bit, and whenever the allocated time came to an end we'd just stop. (Actually, I'd time it so we'd stop either right before or just after an encounter - our stop times were somewhat flexible, so that was easy enough to arrange.) Then we'd pack up, and the next week we'd just pick up where we left off.

Needless to say, times have changed. These days, I play for 3 hours once every four weeks (in any given campaign). This means that I'm now both more conscious of the pressures of time on the game, and I'm also aware that events carrying on from one session to the next are much more likely to be forgotten in the meantime.

My solution to this has indeed been to adopt a much more episodic structure to game sessions, complete with breaking each session down into four loosely-defined acts. (Obviously, it doesn't always neatly follow that structure, and I retain a significant degree of flexibility, but I at least start with a baseline.)

It was then a short step from adopting a TV-like episodic structure to looking also at the way modern TV series link episodes. In particular, in shows like "Star Wars: the Clone Wars" and "24", there are very distinct three- or sometimes four-episode arcs: a plotline will be introduced in one episode, which then ends on a cliffhanger; it is then followed up in the next one or two episodes, which end on cliffhangers; and then it is concluded in a final episode. Which actually works particularly well in level-based games, because three sessions is an almost ideal length of time to stick at a single level - players get to try out most or all of their new goodies, get used to the new power level, and then the move on before they start to get bored.

Likewise, I now tend to very distinctly group sessions into "seasons" or "volumes", each with their own character. Which, again, rather neatly fits in with the tiers build in to D&D-like games in recent versions (either explicitly in 4e or 5e, or implicitly as in 3e or SWSE). And so the first volume covers the Apprentice tier (1-4), concluding with the PCs reaching 5th level. At which point the story moves on to a distinctly new phase for a second volume in the Heroic tier (5-10), and so on. (Though so far only "The Eberron Code" completed all three planned volumes, so it remains to be seen if that's really a winner, or if it was just a lucky outcome.)

(Incidentally, the pressure of time now means that I have little tolerance for in-build "time-waste" activities. Whereas once upon a time I would have been fine with R poring over the DMG for an hour to pick out just the right magic item for his character, I now want to streamline this as far as possible - if you want a particular item for your character, just assume he finds time to go to the market to buy it; don't expect me to roleplay the encounter! Likewise, if you can do levelling-up between sessions, that's much appreciated. Now that game sessions are compressed, I'd like to cram as much into them as possible!)

Anyway, that's where things stand at the time of writing. It obviously remains to be seen how, or if, things will change in the near future.

Adventure Modules I Have Run

An interesting topic came up on ENworld which caused me to compile a list (probably incomplete) of the adventures that I have run. It was quite interesting to realise just how few I've actually run especially when compared with the list of those I've simply read. Anyway, the list...

(I should note: these are for D&D only. I've run a number of adventures for other systems, notably Vampire and Serenity/Firefly.)

B7: Rahasia

This was an adventure I tried to run way back when I was in high school. It's fair to say I had some odd expectations for how the game was played back then, and as a consequence this module basically collapsed in on itself. Alas, I no longer have my copy; I suspect it would be interesting to re-read this one with older eyes to see what (if anything) I missed.

X1: Isle of Dread

I actually tried to rn this one several times, again while back in high school. It was somewhat successful, hampered by my not really understanding hex-crawls or exploration based adventures. Memories are rather hazy...

X2: Castle Amber

I have no memory of this adventure beyond remembering that I ran it. I doubt it went any better than "B7: Rahasia", really. And, as with that other module, I no longer have my copy available to see where it went wrong.

I6: Ravenloft

Ah, the classic. I ran this one while visiting an old friend in the States. This adventure has an awful lot to answer for in terms of its lesser derivitives, but the module itself is great, even if Strahd Von Zarovich is really a Dracula clone. Anyway, fun times.

