Commonplace fears

Wired magazine have published a copy of Lovecraft's Commonplace Book. A commonplace book is a list of ideas and thoughts, and Lovecraft's provides some great insights into his thinking and writing process.

You can even see clear progression from concept to story, with entry forty two (Fear of mirrors—memory of dream in which scene is altered and climax is hideous surprise at seeing oneself in the water or a mirror. (Identity?) [Outsider?])being clear precursor to Lovecraft’s The Outsider.

From a gaming point of view it is simply an amazing resource full on scenario and scene ideas. I find simply casting my eye down the list the list sparks off story ideas with almost every entry.

The Nentir Vale reimaged

A little while ago I was casting around for a system to run a fantasy game and received some great suggestions. I checked a few out, but that itch to run a fantasy game never really got scratched, so I decided to throw caution to the wind and pick up some D&D 4E.


I have mentioned before playing D&D was a bit of geek blind spot for me, so I was a little unsure of what to expect. After getting familiar with the material and thinking about it some more, I came to conclusion that I could do what I wanted to do with the game, that being to run a character driven game with a strong story, that also had the essential flavour of D&D. The secret, I came to realise, would be a strong group of players.

Masks of Nyarlathotep: A Player's Perspective

If you pop over my friend Dale's blog, you will see he has written up his account of our recently finished Call of Cthulhu campaign 'Masks of Nyarlathotep' (Pulp Edition). Dale ran a great campaign and I had a heap of fun. The characters were fleshed out and interesting; the story equal parts hilarious and horrific. It is something I will remember fondly for a long time.

Seeing as Dale has provided the GM point of view, I thought I might give some thoughts from a player's perspective. Masks has a reputation as being one of the most popular Cthulhu campaigns, but also for being a bit of a 'meat grinder' in terms of characters. As a result, I was a little cautious going in as I didn't like the idea of blowing through a bunch of characters that were only tenuously connected.

However looking back, Dale's introduction of fate and fortune points was a great idea. It meant - in my case at least - that the tension was maintained through the points slowly building up and quickly dwindling down, while allowing for meaningful character development to occur (I think I burned through six of them in the end). I really enjoyed playing Armand Fazeal's descent from an eccentric orientalist to a mythos fighting, zealous Islamist. The major wound table also helped to add to the tension as it provided another decision about to use a fate point or not.

In terms of chapters, my favourite was Cairo. It combined the right amount of sandbox style choices and plot 'reveal', while having a really detailed and described setting. I think it also helped that there was a lot of investigative action, which was a niche Fazeal helped fill. In contrast I was less enamored by Kenya, mostly due to the linear plotting of the story, but as Dale explained it is important story wise, and really it was still really fun.

All in all it was a huge amount of fun and a big thanks goes out to Dale. It has certainly given me a whole bunch of idea for me to steal and use one day when I run it.

What's this? An update?

Yes it's true. No lie. It is indeed an update.

Sadly my grand intention to keep this blog updated regularly hasn't really come to much. True there has been some pretty big events in the past few months (wedding, honeymoon, huge work project) to keep me occupied, but I have also been lucky enough to have some gaming on the side as well.

Call of Cthulhu with Dale continues with the exciting 'Masks of Nyarlathotep: Pulp Edition', in which I play the Oriental occultist Armand Fazeal. It's a really fun game and Dale continues to impress me with his organisational ability to run the game week in - week out.

I have also got an In Nomine game run by my old mate Jarrod starting up in the near future, which will mark the belated kick back into Monday night roleplaying. I'm looking forward to starting back up with this group and have grand plans to run something Cthulhu related with them later in the year.

I have also got some other half formed plans for other games I would like to run, as well as some thoughts on Mansions of Madness, but that will have to wait until next time.

Cthulhu Dark

Things have been a bit mad lately with wedding and travel plans, so the old blog has been a little neglected, but I felt compelled to point out Cthulhu Dark, a rules light system that I stumbled across a couple of days ago. 

