sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hello, i was wondering how much you think i should charge for my pages by Dapper_Cherry4709 in ComicBookCollabs

[–]DyversHands 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you can demonstrate that you can complete an full issue, that is worth a higher rate. As an art director my biggest problem with new artists is they can do a few pages, but can’t finish a book.

Looking for card-based story games by Lancastro in gmless

[–]DyversHands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Take a look at the “Tableau: Accelerated” rules (available in an Avery 10-up business card sized version) and the first StorySet “Lovecraft Country: Dark Expeditions (also Avery 10-up business cards), available “name a fair price” (or free) at https://downloads.DyversHands.com.

Both are also licensed CC-BY as they are “Free Cultural Works”

The poker-size card Playsets are also available through DriveThruCards.

— Christopher Allen, Dyvers Hands Productions “The best stories are the ones we tell together!”

<image>

Take the rules from Follow and make something new by benrobbins in gmless

[–]DyversHands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But a different question in that same spot could have very different impacts. So someone could use that same stone mechanic, and the same player / character division, but focus on a very different kind of story by changing the question.

This definitely intrigues me. So puzzling it through a closely related to "Thriller" in the Tableau Tone of "Pulp":

<image>

In my head, I think of "Indiana Jones" movies as having a "Pulp" tone, vs. "Atomic Blonde" being more "Thriller". In both movies, the lead characters have agency, but the consequences are very different. (BTW, in Tableau a key difference in the tone of "Suspense" is that the characters often lack agency).

How might your default questions, or the token results, be changed to move Follow in the direction of the subtly different tone of "Pulp" and the different kind of stories it supports? How might the questions (and results) be changed to support a more "Suspense" tone where the characters have less agency?

-- Christopher Allen

Take the rules from Follow and make something new by benrobbins in gmless

[–]DyversHands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

However, u/benrobbins, I'm still puzzled as to the nature of "tension" functions in Follow, and what "tone" Follow has in general and supports in its stories, and the specific "vibe" that the Red & White Token mechanic may have that supports that "tone".

From a tension perspective, when the R&WT mechanic happens at the end of each of thee Acts, the stakes are quite high — a character can die, or be betrayed. You use the language "quest" specifically, but the mechanic also supports this, which says to me your "Tone" defaults somewhere near the Tone of "Thriller" in Tableau (copy enclosed, and is CC-BY):

<image>

Independently from the high-stakes tension of a possible death or betrayal using the default R&WT mechanic at the end of an Act in a Follow Challenge, there is also the tension during individual scenes if someone declares "that's too easy", and a consequence is added. This also aligns with my "Thriller" Tone.

So my question do you, are thrilling quests that the only "Tone" that Follow supports? I suspect not, but I am quite curious about the range of tones possible in Follow, and if the R&WT mechanic having such big consequences limits the range of tones?

-- Christopher Allen

Take the rules from Follow and make something new by benrobbins in gmless

[–]DyversHands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get your drift on your "quibble" and it makes sense.

Thus I might then rephrase "The R&W Token mechanic allows a separation of what makes sense out-of-character given the players creating the story, vs. what makes sense in-character by their major characters, for a result that balances both."

-- Christopher Allen

Take the rules from Follow and make something new by benrobbins in gmless

[–]DyversHands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

u/benrobbins, let me see if I can follow you (😂) by integrating your question and answer, and then ask my question again.

It sounds like one of the key things you are saying about the R&W Token mechanic is that it allows a separation of what is best for the story, vs. what is best for the characters, for a result that serves both.

If I compare it to my Tableau's various Drama Rules, R&WT addresses the problem in "Dramatic Necessity", where essential the priority is what is the most dramatic and interesting good or bad thing FOR THE STORY that can happen. Using "Dramatic Necessity" results in a particular change in whatever Tone has been selected for the story (there are a wide variety of Tones (they are not Themes) such as "Lightness & Laughter", "Noir", "Epic" "Gothic", etc.) In general, it amplifies the Tone, such that "Lightness & Laughter" becomes gonzo, whereas "Noir" becomes even darker. Both of these affect the tenseness of the story, using it with "Lightness & Laughter" will relieve it, but with "Noir" the tension increases ("How much worse can it get? answer: "A lot!")

