But how will I know the good side from the bad?

Over several months of contemplating Star Wars and the two older RPGs thereof (don't have anything like the money to even touch the FFG trilogy of tomes), I've continued to find my mind split right down the middle. I own the core books for both the West End Games D6 version (the original one), and the Wizards of the Coast d20 version (revised). My miniatures habit has continued to swell like Val Kilmer's ego once did, and I'll briefly put some notes in bullet points.

• The Star Wars Miniatures game based on the d20 rules is pretty good. Relatively fast to play, and the abundance of characters in the Fringe faction means that I might be able to adapt the rules for three sides instead of just two (living with two other nerds, one wants to include them when possible). The very small number of New Republic minis that aren't Luke or Han's kids is a bit disappointing, but there are still some gems out there.
• Thirdly, as much as I like the core of the d20 System for combat skirmishes, the roleplaying games based on it are just too much. Not running Star Wars d20 unless at least one of my potential players makes a massive commitment to mastering the rules - in exchange for which, I might be persuaded to make a similar effort for her Starfinder campaign. Quid Go Pro, and all that.
• Next, the D6 version has some peculiarities. Part of this is my own unfamiliarity with things that aren't D&D or D&D-based, but some of the rules are a bit confusingly worded and structured. Perhaps the 2nd edition resolves some of these issues, but I'm reluctant to drop more cash on that core book without trying this one in more detail.
• Sixth and lastly, this White Star game that everyone's been talking about (or was a few years ago, back before the Renaissance turned into the Old School Ragnarok). It's pretty cool! Rules-lite enough for me, but maybe a bit too rules-lite in places - especially where starships are concerned. Still might pick it up at some point, though.
• And in conclusion, I nabbed the Star Munchkin RPG at my game store. Might actually be persuaded to give this a shot if I find the right group - who I might have to sew together from HackMaster 4e and Halberd players.

Storytelling "Games" Are Different

Storytelling games aren't games, per se. Not in the same sense as a board game like Trivial Pursuit, a video game like Marathon 2, or a quasi-sport like tenpin bowling. The closest term I can find that describes them is an "activity", but that word is so vague and broad that it adds additional time to most conversations, to the extent that one frequently resorts to the term "game" anyway just to get out of the conversational clover-loop.

Me: I'll be running an... activity next Today.

Any human: What kind of activity?

Me: Umm... a storytelling activity.

Any human: What?

Me: A... game, kind of.

I'm not the only one who can't find a more appropriate, generally-understood word than "game" to describe this sort of thing. On the American version of Whose Line Is It Anyway? (one of the few shows I will stop and watch if it's on) the various portions of the show, such as "Dubbing" and "Scenes From A Hat", are referred to as games by the host. There are sometimes rules put in place; in "Questions", the performer is buzzed and has to swap out with their teammate if they can't think of a response, or answer in the form of a statement.

But the penalty for breaking the rules of the show itself - i.e., no content that makes the censor unhappy - is that the "game" temporarily halts, and things are reset to a prior point. (This isn't apparent when watching the broadcast, but watching the outtakes reels like this one can be very instructive - not to mention, frequently just as funny as the finished show.) The rules in an improvisational activity like WLIIA are more guidelines to ensure that "play" proceeds smoothly. This is purely format-oriented and censor-oriented in that show, but in a storytelling "game", tone and agency are also important.

Another example from television is helpful here; in an episode of The Office (again, the US version) where Michael is at an improv class, he frequently disrupts others' scenes by charging in with a handgun and shooting everyone. The other participants generally comply, acting as if they were shot, but are clearly not happy about it; their reactions suggest that this happens even more frequently than the viewers are shown. We've probably all encountered players like Michael, and even if they aren't bad people, they're bad players in the sense of being disruptive - having fun at their peers' expense.

I would suggest that this tends to happen more in storytelling "games" than in roleplaying games, due to the use of easily-bent guidelines rather than mutually agreed-upon and enforced rules, but I haven't had enough experience with the former to be sure; perhaps someone else can offer their two cents.

What's the difference?

But what separates a storytelling "game" from an RPG? An easy distinction is sometimes provided by the product itself; Prince Valiant, as well as most of the World of Darkness lines (Classic, New, and Chronicles), specifically refer to themselves as Storytelling Games. These games de-emphasize rules, suggesting that dice rolls be minimal and that rules be changed or ignored in the service of the "story"; in Prince Valiant, it is even explicitly stated that players have only limited agency.