The Shattered Circle

Another great adventure, this one I ran for my university group as part of a 2nd Ed campaign we started just before 3e launched. That campaign faltered as soon as 3e launched, as it proved to be a game-changer, but this adventure remains fondly remembered (by me at least).

The Burning Plague

A free adventure that WotC made available when 3e launched, I used this as a test-bed for the new 3e rules (before the DMG or MM came out, even!). It's a fun little adventure that really helped sell me on the new game.

Sunless Citadel

This was one of two test games I ran for a completely different group over a number of evenings. In play, it's a very solid adventure. (An analysis of the structure highlights some significant weaknesses, which probably limits its viability for repeated use. But that probably serves to highlight the difference between an adventure that is good in theory versus one that is good in practice.)

Forge of Fury

Despite being a sequel of sorts to "The Sunless Citadel", this adventure actually served me as part of the first 3e campaign I ran with my university group. It went fine, up until the point that the party decided to abandon the dungeon and go do something else instead - which was fine, if unexpected.

The Speaker in Dreams

Shortly after abandoning "The Forge of Fury", that same campaign found the PCs investigating the events of this adventure. I ran this adventure in a heavily modified form and wasn't entirely happy with it... but was less unhappy than my read-through left me. Sadly, it's just not a well-structured murder mystery (and serves to show that sometimes an adventure that is weak in theory can also be weak in practice).

Dungeon: Dungeon of the Fire Opal

The second of the two test games I ran for that evening group, this adventure is notable for using the sample dungeon provided in the 3e (and 1st Ed) DMG. It's a fun little adventure, filled with all the classic tropes. This is one I definitely recommend as a candidate for use with new players.

Dungeon: The Cradle of Madness

Another adventure from Dungeon magazine, this happened to be published at exactly the right time - I needed an adventure for that first 3e campaign, my PCs were just the right level, and the plotline fit exactly into the unfolding story of the campaign. It was ideal... and a good adventure generally. Huzzah!

The Shackled City Adventure Path

I've spoken about this before, it forming one of my "Big Four" of great campaigns. I'll therefore say no more about this, except to note again that I ran this using the "magazine version" of the campaign rather than the compiled hardback version (with the extra chapter).

Savage Tide: There is No Honor

Sadly, my second attempt to run a pre-published Adventure Path crashed and burned. This was largely due to two weaknesses in this first adventure: there's an investigation segment where the path of clues breaks if the players either blow key rolls or they run out of ideas of where to look; and then the raid on the guildhouse is marked by lots of very narrow corridors, so that nobody can move freely in combat. A real shame, because later segments of this campaign looked like a lot of fun.

Kobold Hall

The first of two adventures I ran in 4e, this was the sample adventure from the 4e DMG. I wasn't a fan at all - this is essentially a linear sequence of combats with little of interest in between. It ended in a TPK... and I think the players were quite glad of it!

Tomb of Horrors (4e)

The only other 4e session I ran was the first encounter from this adventure. When 2.5 hours out of a 3-hour game session were taken up with a "throwaway" combat to set the scene, something was badly wrong. Reading later through the book convinced me that the rest of the game wasn't worth the effort either, so I abandoned both this adventure and the edition as a whole (at least as DM).

Lost Mine of Phandelver

I've talked about this one before as well, so I'll not repeat it here. I remain a fan of this adventure, even if I'm growing less enamoured of the edition as a whole.

Why 5e Is (probably) Not For Me

Unless something changes, I'm afraid I'm running my last (indeed, only) 5e campaign. Like 4e before it, I have concluded that this edition just isn't for me. Unlike with 4e, though, the reason for this isn't a distaste for the game, which I actually like a great deal, but is instead due to a structural issue in the game itself.

5e is balanced using the concept of an "adventuring day" - the idea is that the party would face 4-6 encounters and then take a long rest, which effectively resets them back to full health. Which is absolutely fine. However, crucially, it's fairly inelastic when it comes to those encounters; although there can be some variation, shifting much beyond those bounds, especially by using fewer, bigger encounters is problematic.

