PDA

View Full Version : Running a con game



Talakeal
2013-12-12, 01:26 PM
So I plan to release the indie RPG I have been working on for the last several years within the next few months, and over the summer I hope to run a few demo games at various cons.

The problem is I have never run (or even played in) a con game before in my whole life. Does anyone have any advice?

I am specifically wondering how much material to plan due to the time limit and the variable pace of groups, as well as what sort of "adventure" to plan. Should it be a dungeon crawl, skirmish battle, high RP, investigation, exploration, etc.? Groups have such divergent tastes how do I know what to expect?

huttj509
2013-12-12, 01:51 PM
So I plan to release the indie RPG I have been working on for the last several years within the next few months, and over the summer I hope to run a few demo games at various cons.

The problem is I have never run (or even played in) a con game before in my whole life. Does anyone have any advice?

I am specifically wondering how much material to plan due to the time limit and the variable pace of groups, as well as what sort of "adventure" to plan. Should it be a dungeon crawl, skirmish battle, high RP, investigation, exploration, etc.? Groups have such divergent tastes how do I know what to expect?

It depends on the focus of the system. Since it's a new RPG system, you want the scenario to highlight "this is what the system focuses on."

As an example, various con games I did in the last year:

Introductory module with some combat, mainly focused on introducing the factions and setting (Pathfinder Society)

Introductory adventure with premade characters, involving inter-clan politics, talking with spirits, and one-two combat encounters (Legend of the 5 rings)

Half hour scenario with premade archetypal characters, set in a crowded bar, where we were hired to protect someone, the deal went south, and we needed to try to escape and wound up getting arrested by Lone Star. Welcome to Seattle. (Shadowrun)


If there's something the system focuses on, highlight it. Whether that's the combat mechanics, narrative style, or just the default setting.

Airk
2013-12-12, 04:14 PM
Basically, you want to ask yourself "What is awesome about my game system? What does this system really do better than everything else?" If the answer is "Nothing" then stop right there. :P

Assuming there IS something, then you should run a game that puts as much focus on that as possible. Does your game have an awesome social conflict system? Sounds like a court intrigue game is the order of the day. Does your game have a gritty but speedy combat system? Just find an excuse to make battles happen. (Skirmish warfare?)

Figure out what your game does best and do it. Then advertise your game as what it is. If combat munchkins sign up for your game where the blurb is all about court intrigue, it's their own damn fault if they don't enjoy themselves.

As huttj509 mentioned, pregenned characters are basically required, especially if this is a new system.

What kind of time slot are you looking at for this? 4 hours?

LibraryOgre
2013-12-12, 04:37 PM
1) Unless you're doing something with character creation, or character creation can be explained really simply (3:16 Carnage Among the Stars is "Give yourself a name. Assign 10 points between 2 attributes"), have pregens. Have about 3 times as many pregens as you're willing to have people at the table, representing a wide variety of characters. Unless you have to assign gender, do not. The pregens should be able to work together (if alignment is an issue, make sure they aren't wildly variant; alternatively, don't default to "people from two factions that hate each other").

2) If you're demoing a game, make sure there's a lot of options for things, and opportunities to use skills. Have a simple scenario that is also fun... in running Hackmaster, I have them explore an abandoned gnome burrow that's been overtaken by kobolds and weasels (with a surprise in the basement). You should be calling for skill checks as they do things, but also willing to let them call for checks.

3) If the game is less about a demo and more about a competition, have some clear goals. My demo game tends to be "explore this place and have fun with the system"; for a con game that is not a demo, set some concrete goals they can accomplish, even if you don't feed it to them.

4) Demos take long than they should, but a well-organized team can blow through a dungeon HELLA fast. If you have time, playtest it with people who know the system, see how long it takes them. Figure it will take a couple times that, at least.

Raine_Sage
2013-12-13, 03:41 AM
I don't suppose you know which cons you'll be at by any chance?

TheCountAlucard
2013-12-13, 10:08 AM
The Fiddle Game's a classic, but it gets harder and harder to do nowadays. Most of the time, I'd suggest a Kansas City Shuffle, but…

Oh, what's that? Wrong kind of "con game?" :smallconfused:

Whoops. :smallredface:

More seriously, our genius mod has good advice for you.