In contrast, a roleplaying game - emphasis on game - has defined rules that are adhered to, and the emergence of a "story" can be something that is applied afterwards, rather than consciously created by the Referee and/or certain players. The game may not have the same limits as a board or card game, but it does still have some limits, demarcated by the rules.

If a game specifically identifies itself as an RPG, that doesn't mean that the presentation of the rules is geared toward providing rules for a game. It certainly doesn't mean that a particular group will treat it as such. I've been in multiple games referred to as "Dungeons & Dragons", and with a bright red D&D emblem on the covers of the rulebooks, that were clearly being run as storytelling games. I've also discovered that some games, such as Halberd, are too loosely written and full of gaps to function as actual RPGs - but as the framework for a storytelling game, they're adequate.

This does not mean that storytelling games are bad or wrong. A storytelling game can be a great deal of fun for those who enjoy improvisational thinking and character interaction, when the players and the Storyteller "click" and agree on what they will and will not do. (Boundaries are just as important in a storytelling game as in an RPG - possibly more so.) And I've participated in storytelling games that were almost completely free-form, with the only method of task resolution being a Magic 8-Ball (seriously). These were fun, but in a very different way than an RPG.

Neither a storytelling game nor a roleplaying game is the best kind of game, and it's definitely possible to enjoy both. But I think that having a clearer distinction between the two, and making it clear which is preferred and which is being offered, will lead to a lot less friction and disappointment about the game itself. There will always be overly-controlling "Dungeon Masters", narcissistic players, and potato-headed rulebook authors, but if a player knows that they're getting into a storytelling game and is prepared to participate in such, they will be less likely to balk at the lack of risk or the use of fuzzy rules (heh) than if they were told that they were joining a roleplaying game.

I'd replace the title with "Storytelling", but that would make it less clear to most.

Brief update on the Fuzz

So, it has been almost two months since my last post. There are several reasons for this, but they all stem from university life; dealing with finals, as well as trying to keep the tabletop gaming club from imploding, have left little time for running or playing games, let alone blogging about them. Fortunately, I now have good news on both fronts: I should be graduating with a B. A. in English, and the club's first major transition of power went well enough that some of the new executives bought me The Complete Wizard's Handbook for 2e as a graduation present!

In other gaming-related news, here's a brief summary of my gaming activities over the past two months.

• One of my friends has been running a regular Pokémon game using the Pokémon Tabletop United ruleset. It is, to use the favorite expression of one of my fellow players, a shitshow.
• I finally got a chance to run Halberd. Character creation was indeed fast, and play was similarly fast; the downside is that the rules are so loosely written and sparse (to the point of lacking equipment prices aside from weapons and armor) that I had to make a lot up on the spot. Way too much for my comfort. Sadly, I will probably not be running this one again, though I'm glad I gave it a shot.
• I bought Underground, a fairly obscure 1993 pseudo-cyberpunk/pseudo-superhero game by Ray Winninger. The art and the setting are amazing, but the system will take some figuring out; worst case scenario, I might end up chucking the system and running the setting using Savage Worlds. The PDF is available at DriveThruRPG (at full cover price, though it's currently discounted to $12.50) for anyone who's interested.
• On a related note, I was dismayed to find that there was no PDF of the character sheet available online. I sent a request in to the DTRPG people, and they soon provided one and made it publicly available - a huge "thank you" to Steve W. for doing so!
• I finally got to run AD&D 2nd Edition again after having zero opportunities to do so during the semester. Even better, this was a long session, lasting from around 7:00pm to 2:00am, though we hung out and talked until well past 4:30am. One of my best friends - who was unable to attend any other games this semester, due to an especially harrowing calculus class - was even able to attend, and I got one of my friends who had previously sworn off the system (as well as most fantasy games) to agree to play. Fun was had by all, although...
• I used Alexis' XP system once again, as I had done with my original "comeback" session detailed here. The issue that cropped up was one of balance; the players breezed through enemies that had previously given most of them a great deal of trouble (and resulted in one TPK). They also played smart, which meant that the elven thief with 19 Dexterity was up on the roof shooting two arrows per round, and went from 2nd to 3rd level in a single session. Meanwhile, my friend who I convinced to rejoin - playing a fighter with 18 Dexterity and good armor - had rotten luck with the dice, meaning that he could neither deal nor receive damage in most of the fights, and therefore got very little experience. As much as I like Alexis' XP system, my players demand a more balanced awarding of XP, so I will probably go with the individual class-based awards in the 2nd Edition Dungeon Master Guide.
• This will also be necessary because I might soon be running a group of my two best friends and some of their LGBTQ+ friends - a veritable "Queer D&D" as they call it - and they plan to focus more on exploration and social stuff. Since a common complaint in my games is that it takes forever to level up (an issue of monster balance; either they breeze through and get very little XP, or they struggle and nearly get wiped out), I'll have to keep XP from non-combat-related achievements in mind. I also bought a very nice, discontinued Chessex vinyl mat to use as a wilderness map as they explore.
• Finally, I managed to get my gray-market PDF of the HackMaster 4th Edition Player's Handbook printed and bound at a local copy shop. I realize that actually running this would require my violating part of the Player Code of Conduct (no distributing scanned or photocopied HM books), but since 4e is no longer legally available new in any form, I don't feel bad about it.