At the same time, we play with a schedule of one 3-hour game session per month. Which is also fine - it's a schedule that works reasonably well, and although I'd never claim it as the "best" schedule (since I don't think that's a meaningful concept), it's fine for what we want.

So far, so good. But...

With only one session a month, it's really not ideal to have to carry state data across from one session to the next - it's far better if the PCs can start each session with a clean slate as far as hit points, spells expended, and the like are concerned. Ideally, then, each session would be a single "adventuring day" - indeed, a structure where one session was one 'day' would be perfect for us.

5e would therefore be a perfect fit... except that the built-in adventuring day doesn't fit in the session length that we have. And try as I might, I just don't see a way to make it fit - even running four encounters in three hours is a tight sqeeze, and that's if everything outwith those encounters is excised, leaving virtually no room for roleplay, exploration, or storytelling (none of which are suitable sacrifices).

Sadly, I don't see a way to square that circle. I'll keep an eye on it, because it's not impossible that a solution will present itself, and I don't intend to just drop the campaign unless and until it becomes unworkable.

But if things stay as they are, this is the end. A shame.

Negation

One of the better bits of advice in the 4e DMG is "say yes". It's not an absolute rule, of course, and in particular "yes" stands on a continuum ("yes, and", "yes", "yes, but", "no, but", "no", and "no, and what's more"), but the principle is sound - and it is that, as much as possible, the DM shouldn't negate the player's preferred choice of action. So if something might work out, even if it's not what the DM envisaged, it's better to allow the attempt than to simply rule it out.

Which is cool. A player's character is the one thing they get to control in the game. The DM gets to control everything else. That being the case... hands off!

But there's another part to that: it applies to the other players, too. If one of the players at the table declares an action, even if it's clearly a stupid action,it's not appropriate for another player to jump in with "I stop him from doing that." Especially if the second player's character could only know the action was stupid after it was done.

(For example, if the big dumb barbarian decides to call the king a cowardly little shit in front of his court, then the player of the bard shouldn't declare he stops him from doing so - by the time the bard realises just how bad it's going to get, it's already too late.)

Of course, in addition to messing with the other player's agency, the other issue there is that you're also messing with their portrayal of their character. If Bob is playing a big dumb barbarian, it's entirely possible that the character is exactly the sort who would insult a king to his face, and damn the consequences. And, yeah, that's going to make it a damn sight harder to 'win' the game, because the group have just made a powerful enemy, but it actually doesn't hurt the game if things go wrong in interesting ways.

But, really, it's the 'agency' thing that's important. You have your character to play; leave Bob to play his.

And, of course, it's important to note that this is also not an absolute rule. If Bob's barbarian is heard to utter "I can jump that far" when he manifestly can't, the other characters might well urgently persuade him not to do so! But, in general, it's better to let the other guy act and then deal with the consequences, rather than step on another player's toes.

Firefly: Combo

The first "Lost Episode" of 2016 had triple duty to pull, giving it an awful lot to carry. Firstly, it had to be a good game in its own right, since that's really what we want from such things. Secondly, it had to be a suitable "season opener" for the 2016 "Lost Episodes". And, thirdly, it had to seed the legend of the Westlake, a lost Alliance POW transport from the war, which will be a recurring element in the sessions for this year.

(Although the "Lost Episodes" will remain an open tabletop game with minimal continuity, I've decided to acknowledge the fact that I usually have mostly the same players. That being the case, I'm slightly increasing the interconnections between the sessions. And, in particular, I'm not going to shy away from using the "Ghost in the Black" storyline, which has five episodes with a linked theme. Oh, and there may even be a two-parter in there somewhere...)

