From the incentives are powerful department: xp and advancement.

From the incentives are powerful department: xp and advancement.

I doubt this will be particularly new. Gamers, like everyone else, respond to incentives. In the games of RPGs, we respond to XP and advancement. How you get xp has a powerful effect on how we act.

Notice:
Dungeon and Dragons: Xp for "defeating" foes, usually be murdering them. Hence, murder hoboes.

Apocalypse World: XP for using highlighted stats, and for resetting xp. Hence, relationships become super important. And, yeah, a few moves.

Dungeon World: XP for looting meaningful treasure, following alignment, and rolling 6-. And that's exactly the gameplay we see: low dex characters doing DD dex for the xp.

Wrestling: Advancement from maxing out audience. You increase audience by increasing heat. So, you get characters who seek the limelight.

Urban Shadows: Mark all 4 factions and advance. So, the characters seek out the moves (and, i guess, sexy times) that lead to marking those factions. The game becomes one of politics.

Fate: Doesn't really have xp, and so there's not the driver of improvement. There's not the same sort of response to incentives driving gameplay.

I saw a discussion on upcoming changes to Star Wars World, and the idea was to give each playbook different triggers for advancement. I think this would create a situation similar to alignment in DW, such that each character will be rewarded for different behaviors based on playbook.

This is absolutely brilliant: Han Solo improves as a scoundrel differently than how Leia improves as a Noble. And a Fighter improves according to different reasons than a Wizard. And shouldn't a Hardholder advance on different triggers than a Gunlugger?

What other games use incentives to promote specific types of gameplay? when have you seen this done well? When poorly? Is this completely obvious?

tl;dr - What to do / bring when showing a six year old Force Awakens?

tl;dr - What to do / bring when showing a six year old Force Awakens?

A question for the more experienced uncles (and, OK, Dads can help, too. Even the mom's. This isn't really gendered.): My nephew is six. He lives 1,000 miles away. I'll be visiting for Christmas to show him Star Wars. His mother has graciously given me the exclusive Right of Star Wars.

His dad is a dickbag who is out of the picture, though the glorious state of Oklahoma mandates that he gets to see the kiddo from time to time. But, that's a different matter.

A year and change ago, I showed him A New Hope and brought lightsabers. It was glorious; he loved star fighters and light sabers and the force. We dueled, and he won every damn time. Because four year old cheat.

Due to timing constraints, he's not seen Empire or Jedi. I know -- I know! -- this is a failing on my part as an uncle. Still, plan is for me to fly in around Christmas and take him to the movies to see The Force Awakens. He knows this is going to happen, and is excited.

What should i bring? What should i be ready for? What should i be prepped for that is non-obvious?

I'm going to go ahead and ping in Jason Morningstar , who knows the ways of the good uncle.

Regarding the county clerk's refusing to give out marriage licenses: Why do they still have a job?

Regarding the county clerk's refusing to give out marriage licenses: Why do they still have a job?

That is,  in this article:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/27/435185521/kentucky-clerks-office-continues-to-refuse-marriage-licenses

How on earth does the Kentucky Clerk still have the position? And isn't, ya know, fired for not doing the job?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/27/435185521/kentucky-clerks-office-continues-to-refuse-marriage-licenses

This is fun: http://programs.clearerthinking.org/how_rational_are_you_really_take_the_test.html#.Vd4NUSgViko

This is fun: http://programs.clearerthinking.org/how_rational_are_you_really_take_the_test.html#.Vd4NUSgViko

Predictably, I scored as "rationalist". I am strong in 3 areas, and OK in the rest. With no weak spots. And I strongly disagree with one of their assessments.

This, folks, is what happens when you have a rationalist education: tests of rationality become transparent. And that's about it.

Mad Max: Move of the Year, Decade, or Century?

stocks are on sale! Buy, buy, buy.

For the second part in my apparent series on GMing: failure.

For the second part in my apparent series on GMing: failure.

I had a pretty major failure as a GM on Thursday.  I had a player rage quit World Wide Wrestling (the fantastic AW hack) after the first match.

Some relevant information: This is at an opening gaming event at a FLGS. We do mostly indie stuff. There's a core group who shows, and we've done a lot of world hacks over the time I've been there. Some fate, and a plethora of things I don't remember the names to. This particular player is very much in that core group, and has never liked AW hacks.

Also: I've frozen up as a player before. I'm no stranger to that. And it sucks. A good GM will notice what's going on, and direct attention somewhere else while the player recovers. This can be done with minimal drama. I thought I was good enough to handle that.

