Mash rightly points out in the comments of the previous post that while my ‘rules’ for a ‘con scenario may be fairly transparent (if contested) for a GM. As a player, how would you ever know that you’re going to get a game which actually delivers on those points?
It’s a fair point, and in many cases you don’t. I actually think that writing a pitch is much harder work than it might seem at first, and that a decent number of GM’s don’t pay it too much attention; I mean, if you’re like me, then sometimes you’re writing a pitch months before you actually write the game as a kind of placeholder to denote your participation in the event. You try and make it seem like something you’d like to play in, and hope that there are enough other people out there with similar tastes. And yet, it’s not unheard of for games to not get enough interest to be run. I know I’ve often been uninspired when trawling through a collection of pitches, and even decided to skip a round entirely. And yet, at the same time, I’ve had some great fun playing games I probably wouldn’t have signed up for on the basis of the blurb…
The aim here is to create something akin the trailer for a movie, or dust-jacket blurb for a novel. Text so compelling that the reader always finishes reading it, then wonders; “I wonder what that will be like? It sounds so cool I need to try it!” Short, punchy, high on ideas and strongly evocative, yet with sufficient integrity to not alienate the discerning.
Obviously, even a good pitch won’t convince everyone. Some people just don’t like some things. And word-of-mouth and reputation can be a much greater factor in the popularity of a game (just like for other media) but ultimately a good pitch should, at the very least, get you a full game for at least one or more sessions.
Again; I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m any kind of expert on writing a great pitch, nor that my taste is the same as everyone elses, but here are my requirements for a good pitch:
- Well written. To quote my earlier point, for me this means the writing should be “Short, punchy, high on ideas and strongly evocative, yet with enough integrity to not alienate the discerning”
- Not clichéd. Gamers are very aware of clichés and tropes in genre; what does the game offer that is unique, how does it twist boring clichés, or avoid them entirely?
- Not overwhelming or overly complex; I don’t want to have to work hard to read a blurb, or work to understand complex concepts or settings. I’m going to be worried that any game that seems to technical or grandiose is simply an excuse for the GM to show how clever he/she is.
- Doesn’t draw on too much established material – this is probably more personal than something I’d expect everybody to follow, but I’d probably not sign up for a Star Wars game because I know I don’t have much understanding or care for the complexity of the setting, and this would likely annoy the players who did and possibly mean that the game would have to slow down to explain things to me. I don’t suggest you shouldn’t use established high concept settings (Buffy, Star Wars, Dresden Files, Anime etc.) but I do suggest that in doing so you may limit the pool of potential players and may end up with a challenging mix of rabid fans and people who just signed up on the spur of the moment, and don’t really care too much about the details.
- Speaks to me as a player. I want the GM to sell me the game, then level with me about how he or she expects it to work. If I’m going to have to learn a system, I want to know that. If I’m going to get some degree of freedom and autonomy, that’d be nice to know as well. I don’t think you need to spell everything out, but you should try and mitigate any surprises – and obviously you should be catering for the player who knows nothing about anything as a starter.
Anyway, those are my thoughts about what makes a good pitch. What do you think?
Posts
Blurbs are tough. I also find that often they don't necessarily get better with protracted thought as this tends to confuse the simple and strong ideas that make for a good blurb. So its a dangerous line to walk.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of your criteria except number 5. I have had plenty of success with settings and established material and rarely struck an issue with rabid fans. Then again I will generally only use settings which I am myself familiar with so I am likely to be the biggest rabid fan at the table :)
The advantage of using an established setting is that it can provide a greater level of common understanding and knowledge amongst players, which is something you recognised as a good thing in terms of Con games, without needing to always resort to something close to the real world or widely understood.
The real art with criteria 5 is to write setting specific scenarios that don't require setting specific knowledge. I actually think this is achieveable and can be something that is very enjoyable.
You only really need one word in a pitch to ensure you get a full game. It follows the "GM:", and it is "Dale". If you combine with the word Cthulhu, you're likely to get demand for re-runs. :-)
ReplyDeleteJon
Aw, shucks Jon, thanks for the early Christmas gift. Almost as good as a Pirate Christmas!