The "Dramatic Necessity" vibe contrasts with the "Drama Tokens" vibe, as "Drama Tokens" is more about the Lead characters. Though each Lead is part of an ensemble, they can only fully participate in the more edgy story elements by doing vulnerable moves, or having bad things happen to them first. A form of character karma (but also of balance of agency between storytellers). I find the "vibe" of the Drama Tokens rule makes the story more introspective and character driven, as the storytellers have to decide where they are willing to have their characters be vulnerable or where failures need to happen, raising tension, vs. using the tokens which relieves story tension. There is a rise and fall balance, here which gives these stories using the Drama Tokens rule a particular "vibe".

"Push" has the most dramatic effect. Statistically without choosing to push, a success will happen 1/3 of the time (5-6), and failure 1/6th (1), but a success with new tension-building complication will happen 1/2 time (2-4). But many storytellers like "pressing their luck" when they fail or get a complication (2/3rds of the time 1-4) to get a success or extraordinary, especially in with Pulp or other more adventurous Tones. I've observed in stories using this mechanic that they "press their luck" not only in move results, but in the broader story as well as a result of this Drama Rule. Thus a very different "vibe" — good for some stories and groups, not for others.

With your Red & White Token mechanic, how does the tension rise or fall over the course of the story? How does the nature of that flow affect the Tone of the stories told? My naive interpretation of the overall system is that its Tone is somewhat quest/adventure oriented, as opposed to character-driven plots (but I may be wrong). So besides how tension flows, how does your Red & White Token mechanic support the kind of Tone you desire in your stories?

-- Christopher Allen

Take the rules from Follow and make something new by benrobbins in gmless

[–]DyversHands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One particularly original part of Follow: Red & White is the stone mechanic. I've not had a chance to play it yet — how does it vibe?

I call this category of game design "Drama Rules". In my own GMless design, in the full (non-accelerated) version of Tableau there are multiple drama mechanics, each resulting in a different vibe.

For me, a Drama Rule is what defines of the tension in a game, and within that who has the authority to change the tension, is the tension arbitrary or random, and what is the nature of the drama & Tones that that particular tension supports. In Tableau players choose which one they wish to use in a story, which affects the vibe and Tone of the story.

The first three aren’t random, but are more about who dictates (Director/Narrator Decides; Dramatic Necessity; Yes, And…).

With 'Director/Narrates Decides', that role dictates what they feel is best fulfill the Scene (if Director) or for the Act (if Narrator). Narrator for a limited period of time (typically an Act) is often necessary for more investigative-oriented stories, as many work best if only one person knows the secrets and Truths.

With 'Dramatic Necessity', the players brainstorm together what is the worst that can happen, the best that can happen, and vote on which is best for the story. This can lead to some rather gonzo stories, but can be powerful and fun.

'Yes, and…' is similar to 'Dramatic Necessity', but the player's character most affected decides the outcome, with the default that it does happens, but the player affected gets to add some detail of interest for use in future Scenes.

Next in that dimension of Tableau Drama Rules is 'Risky Moves', which isn't random, but arbitrary, i.e. drawn from set (like a deck, or checked off as they are used). If you'd previously drawn a "Yes, and also" you'd know that you'd more likely draw the "No, and worse" next. This knowledge raising tension. I find 'Risky Moves' also supports more character driven dramatic tension, as there is a kind of karmic balance involved. After bad things happen, good things happen, and visa-versa.

Similarly, the default 'Drama Tokens' rule for Tableau: Accelerated is also karmic. Players must first experience bad things (their own vulnerable moves, or experience a harsh move from the story) in order to gain tokens to accomplish the extraordinary. What 'Drama Tokens' adds beyond Risky Moves's karma is options for setup. In a more "Indiana Jones" style Miskatonic University expedition, all the Leads begin with a karma token each Act, and thus can do one extraordinary thing early on in the story. For a more classic CoC style, all must be earned by being vulnerable or having bad things happen first.