I was wrong.

I pitched wrestling, another player pitched Monster Hearts. We divide up.

At my table, I have three regulars and a newbie. The newbie doesn't know the PbtA systems, but does know wrestling. I do char gen for the two players who don't have them. This is the newbie and the core member who doesn't care for PbtA. I figure with some facilitation on my part, we can get everyone involved and happy.

I was wrong.

We wind up with some alright characters, and get some good heat. I'm not really feeling the chemistry yet in the group, but figure it'll gel once we do a match.

I was wrong.

I call for a break and collect the character sheets to do the bit as creative. I start booking matches, thinking about what'll be on camera and off. I've got some cool things that may come up, and know that the players will mess with this entirely. Its not the most inspired moment as creative director, but i think it'll all work out.

I was wrong.

The first match is between a PC jobber and the hard-core as played by the player who doesn't care for AW hacks. Creative tells them beforehand that the jobber is supposed to lose -- and he's supposed to make it look good.

I stick a mic in the jobber's face (soft move) to make him cut a promo; he says he's going to win and that its going to be great. He gets a 6- on his cut a promo, and I dock him a audience. The jobber starts at 0, so he's now at -1. Fictionally, I say this is folks turning off the TV they dislike him so much.

I shove a mic in the hard-core players face. I get some answers, and he seems to be warming up. He also rolls a 6-! Shit. I make some lame hard move, not wanting to come off too strong too early. 

They wrestle; there's not much to tell here. The match doesnt' last for long, and there's not much back and forth. At no point does the jobber have narrative control, and the hardcore player doesn't seem interested in getting momentum or audience. Like he wants it to be over.

I ask him what he does next, and get an "I win the match?". I know -- I know! -- at this point that the player has hit a creative wall, and I need to move focus away. I start asking the jobber how he makes the hardcore look good. He gives some helpful descriptions.

Then, the newbie player -- who we've not met before but who likes wrestling -- asks the hardcore what he does. I see the walls fall. Its like Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. The player says he doesn't know, and its clear he's not having it.

I direct attention back to the jobber, who describes how the Hard Core throws him out of the ring, getting the victory. I have them both roll; both 10+. It looks good to the audience.

That's when the hardcore player leaves; says the game isn't for him, and something about it being too aggressive and confrontational. Maybe it was; maybe I didn't sufficiently explain that its about playing wrestlers who are friends and are making a product together.

I have failures before, of course. This is the biggest failure in years. 

What do you think I could have done differently? What are some of your failures? What strikes you from this description?

I'm really interested in a conversation on this. I'll respond and moderate if necessary; disagree without being disagreeable.

I'll say it again: What amuses me about Ashley Madison is not that cheaters are getting doxxed.

I'll say it again: What amuses me about Ashley Madison is not that cheaters are getting doxxed. Doxxing is bad, end of story.

No, what amuses me is the sheer number of people willing to give blackmail material to a website whose entire purpose is to collect blackmail material.

Didn't they watch clue? Don't they know that communism (or, rather, having an affair) is just a red herring?

pet peeve: words put into my mouth, positions supposed to me that i do not hold.

Something I wonder about: Back in the 00s, my favorite GM (the one who taught me to ask questions) was on The Forge...

Something I wonder about: Back in the 00s, my favorite GM (the one who taught me to ask questions) was on The Forge and spoke rather unfavorably of it. He and I have lost touch -- he's basically left the internet -- so i give this question:

Can anyone help me solve this puzzle? Why would a self-described narrativist GM loath the Forge? What went on there that would cause such distaste?

Here's the secret to GMing: its not instinctive. No more so than writing good code

Here's the secret to GMing: its not instinctive. No more so than writing good code, 

A friend was at Gencon, and saw some really great GMing behaviors. Just this morning, he asked what about some behaviors I have. Namely, how to ask players the questions that spur them to greater creativity.

And well, it is a pleasure and honor to be asked. I have a lot of impostor syndrome, and that sort of question helps push it away and makes me feel pretty awesome.

My own GMing style is from a conglomeration of games, advice, and thought over the years. And a lot of watching and thinking about how other people GM, to bring what they do into my own style.

First, some really fantastic early role playing. This GM was on the forge (and spoke very poorly of it), and ran games where he asked questions. I picked up on that. He also pushed hard for particular themes, and knew the direction he needed things to go.