ReplyDeleteLuke, I'm assuming you mean my 4th point (I should have numbered them) and I kind of thought you might disagree, given your strong focus on existing settings - indeed I may even be guilty of baiting you a little ('aint I a rotter?).
I admit that it can be useful to rapidly build a shared understanding should you get a group who are all familiar with the material. For me it's a negative - albeit one that can be overcome by other factors, like a really well written blurb, an excellent reputation or general curiosity. I think I almost always feel at a disadvantage as a player, as I rarely know much, or care much, about many extablished game settings.
I agree with your final point, and would hope that most 'con games are geared for players without any knowledge of the setting, but I fear that there is a wider gulf between an experienced GM's view of what this means, and a less experienced GM (or someone who doesn't spend much time as a player).
That's cool. Bait away.
ReplyDeleteIts interesting that you feel that disadvantage. I certainly know that feeling in relation to certain settings myself, but its not a blanket reaction for me to established material.
For example, I find it interesting that you list Star Wars as a high concept setting :)
Yeah, I had never really though about it, but then I was signed up for a Star Wars game at an Australian 'con and realised that my understanding of the setting was limited to "there are lightsabres and stormtroopers, right?" where as some of the other players were eagerly discussing the merits of different shuttle types, the nuances of the Jedi/Padwan relationship and various star systems. I attach the blurb below for interests sake:
ReplyDelete"Execute Order 66...
The last thing you heard before the universe spiraled into a new Dark Age.
The Republic is but a memory, the light of the Jedi has been extinguished, and the boot of the Galactic Empire grinds entire worlds under its heel.
You are on the run, hiding from the betrayer, Skywalker, who now styles himself Lord Vader. If you are caught, or even seen, whatever world you are on will suffer.
But you still live, waiting, ready to fight for one last chance to make a difference before the Empire finds you at last; on a backwater planet, in a cantina in the middle of nowhere, that chance is about to arrive.
The Force will be with you, Jedi. But in the end, will that be enough?"
To be honest that sounds like a issue with those specific players, not with the established material. I imagine that those players would be an issue in any game. Also, any GM with an ounce of skill could likely handle that situation.
ReplyDeleteSo yeah, I understand the concern. I am just not sure avoiding established material is a very focussed method of avoiding the actual issues suffered, especially in light of benefits that can be gained.
Hmm... well I don't like to make claims about other GM's or players capabilities, but that experience has been more the rule than the exception in my experience with established settings and 'con games, and I suspect your 'ounce' of GM'ing skill requires a degree of GM and player self-awareness that is often IME absent outside of Kapcon.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really trying to be down on games that use established settings - just explaining the reasons for my reticence with engaging with them, which ties into my first point of the kind of games I'd run at a 'con.
Each to their own, of course.
"... and I suspect your 'ounce' of GM'ing skill requires a degree of GM and player self-awareness that is often IME absent outside of Kapcon."
ReplyDeleteAs before, I think that this observation would apply to GMs and players as a whole. I am not sure why "established material" is a distinguishing factor other than your own anecdotal evidence (which is totally fine BTW :)).
Er...because high concept settings are rich in fictional detail that fans tend to get excited about?
ReplyDeleteWhile you might find people having excited conversations about detail aspects in less established, fiction-based settings, these are generally more open and accessible to all players, as there is much less of a privileged threshold of knowledge acquisition.
I really don't see Star Wars as a high concept setting :)
ReplyDeleteThere are people fixated with detail everywhere to some extent. I have seen Lovecraft fans wax lyrical about his work in a Call of Cthulhu game, history buffs in historical games, superhero geeks in superhero games, techies in a sci fi game etc.
So I am not sure where the point of distinction arises, though I agree that there may be some correlation between fanaticism and exclusivity of knowledge.
I guess I just don't find the term "established material" to be very useful. In my experience, the main distinction arises when I am not familiar with the subject matter in question. So "established material I am not familiar with" seems more helpful.