This episode linked back strongly to the war, indeed starting with a flashback to an action on Aphrodite where Mal, Zoe, and a demolitions expert named Alicia were placing explosives under an Alliance bunker. As she finished the installation, Alicia told Mal and Zoe to leave, and she'd catch up. But Mal hesitated due to his... involvement with Alicia. Zoe wanted him to hurry, but he delayed, meeting Alicia as she left the tunnels... only to be caught in the explosion as kit went off early...

From there, the adventure was fairly linear - Mingo and Fanty wanted to speak with Alicia about a locker they'd recovered from the Westlake, and the Crew therefore wanted to track her down. So they visited a retired Browncoat doctor on Persephone, then high-tailed it over to Dyton to extract Alicia from Alliance suspicion, then they took her to Beaumonde to speak to the twins. Simple.

Except not. Because Alicia blamed Mal for the explosion that disfigured her - he was the last to handle the fuses before she set them, and she was sure he'd tampered with them. The truth was even harder, though, in that it was Zoe who had adjusted the fuses. She'd learned that Alicia had crossed the line and was now targetting non-combatants and children. Of course, Mal wasn't for hearing this, so Zoe took steps to deal with the psychopath.

And it went spectacularly well. Every so often, there's a session that reminds you just why you play these games and why you put in all the work required, and this was such a session. And it was almost entirely down to the players - Zoe revealed the secret to Mal, who took it appropriately badly. Shepheard Book, meanwhile, tried his best to help... and proved extremely useful in several other situations, notably when dealing with the Alliance officials on Dyton. And then there was the inevitable showdown between a demolitions expert with a death wish and a warrior woman with the best of intentions.

Finally, at the end... they didn't kill her. It was awesome.

So, yeah, I was very happy with that one. Next up, assuming the move doesn't get in the way, is "Six Cylinders Make a Right", the first of the five episodes in the "Ghost in the Black" arc.

Firefly Characters #4 of 7: The Pilot (revised)

This is something I've been meaning to post for a long time. As I've mentioned before, I was never entirely happy with how to handle the character Sabra from the crew of Betty that I use for one-shots. At one point I thought I'd settled on giving her two 'fixed' and one 'floating' distinction, but I then spotted something in "Alien: Resurrection" that led me to settle on a third, quite useful, third distinction. Therefore, I've taken the time to revise the character, and can now present the results:

Sabra Hillard: Pilot

Attributes

Mental d8
Physical d8
Social d8

Skills

Craft d4
Drive d4
Fight d6
Fix d4
Fly (Transports) d10
Focus d4
Influence d6
Know d4
Labour d4
Move d6
Notice d8
Operate (Computers) d6
Perform d4
Shoot d8
Sneak (Surveillance) d6
Survive d6
Throw d4
Treat d6
Trick d8

Distinctions

Ship's Pilot
The list of folks wanting to hire you is longer than your arm. You're just that good.
Born Behind the Wheel: Spend 1 PP to step up or double your ship's Engines Attribute for your next roll.

Veteran of the Unification War
It don't matter which side you fight on, war leaves a mark on your heart n' soul.
War Stories: When you create an Asset or take a Complication related to a wartime flashback, step it up.

Hitched
You ever been with a warrior woman?

Signature Assets

Betty: d8
She may be a piece of le se, but Betty can still turn a trick or two with Sabra at the helm.

Roleplaying Notes

Sabra Hillard was born in the Black, and has lived most of her life out there. Indeed, she prefers the feel of artificial gravity to the real thing.

Growing up, Hillard was constantly on the move, constantly seeing new places, new faces. And, when the time came, she eagerly joined the Trader's Guild, following the same career as her parents before her. And she was happy there for several years.

But in time, even sticking with the same job proved to be stifling to her, and so when the opportunity came to sign on with Betty, she eagerly did so. Shortly thereafter, she became involved with the captain, and things were good.

Once again, though, Hillard is beginning to find the routine of it all uncomfortable. She's starting to think that her future is elsewhere again. It's not that she wants to leave; it's just that she's not sure she can stay.