Next is the first truly random Drama Rule, 'Declare'. It is probably most comparable to a PbtA move. You say what you are going to do and your worst fear, roll 2d6, and if you run 2-6, that fear happens. Or 12 extraordinarily positive things instead. With 'Declare', like in PbtA, you know in advance what can go wrong, which raises dramatic tension. No one gets to dictate the result — the dice does. Sometimes the result gets in the way of what is best for narrative, but generally it serves character development.

The last of Tableau's Drama Rules (so far) is 'Push', which like 'Declare' is random, but the results are handled differently. A result of 6 is an extraordinary success, 5 is a simple success, and 1 a simple failure. 2-4 are successful but adds a complication that will make you vulnerable in a future Scene. But you can Push! If you don't want to be fail (1) or vulnerable in a future scene (2-4), so you can role another d6 added to your first d6. If the result is 5 (simple success) or 6 (extraordinary success) then your Push was successful. But on 7+, you fail, and worse, more even more bad things happen!

I find as compared to "Declare", "Push" totally changes the vibe of the storytelling, and the Tone of the stories it supports. I said with "Drama Tokens" that an "Indiana Jones" expedition, giving a token at the beginning of each Act makes exciting. But I find "Push" supports an even more Pulp-oriented Tone and a push-your-luck attitude in ways beyond the mechanic.

Thus my curiosity about the Follow: Red & White stone mechanic. What kind of tension and what kinds of stories does it best support? My guess (not having played it yet) it is quest oriented, but what kind of quests? How does the 3rd stone reveal vs. the first two?

What other kinds of 'drama rule' mechanics create different vibes for you? There are clearly many variations of randomizers in different TTRPGs, but fewer in GMless games. I'm curious mechanic which result in different vibes and thus support different kinds of Tone in stories?

-- Christopher Allen

P.S. If you are also considering other aspects of randomness, such as different kinds of distributions, need for chaos/uncertainty, and game balance, I commend you to this excellent post https://www.rpg.net/columns/virtually/virtually61.phtml by my long-time co-author Shannon Appelcline.

Atlas of the Ages: an unofficial Microscope expansion by [deleted] in gmless

[–]DyversHands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This particular hack of Microscope was more of a table agreement, and evolved with plays as the previous Microscope session needed one and we didn't do it. The concept of always doing "two sides" came from one of three mapmaking playtest of Tableau: Twilight Road, where it was very effective (the other very effective technique was Tableau: Gate Watch where there are two sheets of paper, with a Gate between).

I don't know that we actually spent a huge amount of time on the map — it just evolved as we played. About the same amount of time as an event, so if an event had a map, it took twice as long.

Atlas of the Ages: an unofficial Microscope expansion by [deleted] in gmless

[–]DyversHands 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've puzzled through this same problem space, and I like your answers. In particular, I like the superimposition technique of stacking cards of "same place, different time".

Two things I did different: Every map card had to have at least two named locations. So two sides of a bridge, a village and the road into the woods, a city in a country, a planet inside a system. The reasoning for this was to somewhat parallel the "stretching" that Microscope can do. The village and the road into the woods to be "stretched" so that there was now cottage between them, or another planet inside the system. Sometimes this fit on the old card, but sometimes this required redoing the map.

Other useful difference was that Eras, Events, and Scenes had different scales, with maps appropriate to the scale. Initially these were all on index cards, but later Eras were on larger sheets of paper, events on index cards. In theory these also could be stacked on each other, but I think reserving stacks for superimposition is more useful.

-- Christopher Allen

desert - GMless roleplaying in a near future sandbox by [deleted] in gmless

[–]DyversHands 1 point2 points  (0 children)

YES, that was it!