Some of this I picked up for my own style, other of it I dropped. I was half-assing it for a while, with no real coherent thought. I knew I wanted my games to be less about any plot I came up with, and to bring in the players own creativity more. I struggled with that, but didn't have the vocabulary to describe what I wanted. I knew I didn't want hours of prep and plots and rails. I knew I didn't want laptops at the table, and I didn't want games that required that sort of math.

And then, two things happened. At a wedding, Ted Cabeen  introduced me to Fiasco. Not to put to fine a point on it, but Fiasco changed my relationship to role playing games in a fundamental way. I played a lot of Fiasco. For anyone reading who doesn't know, Fiasco is a GM-less 2-3 hour game that plays like a Cohen movie. This game is written by Jason Morningstar, and published by Bully Pulpit Games.

Things Fiasco does that changed my gaming: distributed decision making, facilitation and GMing separated, GMing is distributed (mostly), and -- perhaps most importantly! -- the situation the characters are in is developed on the fly in about 30 minutes before gameplay begins. Imagine that: the creative power at the table, directed by the game (and playset!) creates an interesting web of characters in a shorter time period than it takes to make a first-level 4e wizard.

Then play it through and absolutely wreck the characters. I've seen characters die from an unexpected shotgun blast, bleed from all the coke, or just do some dope with the hot girl in high school. And all of this emerged in play -- the plots and stories mattered, and the characters were vehicles for that. The characters are a disposable play piece, to be used and used hard. Like a dwarf's hit points.

I could talk for a long-ass time about Fiasco. If you've not played it, do so. Key thing is you setup relationships in motion, which will fall apart.

But, Fiasco was just one of the two games that changed my relationship to gaming. Fiasco has no prep, no GM, and (generally) no ongoing setup from one session to another. What about campaigns? What about the role of GM? What about world building? I was still struggling with this, trying to incorporate the lessons from Fiasco into traditional RPGs. Like Fate -- I ran a Diaspora game, which was delightful. I didn't know what would happen, and found out through play. Fate sets up relationships between the characters, and I tried to push towards that. It didn't quite do what I wanted.

Well, my friends, that's about the time I discovered Apocalypse World, by Vincent Baker. I don't remember how or why -- possibly through Dungeon World -- but AW games are the second great inspiration. AW takes the role of GM and treats it like another player at the table. That is, even the GM is playing a game -- and has rules! -- even if it is a bit less obvious. The players don't need to know this. At all.

Apocalypse World sets up a world in motion. It sets up -- during character creation! -- a set of PC relationships that are unstable and will fall apart. There are questions on the sheet that the players must answer. That is, in about 30 minutes, you've done some initial world building, have a set of player characters who have relationships to each other, and the characters have the tools to make lasting changes in the world. I think that's the key difference between AW and Fiasco -- in Fiasco, the characters don't really have the tools to make lasting changes. (I mean, sort of, but not really.)

Anyway, this is supposed to be about GMing. And it is: my GMing is a distillation of what I've found in these games. My initial GM taught me to ask questions, Fiasco taught me to setup unstable relationships, and AW taught me that the GM is a player, too.

What do i mean? What, the hell, do I mean by the GM is a player? Well, in Aw and its many derivatives, the GM does not have true ultimate power. Sort of. The GM has a few things that bind them:
1. Agenda.
2. Principles.
3. Moves.

I've taken the notion of GM Agenda and Principles and would use it in any damn game I run. Ever. The Agenda for Dungeon World (one of AW's more famous children) is:

1. Portray a fantastic world
2. Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
3. Play to find out what happens

That's it. That's the core of what the GM does during play. By the rules, every damn thing done by the GM flows back to one of these. 

Notice that last one -- play to find out what happens -- which means you, the GM, do NOT know what is going to happen. You don't come to the table with scenes in mind, or knowing who is going to beat up on whom. Once you do that, goes the reasoning, you're no longer playing a game and the players could just go read a book for as much agency as they have.

This is probably the most important principle in an RPG. This is what makes both Fiasco and AW (and derivatives) so good. This is the magic of RPGs -- the conglomeration of emotion and creativity from multiple minds. The convergence of pull from people that aren't me.

One of the GM principles is "Sometimes, disclaim decision making". And another is "ask questions like crazy". I find myself combining these. 

Here's an example: I've got a player at Thursday Night who comes at things from a very different perspective than my own. He always pushes the genre line, as we've started calling it. He seeks out the weird, and all his answers are towards that. In a WWW game (another AW hack!), the championship match was held on an oil derrick. He joins it by coming in on a submarine, with a dozen fans dressed as him.