Written by Graham Walmsley - the author of a number of highly regarded scenarios for Trail of Cthulhu including 'The Dying of St Margret's' and the 'Dance in the Blood' - Cthulhu Dark is a minimal, two page rules system for Cthulhu roleplaying that focuses more on story and character than mechanics. Reading such a stripped down rules set is incredibly fulfilling. It presents a real common sense approach to gaming by providing the freedom to engage deeply and directly with the story without the rule set defining the game itself. I really like what I see.

Graham has also released some additional rules (well, rather rules in progress) that expand on the basic rule set and provide a little more 'depth' to the mechanics.

I have been kicking around the idea for a while of running a Cthulhu game via Skype with some mates from out of town (and country), and I can see this as being the perfect solution to finding an easy and quick system for that medium, though I might fiddle with things here and there. It also could be very useful in a convention setting as well.

I think there is a lot of potential in Cthulhu Dark for some quick and deadly fun, and I look forward to giving it a trial in the near future.

What are you LARPing about?

I have been reflecting on a conversation I had a couple of weeks back after a Cthulhu game about where traditional ‘table top’ RPGs end and live action roleplay (LARPs) begin. My feeling then, as it still is now, is that these two classifications are not as sharply demarcated as they seem, especially as the term semi-LARP is starting to be introduced. What defines a game as being one or the other, and who decides on the criteria?

Although I don’t LARP any more, I did back in my youth. I guess this has coloured my experience today and, as a result, I’ve always embraced a more immersive roleplaying experience when running and playing in table top games. Yes, this does often mean silly accents, action miming and actually talking ‘in character’. I have no problem with LARPers or LARPing, but I am just a little curious about the definitions.

On the surface it all seems pretty clear. A table top RPG is one where the players sit together with character sheets and play a game using dice or some other means to simulate resolution of conflict in a shared, imaginary world. A LARP is similar, but one actually dresses up as one’s character and play out the story with others to accomplish goals, with or without the use of a conflict resolution system. I am still not sure how to define a semi-LARP, but give me a good definition and I’ll give you a cookie.  

I feel that in many ways these definitions are hangovers from the early years of the hobby, when table top RPGing was far less character based and more like a tactical wargaming. I guess the definitions still ring true for beardy, old school D&D players who like to say “Kronad the Barbarian will charge down the darken tunnel and skewer those orcs”.

However, if we start to test the definitions, they start to unravel. What happens if Kronad’s player brings an additional level of physicality to his description by miming the skewering motion? Does that make it more LARP-like? What if (heaven forbid) they dress up to play? What if when playing Call of Cthulhu I mime smoking a cigarette? Does that make it a LARP or semi-LARP? What if I use a funny accent? How much physicality tips a game from being a table top game to a LARP?

Is it a matter of the rule set you use? Are games LARPs or semi-LARPs because of their lighter rules? If so, some of the new indie games have very light systems indeed, so how do they fit in this scheme?

Although these questions may seem pedantic, the point is that how you label and define something matters. I know, for example, that if I advertise a game as a LARP or semi-LARP, I will get a completely different crowd than if I advertise it as a table top RPG. This is important to me as I actually really like having LARPers in my table top games, as they tend to bring a greater level of physicality and immerse themselves more in the game than other players. This is not to say, however, that other players can’t or don’t.

In my mind this issue is also important as there was some discussion of having a separate LARP or semi-LARP scheme for Kapcon in the future, given the greater interest in those style games this year. I personally think this would be a really bad idea and it would further perpetuate a fairly meaningless classification systems and establishing a con-within-a-con, like those wacky Grayhawk guys or Harncon.  We should be encouraging everyone to participate in everything, as there are lessons to be share around. I mean, of course there are some people who only want to do one or the other, but I don’t think the organisation of the con needs to reinforce that.

So cast away such classifications, such divisions, such categories. It’s all roleplaying, so why not treat it at such?

As always, I am interested in your comment. Do you disagree with my definitions or characterisations? Should we encourage greater or lesser demarcation? 

For your Sunday afternoon amusement