- The scenario must be wholly based in the ‘real’ world or play on tropes and settings that are so clearly established in film or fiction that my audience will have NO issues adjusting regardless of their prior knowledge.
- The scenario must feature pre-generated characters with enough ‘issues’ and interpersonal relationships that they can adequately fill down-time and lulls between actions. Issues must be sufficiently dramatic that characters can demonstrate their ‘roleplaying abilities’ getting to grips with them.
- The scenario must contain a mix of build-up scenes and action scenes of sufficient intensity and length that they fit within a 3 hour time constraint, regardless of player actions.
- The scenario must contain the prospect for success and failure, clearly established, in a way that can be examined and analysed by players in the wrap-up.
- The scenario must use a system which can be learnt by ANYONE in less than 5 minutes, or be able to be abridged to this level.
Nowadays I’d probably expect more from a scenario, but for the last decade or so, I struggled to find published scenarios that fit this description without significant editing. So, mostly I invented my own and borrowed elements from here and there. Sometimes I’d use a scene from a good adventure, othertimes most of the adventure, but I’d have to make the pre-generated characters, which was a whole lot of work in itself.
I generally steered way from investigation based scenarios, as these could easily lead to players not finding the clue in the available time, taking up a false lead, or ultimately, to me having to fudge providing the clues.
However, I’ve noticed in recent years that there are not just a few, but many, published scenarios, which would now meet my old criteria. Notably “My Little Sister Wants You To Suffer” from Cthulhu Britannica, which I’ve now run 7 times, and which is IMHO probably one of the best ‘con scenarios out there. There are others, like Terrors From Beyond, or the Curse of the Yellow Sign series by John Wick. In addition the Gumshoe system has now put investigation scenarios back on the table for me in this format. And there are many more…
I’m not saying that everyone should run a published scenario at a 'con; just that I’m very glad that the market now seems to be delivering works which are better suited to the sorts of ‘con games that I, for one, like to run and play in.
Posts
I don't think that any of my three SDC-entered games would match your criteria.
ReplyDeleteSpirit of the Tentacle is not really set in any useful way in the real world, and Pulp has a lot of subtle cues and tropes which will be new to most players. The PCs have no real "issues" as such - the game is totally plot focused. The scenes are good though - I think they do what you're looking for. The system however, needs some careful guidance from the GM to be functional.
A World of Possibilities fairs a little better, except again, the PCs have really few issues - nothing that will prompt actions outside of those relating to matters of plot. And despite my best structural efforts, I think a non-active group would struggle to finish it in 3 hours, or even, at all. You can very readily "opt out" of the game entirely.
The Hand that Feeds is getting close, except that the scenario does not contain the prospect for success and failure. It's about the journey, and in all three runs I feel it's been inconclusive in terms of the nominal adventure motive. And I guess too it relies on a large helping of player initiative.
That's quite interesting to me, because the first two scenarios have done extremely well - twice runner up SDC, and put me in the stakes for best GM or best single session for the last couple of years. The Hand that Feeds has yet to be tested in the same way, but from my POV it functioned perfectly in it's FN run, and my peer-reviewers have described it as without notable flaw.
I like your criteria as a baseline though. :)
I think you understand that I don't intend my personal criteria to be a indicative of a good scenario, just indicative of a scenario that I enjoy running at a 'con.
ReplyDeleteObviously using your scenarios as a benchmark is also problematic, due to the limited scope of your competition for each measure. Many GM's including yours truly, don't get scored at Kapcon, and the SDC is always a relative judgement, not an absolute measure. But that aside, fair points.
I would note that, as a player, I struggled with the pulp setting of Spirit of the Tentacle, and had you not been an experienced GM, I could easily imagine it going off the rails. I also felt that the group felt a little hopeless and irrelevant in 'The Hand that Feeds' and fankly, didn't care if they lived or died, because they had no real depth beyond the immediate setup.
My (old) criteria were also a throwback to the old GM scoring system, where we were the only judge of player roleplaying. I will say that I've found that it works pretty well, and I used this setup as standard for my Kapcon games: "Hunger" "Pressure Positive" "Before the Fall" "The High Price of Spandex" "November Falling" and "Yesterday's Woe" although these weren't without their issues either.
But that aside, fair points.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't really much scope for getting a wider exposure for me though, so those games are about as well-tested as anything I ever produce is likely to get. It's also hard to downplay one perfect and a couple of near-perfect scores too much. :)
I would note that, as a player, I struggled with the pulp setting of Spirit of the Tentacle, and had you not been an experienced GM, I could easily imagine it going off the rails.
That is my pretty universal experience with Pulp. It seems like it should be so easy, but I think it's actually one of the hardest genres to run for an uninitiated crowd. Westerns are tough too, but they have much bigger exposure, so your group comes to it with just a little more knowledge.
I also felt that the group felt a little hopeless and irrelevant in 'The Hand that Feeds' and fankly, didn't care if they lived or died, because they had no real depth beyond the immediate setup.
I agree - I think that in terms of the adventure structure, in terms of the plot, the game is quite good; but I haven't really managed to figure out a great set of characters to go into that adventure. I think probably my recommendation for people contemplating running it would be to use it as the spine for a longer game than a convention game, with characters created by the group.
But I can't be bothered properly fixing it for the SDC.
My (old) criteria were also a throwback to the old GM scoring system, where we were the only judge of player roleplaying.
I remember it well! :)
My main concern with the traditional PC approach has been the same as you've had with my questionnaires - lack of easy buy-in, lack of ability to necessarily pick up and run with the "quirk" or "secret". I remember one really terrible character I got where I was this emasculated guy dominated by his big brother, and my secret desire was to be a florist or something, and I was like "what the hell?" I just had no idea at all how to work that kind of character in a heavy scare-oriented CoC game. (I could have done something with him in a plotless comedy game - I'd have rocked that party. But in CoC there was no scope for the intra-party stuff that brings that out).
See now to me a dark Cthulhu surivial game sounds like the perfect environment for your emascualted, wanna-be florist to really come into his own. Much like any zombie movie, the characters should totally undermine, and perhaps ultimately be doomed by, their foibles and conflicts. The cthulhu monsters and setting are just the backdrop to intense character drama; people are the real monsters ;)
ReplyDeleteYeah, nice in theory, but CoC seems almost militantly designed to quash any such attempts.
ReplyDeleteI'm expecting something better from Kalling the Cing by the way. No pressure, but this is the last chance CoC gets to be any good. :)
I think those 5 criteria are pretty decent guidelines. I have found that if you bend or break 1 or 2 it is easy enough to compensate for and still get a good result, so they wouldn't be hard requirements for me. However, the reasons behind wanting them are sound.
ReplyDeleteI would probably agree, although, thinking about it - as a player I wouldn't likely sign up for a game which didn't seem to fit criteria 1 and 2 by preference unless there were strong mitigating factor, like the GM's reputation or a particular setting which excited me, or having no other options. But then, I might just be pickier than the average player ; )
ReplyDeleteHow would you spot that game from the blurbs? I'm thinking here particularly of intra-party dynamic, which is not usually something signalled in any pre-advertising.
ReplyDeleteTrue enough - and it would be hard to tell from a blurb. Ideally it says something like "character driven" meaning the plot is, at least, equal or less important in importance to the characters interactions.
ReplyDeleteFor a real character driven game I'd expect the blurb to actually talk about the characters a little, and why I should give a damn about them and their unlikely adventures.
However, a great blurb will probably snare me even if it doesn't hit that mark.