It was amazing. It was so close to being out of genre, while exalting in how weird it was.

When I first met him, I got pretty frustrated with him. Then I stopped trying to control everything and asked him the questions where I wanted truly bizarre answers. Now, he is one of my favorite players. 

This goes to a meta principle of my own: push your players to be the best themselves they can. Accept who they are, and enjoy the hell out of it.

When I want an answer that's emotional, I know which player to turn to. When I need one that's about strategy, I know who to ask. Basically, know your players strengths and push towards them. I wind up not making a lot of decisions --- instead, I ask the player who will provide the category of answer that I want. Or, sometimes, just the player I'm looking at. I provide a framework, and let them know what questions to answer when. I try to get the best out of each of them, based on where they truly excel.

What sorts of questions? provocative ones. Reading straight out of Apocalypse World, start simple and, as time goes on, ask for immediate and intimate details of the lived experiences of the characters. Then add your own details, and bring it back into the game later. And use it to inform your own developing sense of the game world.

Things like "What do her lips smell like?", or "Where does it hurt when you open your mind to the psychic maelstrom?" Or, for wrestling, maybe "The crowd goes crazy. What do they chant when they see you?"

Whatever the questions are, they should be directed and targeted to engage a player. Use a bit of psychology here -- and know it is trial and error. I've asked questions that don't work, where I've misjudged the players or the scene. Move on.

I can write more about this, if there's interest. I can also recommend some books -- Fiasco and Apocalypse World are the most obvious. The GMing section of AW is written in an intentionally dense style, and some of its children have easier to read -- and very good! -- GM sections. Dungeon World, World Wide Wrestling, and Urban Shadows all have really great GM advice.

I guess that's it for now.

Movie review: Take Shelter.

Movie review: Take Shelter.

This is a fantastic psychological thriller centering around the effects of mental illness on a family. We were worried it would be ableist or not give the appropriate sensitivity; it does well.

Spoilers to follow. Really ridiculous ones.

While the male character (Curtis) is male, the movie passes the Bechdel test easily and early. Our protagonist is married to Sam, and they have a daughter, Hannah. Hannah is deaf; she and Sam have signed conversations. Sam also talks to Hannah's teacher, and an insurance employee trying to get Hannah a cochlear implant. All of these characters are women.

Hannah's needs are secondary to the main plot, which centers around Curtis developing signs of mental illness. He begins to hear and see things that no one else does. These are always signs of a coming super storm; oily rain, crows flying strangely, thunder and lightning. He begins to build out the storm shelter.

Curtis has dreams; in one the family dog attacks him as the storm arrives. In another, he and Hannah are attacked. In a third one, his employee attacks him. After trying to hide it from Sam, he eventually talks to his wife.

The change is instant and dramatic; his stress goes down and he starts to get slightly better. Up until this moment, we were shouting for him to tell his wife. Tell. your. wife. Come on man, talk to your wife.

After a public breakdown, the family sees a psychiatrist. Curtis will need long-term care, but they can go on a trip beforehand.

At the beach, the movie hits a surprising and glorious moment. Curtis and Hannah are on the beach, building sandcastles. She stops and locks out, signing the symbol for storm.

The storm Curtis has been seeing in his dreams is coming in. He and Hannah are suddenly inside the house, with Sam standing outside as the oily rain starts to fall on her.

The movie ends right there. Sam outside, oily rain on her as we saw it on Curtis, with a ridiculously large storm incoming.

We immediately saw four interpretations:
1. Curtis was dealing with oracular ability, not with mental illness.
2. All along, it was Sam who was dealing with mental illness. The movie had set Curtis up as the unreliable narrator, but maybe it was Sam. The whole movie gets upended.
3. Hysteria; the family has taken on his mental illness and view of the world.
4. His mental illness has grown; the last scene isn't happening.

That's what makes this movie so brilliant. The ending cuts to the quick; how do we know that we can trust our senses? From moment to moment, what keeps us aligned to the world around us? As we accept the view of the world of those around us, how does that affect us?

Brilliant. Watch it.

Want to lose weight while saving money?

Want to lose weight while saving money?

Get the stomach flu. You'll have no choice!

I've lost like 8 pounds in 3 days from not eating. This is weight that needed to be gone, but that's a little ridiculous.

and then, despite all my rationalizations, Star Wars Clone Wars brings tears to my eyes.

and then, despite all my rationalizations, Star Wars Clone Wars brings tears to my eyes.