Talakeal
2013-12-13, 04:55 PM
Ok, so what my game does well:

1: Has (imo) a very strong and well detailed setting. In my experience this is very difficult to express in a game, especially a short one, without it feeling like I am lecturing to people. Also, a lot of players just don't care, I know lifelong gamers who have never so much glanced at the "setting" chapter of games and can't name major lore characters or nations.

2: Has a very free form system for character creation and advancement, which is something rarely seen in "old school" games. Again, not sure how this applies to a one shot with pregen characters.

3: Combat is very quick and tactical. A good plan can easily allow one to defeat a superior foe before they have time to recover, and a stupid mistake can get even a strong character killed. Actions have consequences, there is no 10 minute work day or healing surges to wipe away past events.

I intentionally left out any sort of social combat system or "RP based" advancement, as I felt it stifled player creativity, which was contrary to what I was trying to get across. The game is all about in character decision making, you can do whatever you want, but actions have consequences.

Airk
2013-12-13, 06:38 PM
So...basically this is an OSR style game with a detailed setting? Just pitch it as such then. Put in a line or two in the blurb about the setting as a hook.

I sortof take issue with your idea that "RP based advancement" "stifles player creativiity" but it's true that it doesn't seem in line with the game you are trying to make, so there's that.

huttj509
2013-12-13, 06:40 PM
Ok, so what my game does well:

1: Has (imo) a very strong and well detailed setting. In my experience this is very difficult to express in a game, especially a short one, without it feeling like I am lecturing to people. Also, a lot of players just don't care, I know lifelong gamers who have never so much glanced at the "setting" chapter of games and can't name major lore characters or nations.



The setting is not the names and places, but the style and feel.

Near future machine meets magic as orcs with cyberlimbs and fireball-flinging elves struggle to get by in a world run by corporations.

Struggle to survive in a world of gothic horror, where the legends are real, and what you don't know will definitely kill you.

Negotiate politics and battle alike as you strive to maintain your honor as a samurai reminiscent of the old(ish) movies.


Playing L5R, it was most of a year of weekly gaming before I recognized a NPC's family name, and it attached to the clan, stereotypes, and their clan's relationship to my own (and there was a definite feeling of "hey, I got that one!"). I found the setting intriguing LONG before then.

Don't worry about the names. Just think about what would be an "iconic" adventure for your system, and play that up. You wouldn't show off Shadowrun with a swashbuckling adventure on the high seas, for example. That's not where it's designed to feature strongly (ok, now I wanna take my troll street-sam and try my hand at old-school piracy. I expect my life expectancy will be measured in minutes, but it could be fun).

Talakeal
2013-12-13, 07:22 PM
So...basically this is an OSR style game with a detailed setting? Just pitch it as such then. Put in a line or two in the blurb about the setting as a hook.

I sortof take issue with your idea that "RP based advancement" "stifles player creativiity" but it's true that it doesn't seem in line with the game you are trying to make, so there's that.

I am not sure if the OSR label applies. Old school games are typically very formulated, with rigid class and race roles for example, while my game embraces freedom when it comes to characters. If not for the negative connotations I would say it probably falls more under the term "fantasy heartbreaker".

Where does one draw the line between OSR and "Fantasy Heartbreaker" anyway?


As for the RP based advancement, I have always run into problems with acting in character penalizes me. For example, If I am playing a character who, for example, gains XP for acting honorably, and I come to a situation where my character really would violate her code if I acted in character, but as a player I know that if I do that I will be a level behind the rest of the party for the rest of the campaign, and thus my "power gamer" and "RPer" sides are put into direct and unsatisfying conflict.

Another_Poet
2013-12-13, 11:03 PM
I am not sure if the OSR label applies. Old school games are typically very formulated, with rigid class and race roles for example, while my game embraces freedom when it comes to characters.