Now that I'm done with school for several years, and will only be working a part-time job (if any), I should have more time for gaming - and for blogging about such.

Single-book systems

As much as I enjoy leafing through my AD&D 2nd Edition core books, I can't help but acknowledge that a huge part of the appeal of B/X is its compactness. I put the character sheets, scratch paper, and my notes (typed or hand-written) into my large zippered binder, slot the Moldvay Basic Rulebook right next to them (thank goodness they drilled holes in it!), and I'm ready to go. This is a lot harder to do when there are one to three hardcover books involved, although I could manage if I were a player in a 2nd Edition game.

(Speaking of which, I really want to get a hold of one of those "Player Packs" they came out with for 2e. These were a plastic clamshell case with a handle - much like my old Lego boxes - that included a set of dice, pencils, character sheets, and miniatures, and were designed to hold a copy of the Player's Handbook in the lid. Anyone else want one?)

Anyone? Come on!

Back on topic, I'm beginning to see the value in having all of the rules in a single volume. The best example I can find of this is the almighty Rules Cyclopedia, which I still hold hopes of obtaining in like-new condition. Nowadays, though, I'm thinking of making my own, as Timothy S. Brannan has explained how he did so on his blog. Seriously, standard classes, supplementary classes, an entirely optional skill system, a list of classic monsters not included in B/X, rules for high-level play (i.e., what your character does when they get tired of flipping dungeons and crawling around hexes)... the only thing missing from this is the level titles. And if I decide that the game gets too unbalanced after passing out of the B/X level range, I can always just use my DM powers and set a level cap of 14.

Should I ever decide to escape the gravitational pull of the D&D brand, I have one of two major options that I would seriously consider (aside from Basic Fantasy, which is a fantastic modernization of B/X in my opinion - to the point that I'm considering shelling out the $15 for the hardcover in case my $5 perfect-bound copy gives up the ghost). The first is Prince Valiant: The Storytelling Game, which I have finally managed to obtain in PDF form, in English. The upsides: simple system, can easily replace the coins with dice, suitable for play with all ages (in case I ever have young ones of my own interested in gaming). The downsides: limitations on player agency written into the rules, limited magic (which might not be a bad thing in all cases, but it'd take some getting used to), inherent limitations on female players. The latter is a characteristic of the time period in which it's set, not entirely the game's fault, but it's still annoying.

The other option I'm thinking of is Halberd, a free RPG by Scott Malthouse that I got a few years ago, but didn't seriously read through until recently. The upsides: brilliantly simple rules system (even more so than PV), ultra-short length, flexibility in creating character classes and races, one of the coolest rules-light magic systems I've ever seen. (Also, the illustration of a druid PC looks a lot like my friend who always plays druids; on that note, happy Yule!) The downsides: no pre-made monsters, it's not D&D. I strongly urge anyone reading this to check it out.

Sorry I don't have a satisfying conclusion to this post; like most of mine, it's written off-the-cuff, just to get my ideas out into the blogosphere.