Season 3, Episode 2: Arc Troopers.

No spoilers, as i know Whitney Delaglio is on season 1. But, Josh Mannon , do you know what I'm talking about?

Star Wars: The clone Wars, season 2, ep 18 & 19: The zillo beast

Star Wars: The clone Wars, season 2, ep 18 & 19: The zillo beast

Basic plot: A monster threatens a negotiation. The Jedi don't want to kill it, so Palpatine convinces them to tase it and bring it to a secret science camp .. on coruscant. The capital. Predictably, the beast escapes and seeks out Palpatine, who was trying to kill it. R2D2 has insanely powerful rockets.

The themes here are fantastic: The jedis pass another moral event horizon without noticing it. Amidala is the only one with any morality. At all.

And, of course, Palpatine is so arrogant and foolhardy and unconcerned with life that he brought an unstoppable beast to the capital of the republic.

Why doesn't Palpatine have a science base in the outer rim? Where's the Maw when you need it? 

Is Palpatine really so arrogant ... yes, of course he is. He's Palpatine, and his over-confidence is his weakness.

And for now, he's protected by the jedis. Not for long, is it?

R2D2 can fly ... while carrying a human being.

R2D2 can fly ... while carrying a human being.

What?

Why does an astromech droid have sufficient upward thrust to carry an extra couple of hundred pounds, seemingly without a problem?

So odd.

Star Wars, Clone Wars, the animated series.

Star Wars, Clone Wars, the animated series.

(Whitney Delaglio , who has seemingly enjoy the other meditations on this. Also, I have a stomach bug today. It is terrible.)

I find this show hard to watch. I'm in the 2nd season, and an episode centered around helping farmers defend themselves from pirates.

Which is to say: the central conceit of the episode was the republic either cannot or will not defend its citizens from murdering assholes. This is the first and primary purpose of government.

Which is the biggest problem: the republic is a failed government throughout the show. There are heroes (Yoda), but most of the jedi exhault in their position in the patriarchy, rather than viewing that s a means to an end.

And that's really hard to watch, because it strikes to close to home.

In related politic news, a veteran in Alexandria, VA was raided by police -- guns drawn -- because his asshole neighbors thought he was squatting. The cops responded in the standard way we see the jedi react -- with violence and the threat of violence.

Sometimes, the jedi do a lot better than this -- but, ultimately, their power is derived from the blade of a lightsaber.

This is all related, and the brilliance of Clone Wars is exactly what makes it so hard to watch -- it tells us the story of failed power structures.

Or, maybe, I'm just projecting into a cartoon?

Not your father's root beer -- which is fantastic and hilarious -- is 5.

Not your father's root beer -- which is fantastic and hilarious -- is 5.9%. I'd recently read it packed a larger punch: standard is around 5%, so maybe that's a bit on the high end.

But its certainly not the strongest beer: 6% for a double is about right.

level up: In my last 10 minutes at work, solved a problem in SQL that would have taken hours or days to solve in...

level up: In my last 10 minutes at work, solved a problem in SQL that would have taken hours or days to solve in Excel.

A year ago, my tool of choice would have been Excel. This component was being done in Excel -- and Access -- by other analysts, who asked me for help at the last minute.

In SQL, it took longer to load the data than to do the required operations -- basically a join. Sent it back out, and spent more time explaining how I got there than I spent thinking about the query.

And I'm home in time for Jeopardy.

I am so filled with energy at that accomplishment. I'm not certain I'm getting that across -- this was glorious!

Late to the party: Does contessa not have an RSS feed?

Late to the party: Does contessa not have an RSS feed?

If it does, its not coming up in Newsblur. I keep getting rockstar programming, and that ain't right.

Any suggestions?

What a weird day!

What a weird day!
-- had a delicious breakfast with eggs, avocado, and english muffins!
-- Hit the farmers market, for 10 peaches!
-- did PT (hooray!)
-- my wife, Dianne Harris , came down with something. She's now wearing a "cold jacket" -- a rag soaked in water. She's not feeling well.
-- During this sickness, watched about a dozen simpsons, because its the most she can reasonably handle.
-- Got involved in 3 or 4 threads, including discussion on whether it is OK to shoot drones (probably not, though I'm in a minority on a thread), harass women online (not even a little OK), and -- yes! -- some RPG discussions.
-- Heard of terrible things that happen on the interweb, and considered my own privilege to not have to deal with it. Still dealing with that.

What else will happen today? This is a weird day!