Then make sure the pregens show that. I think that's really exciting, actually. You're not going to want to have a fighter with a two handed sword, a thief who's charismatic, a wizard seeking ultimate power, etc. You're going to want the knight who gained demonic powers in a pact, the fey cleric who fights with poisoned blades, the swashbuckling daughter of a witch.


If not for the negative connotations I would say it probably falls more under the term "fantasy heartbreaker".

I consider myself an experienced gamer and fantasy reader, and I do not know what that term means.

That may mean it's not the best term to sum up your game :smallsmile:

Talakeal
2013-12-13, 11:09 PM
I consider myself an experienced gamer and fantasy reader, and I do not know what that term means.

That may mean it's not the best term to sum up your game :smallsmile:

As far as I can tell it means something that is like D&D, only better, but will never succeed as D&D has already cornered the market on fantasy RPGs. I would also love a better definition as it is a term that is thrown around a lot but not often defined, and I can't think of many games that actually fall under that category. It is normally used as a put down, telling someone their game is a "fantasy heartbreaker" and so they shouldn't even bother trying to pursue it.

huttj509
2013-12-14, 01:01 AM
As far as I can tell it means something that is like D&D, only better, but will never succeed as D&D has already cornered the market on fantasy RPGs. I would also love a better definition as it is a term that is thrown around a lot but not often defined, and I can't think of many games that actually fall under that category. It is normally used as a put down, telling someone their game is a "fantasy heartbreaker" and so they shouldn't even bother trying to pursue it.

The origin: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/

From the introduction:


Fortunately, it all gets better when I take a step back and think historically. I can be sympathetic this way. Imagine a role-player who learned of "fantasy" through Dungeons and Dragons. I can be a half-orc, he says. So what's an orc? Think of him having fun breaking doors, confronting the beholder, or running his fingers over the minotaur illustration in the Monster Manual. And sooner or later, he says, I'm tired of these rules or arguing about this or that. Let's do it this way. And sooner or later after that, he and his friends say, this way is way better. Wow, we wrote a game! Maybe we can publish it too, like Gary did.

In the late 70s, this wasn't unreasonable. By the early 90s, though, things were considerably different. This essay is about some 1990s games I'm calling "fantasy heartbreakers," which are truly impressive in terms of the drive, commitment, and personal joy that's evident in both their existence and in their details - yet they are also teeth-grindingly frustrating, in that, like their counterparts from the late 70s, they represent but a single creative step from their source: old-style D&D. And unlike those other games, as such, they were doomed from the start. This essay is basically in their favor, in a kind of grief-stricken way.

Perhaps it's no big deal. Perhaps just getting into print and being on the shelves was all that their authors wanted. Perhaps I'm just a big meanie for expecting more (1) critical perspective of the intervening history of game design, (2) knowledge of actual fantasy instead of gaming-fantasy, (3) originality of concepts in mechanics, and (4) business acumen.

But then I look at the games, and I see some common features that lead me to think that their respective publications were not, after all, only about "seeing it in print." Nearly all of them include text that can described as "outreach," or a deliberate attempt not only to present but to enlighten the reader about the self-perceived innovations. Many have helpful accessories, like disks with programs for character creation or "idea cards" for players and GMs. Several had spunky websites with all sorts of memberships and services and brave mission statements, but whose update-intervals grew longer and longer. And considering when most were published, before most printers changed their policies regarding small print runs, print costs must have been enormous, in the $6000-plus category for standard paperbacks. Some of the games contain cardstock inserts, too. Vanity is vanity, sure, but we are not talking about small sums.

Talakeal
2013-12-14, 01:13 AM
That illuminates it a lot. But the article comes from 2002, which is before the era of digital publishing or OSR, which makes me wonder how much relevance it still has. Would OSR games fall under this category today?

Let's see how my game fares on his checklist:

•All of these games have skill lists.

Got me there.

•All of them except one have randomized attribute systems, but also an extensive set of secondary attributes which serve to homogenize the actual Effective values (i.e., those used in play).

Not at all.

•All of them greatly emphasize character race (species, really) as a major modifier of the randomized attribute system.

No. Non-human races are an optional rule.