Also, as mentioned before, all of the examples I can think of arise not due to the subject matter in question but due to a select type of player. I have played in sci fi, superhero, historical, Cthulhu and Star Wars games which were accessible to everyone and focussed on story over details.
BTW for clarity, I understand and agree with the concern you have as I have the same for historical and sci fi gaming :)
ReplyDeleteI am just not sure I agree with how you have phrased it. It seems to me to be primarily a personal thing for each person based on familiarity, though complexity of ideas or exactitude (is that even a word) in a setting does have impact too s it penalises lack of familiarity even more.
I think that's why I find the Star Wars example to be so jarring. Sure there is a lot of setting detail. However, I find that less of a bar than a setting with less detail but more complexity or exactness. In Star Wars, anything goes as there isn't relly a wrong answer. Add "turbo" in front of any tech and you have made it a Star Wars piece of tech :) Turbo Toaster.
To give a more pertinent example, in your blurb for Calling the King, the first line is:
ReplyDelete"At the turn of the century"
I expect this has the same impact on me as you would have seeing a Star Wars blurb saying:
"COMPNOR's Sub-elite CompForce unit wants you!" :)
I guess that I believe that mainstream movies and fiction have provided people with a basic understanding of genre and tropes which are widely understood.
ReplyDeleteSo generic sci-fi does not, IMHO, represent a significant learning curve, nor does it invoke complex fictional details necessarily. To a lesser extent some of Star Wars (IMHO) meets the same criteria because of the popularity of the movies - where the line is set is a personal matter, but ultimately anything that is beyond the broad scope of the movies (Jedi, lightsabres and stormtroopers) would likely be seen as not within the main bounds of public knowledge - i.e. if your mum knows about it, then it's safe to assume most players will. If she has a blank look when you start talking about the relative merits of shuttles, it's safe to assume most players won't.
Sci-fi like "Purgatory 13 – Descent to Abraxus" ticks two boxes because it draws on both sci-fi general understanding, and prison/action general understanding.
So by this definition, the Cthulhu Mythos is definately not the sort of thing that would have a wide knowledge base, and I'd not be a fan of any blurb which drew on it.
Historic settings are another matter. I think there is enough public understanding about some settings for them to be publically accessible, and therefore meet the criteria of not representing privleged or difficult to access information at a gaming table. Obviously this would apply to settings widely covered by the media (1890's, 1970's, 1950's, WW2, Vietnam War) not to those which had not received this treatment.
Ironically "Calling the King" refers to the turn of this century (21st) and it is interesting that you had a 'historic game' reaction to it - although this blurb was not written by me, it is the work of John Wick.
Cool. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points in general though I still think you are mixing in your own personal familiarity and experiences when making the judgement call as to what is widely understood.
I am cool with that as we all do that to some extent :)
Oh and I also think that focus on detail is also influenced by personal behaviour as well as the specific subject matter.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to go with your Mum's personal familiarity ;)
ReplyDeleteI should (re)emphasise, that there are many things which can mitigate this problem IMHO, and I think we agree that agood game should cater to the player without the slightest knowledge of system or setting. Ideally this is reflected by the game pitch.
My Mum would be more familiar with Star Wars that 1890s :)
ReplyDeleteFWIW I would expect any Kapcon game to be open to all walks of life even if it relied on established material. IME that has been the rule and not the exception. As such, I would expect a warning if it didn't (such as the use of the System and Genre Knowledge categories).
Admittedly, this may not be true of all Cons, but Kapcon is special that way :)
FWIW the reason I find this topic relatively interesting at the moment in that I have recently found my very own conception of what's widely understood to be shaken when gaming outside of my immediate gaming circle (which consists of people realtively similar to me). For example, saying that the 1890s is widely understood compared to Star Wars (and even their udnerstanding of Star Wars is different) for a gamer in their late teens or early twenties has a good chance of being wrong. :)
True enough, and the 1890's (or 1800's more generally) is a little bit of a stretch, although I still think the work of Dicken's, the Wolfman, Sherlock Holmes, Jack the Ripper etc. in popular culture have a reasonable degree of media saliance.