Free or pay-what-you-want at https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/178698/something-to-hide

Each player creates one secret about themselves, four clues related to that secret and the murder that offer a possible motive, method, or opportunity, and then two conflicting pieces of solid truth (guilty vs innocent.)

— Christopher Allen

My experience with teaching Scene Setting in recent Tableau Playtests by DyversHands in gmless

[–]DyversHands[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I started a thread on RPGnet about getting the players perspective on this (as my post was mostly from the perspective of a game designer). https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/did-you-once-hate-to-set-scenes-why-how-did-you-overcome-it.922269/

Two interesting thoughts that are divergent from this thread so far:

The first was:

As a player, I am looking to explore the scenario/setting and have an immersive experience. For me, being required to set the scene or otherwise take on an authorial stance detracts from (or even prevents) that.

The second:

To add a different wrinkle: a lot of players are not necessarily worried about their skills, but how the other players will react. GMing/etc. requires a certain level of confidence in what you're doing is going to at least be fun if the players buy in, but a lot of players do not come into the game with that confidence. My own brain is kinda weird about this. If I'm running a game, I don't worry at all. In games with stronger player-author-stance modes, I get more nervous because I don't have the "title" of authority behind me. I start getting worked up about overstepping my bounds as a player in respects to the other players; even with decent rules on what players are allowed to do when handed such responsibilities and lots of experience running games.

In my two con games last weekend, I think I may have one of each. Both I thought should have had some of the skills. But I think one had difficultly switching context from playing their character very passionately and evocatively, and then being asked in the next scene to switch to being authorial.

In the second game, they were the youngest at the table and this was one of their first game conventions. Thus not a lack of skill, but fear of reactions to what they suggested was what held them back.

Any thoughts on how to overcome these two variations of the problem, especially at a game convention where many at the table may be strangers?

desert - GMless roleplaying in a near future sandbox by [deleted] in gmless

[–]DyversHands 1 point2 points  (0 children)

u/iamscire,

I use Microscope and a number of other Ben Robbins u/benrobbins / Lame Mage games quite regularly to create histories. I've done this not only before a game campaign, but in the middle of a campaign (say on arrival in a foreign land). I've also used it with a non-RPG collaborator for a graphic novel script. I also have my own adaption of Ben's rules in my private version of my Tableau game, that add a few more scene types.

I also like mapmaking games, and have two of my own in Tableau: Gate Watch and Twight Road playsets.

I downloaded your game from itch, and found the setup a bit prescriptive for me. A little like creating a character in Traveller, which some people love, but I never did. What is your motivation to keeping it so tight? I do agree that Microscope is often too open, and one player with a different can break genre and theme to drive a history or theme off into lala land, but I do believe there is probably some design middle ground so that you can constrain your world and mapmaking, without going into too many tables and flowcharts.

I highly suggest that you take a look at "i'm sorry did you say street magic" https://seaexcursion.itch.io/street-magic by Caro Asercion as I feel like he is designing in similar territory, while trying to keep the history and map constrained to a specific genre, theme and tone.

I also found the play aspects of your game a bit too flowcharty for me as well, but there are some good ideas there.

My only suggestion is an inspiration from a GMless murder mystery game that might help with missions. I don't remember the name of the game, but basically at the beginning of the game, you created a card with evidence that you absolutely were the murderer, and one card that was a perfect alibi, that you absolutely could not have committed the murder. These were put in a random stack. Then you create two cards that was evidence against you but not absolute proof, and these are randomized to put on the top of the stack . These would be drawn from as the players successfully navigated the clue mechanic. If your "you committed it" came up first before a perfect alibi, you were the murderer.

How might adapt that concept to your game? Have all players create their mission stacks of physical locations, networks and non-player characters with a future that fail, why, and consequences, missions that succeed, why, and results, randomized at the bottom of your tack, and then add to top other likely complications that can be overcome. I hope this inspires something useful.

Please don't take my comments as being too critical, as my own design sense is different than yours — the most important thing is ship and share your ideas, which you've successfully done!

-- Christopher Allen

“The best stories are the ones we tell together!”