ReplyDeleteCertainly if you're dealing with a younger audience, some of what a person of our age group might consider 'established' may be challenged.
Damnit! Just lost another comment to blogger. :( It's "verify you're a human" seems to break things about half the time.
ReplyDeleteOh well, to repeat myself, hopefully with added cogence...
I think that the key thing that your five check-boxes could omit in practice is a sense of the style of the game, and it could also miss important structural features of how the game will be managed.
Let me give a quick example. Morgue's last Aliens game was advertised as a game about characters in a post-apocalyptic situation, specifically about the decisions they'd make. However, rather than being a deeply immersive game about the difficulties of a post-apocalyptic alien-infested world... I found the game's scenes perfunctory; a feeling created by the paucity of information in the "guest NPCs" and character situation. The game was technically "character driven" - but in effect it was driven by a structural gimmick, not by deep characterisation.
I think that in large part Jon's comment, rather than being an "early Christmas present" is pointing to the bit that's missing from your scehema: a biographical read on the GM's style.
For example, nobody playing in one of my games should expect a tightly controlled and scripted experience - they should be expecting an NPC heavy game oriented towards experience rather than story, and they should be expecting the final act to be player initiated - I almost always leave the end-game open, though I do signpost one or more options.
That's not something that's easy to communicate in a blurb - and would vary for the "same game" for a different GM. I'm sure that if you ran AWoP it would be unrecognisable to me - and that's part of the interest in this hobby. (Feature! Not Bug!)
I think that it's instructive that this year a number of games have followed my lead from 2008's "Succession" and offered very clear post-scripts to the main "blurb" trying to offer some insight into the style of GM management and game structure. I feel a lot more comfortable reading some of this year's blurbs in terms of knowing how things will pan out, whereas most years even blurbs that seem to check all 5 of your boxes give me little concept of how it will actually be in play.
YMMV, and I don't really disagree with anything you've said, I think though it would be useful to go further.
Damnit! Just lost another comment to blogger. :( It's "verify you're a human" seems to break things about half the time.
ReplyDeleteOh well, to repeat myself, hopefully with added cogence...
I think that the key thing that your five check-boxes could omit in practice is a sense of the style of the game, and it could also miss important structural features of how the game will be managed.
Let me give a quick example. Morgue's last Aliens game was advertised as a game about characters in a post-apocalyptic situation, specifically about the decisions they'd make. However, rather than being a deeply immersive game about the difficulties of a post-apocalyptic alien-infested world... I found the game's scenes perfunctory; a feeling created by the paucity of information in the "guest NPCs" and character situation. The game was technically "character driven" - but in effect it was driven by a structural gimmick, not by deep characterisation.
I think that in large part Jon's comment, rather than being an "early Christmas present" is pointing to the bit that's missing from your scehema: a biographical read on the GM's style.
For example, nobody playing in one of my games should expect a tightly controlled and scripted experience - they should be expecting an NPC heavy game oriented towards experience rather than story, and they should be expecting the final act to be player initiated - I almost always leave the end-game open, though I do signpost one or more options.
That's not something that's easy to communicate in a blurb - and would vary for the "same game" for a different GM. I'm sure that if you ran AWoP it would be unrecognisable to me - and that's part of the interest in this hobby. (Feature! Not Bug!)
I think that it's instructive that this year a number of games have followed my lead from 2008's "Succession" and offered very clear post-scripts to the main "blurb" trying to offer some insight into the style of GM management and game structure. I feel a lot more comfortable reading some of this year's blurbs in terms of knowing how things will pan out, whereas most years even blurbs that seem to check all 5 of your boxes give me little concept of how it will actually be in play.
YMMV, and I don't really disagree with anything you've said, I think though it would be useful to go further.
I have serious issues with this blogs "verify you're a human" thing too.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame it's not established practice to blurb the GM as much as the story, much like you might do with a stage magician. "The Magnificent Munroe's delectable tales are a tease to the imagination, with surreal considerations to personal psychology and many instances of: Not What It First Appears."
ReplyDelete