•All of them have levels in one fashion or another, but interestingly, in all cases, a very diminished version of levels with not-terribly-notable effects on the character's game effectiveness, compared with the role of skill proficiency.

No levels here.

•All of them "crunchify" D&D combat in a RuneQuest or Rolemaster or DragonQuest fashion, placing emphasis on individual character speed and action-by-action (freeze-frame) resolution.

Maybe. Some areas are a bit more crunchy (everyone can perform semi ToB style maneuvers. But some things like AoO and Iterative attacks are gone.

•Almost all of them rely heavily on damage rolls, but make some effort to integrate "how well you hit" into the final effect.

I guess so. What game doesn't?

•All of them have one speedy-race, one or more brute-race, and one pretty-race (either winged humanoids or kitty-people), as well as the standard elves and dwarves.

No. Although somewhere in the bestiary I am sure you could find something that fits these vague guidelines.

•Not one uses a D&D style magic system (much more about this later).

Got me there. Although I am not sure how "not D&D magic" is a requirement, as just about every RPG that isn't D&D uses not D&D magic. Including 4e D&D.

So 3.5 / 6 on the Fantasy Heartbreaker scale.


Odd that people use the term to insult or discourage authors, while the original article seems to be praising people who had no chance to succeed financially but tried anyway. Anyway, its too late in development for this sort of naval gazing. I think I should pitch the game based on what it is on its own rather than some vaguely defined category.

Airk
2013-12-15, 01:02 AM
As far as I can tell it means something that is like D&D, only better, but will never succeed as D&D has already cornered the market on fantasy RPGs. I would also love a better definition as it is a term that is thrown around a lot but not often defined, and I can't think of many games that actually fall under that category. It is normally used as a put down, telling someone their game is a "fantasy heartbreaker" and so they shouldn't even bother trying to pursue it.

It means "Someone who basically can't think outside the D&D box making a fantasy game that is basically D&D, only with a custom setting and some custom rules." It's not a positive thing at all. It basically means "D&D plus a tiny bit." The implication in the term is that it's not SUFFICIENTLY innovative for anyone to really care.

Uhm. Which is dangerously close to the vibe I got from your description of your game, honestly. It's not even that D&D has cornered the market on fantasy RPGs - far from it. There are TONS of moderately successful fantasy RPGs that do things differently. Fantasy Heartbreakers are games with no real compelling reason for someone to not just play D&D, unless their personal rule peeve is the one the heartbreaker happens to fix.

Talakeal
2013-12-15, 02:35 PM
It means "Someone who basically can't think outside the D&D box making a fantasy game that is basically D&D, only with a custom setting and some custom rules." It's not a positive thing at all. It basically means "D&D plus a tiny bit." The implication in the term is that it's not SUFFICIENTLY innovative for anyone to really care.

Uhm. Which is dangerously close to the vibe I got from your description of your game, honestly. It's not even that D&D has cornered the market on fantasy RPGs - far from it. There are TONS of moderately successful fantasy RPGs that do things differently. Fantasy Heartbreakers are games with no real compelling reason for someone to not just play D&D, unless their personal rule peeve is the one the heartbreaker happens to fix.

The thing is, OSR games are a HELL of a lot closer to D&D than anything I have written, yet are often praised as a great thing.

Would you define Exalted as a fantasy heartbreaker? Because I am probably as far from D&D as Exalted is, although I went in a very different direction than Exalted did.

You know, I think this conversation probably deserves its own topic, I'll create one.

enderlord99
2013-12-15, 02:42 PM
The Fiddle Game's a classic, but it gets harder and harder to do nowadays. Most of the time, I'd suggest a Kansas City Shuffle, but…

Don't forget the classic Shell Game!:smalltongue:

Talakeal
2013-12-15, 02:44 PM
Back to the matter at hand, my system full allows any crazy character concept you can come up with, and has rules support for most. While it is very easy to play the fey priest or demon knight mentioned above, the biggest strength is that you can create the character as a person rather than just a class archetype. For example, a charisma based fighter is just as viable as a strength based fighter, although the two play very differently (it is not just like 4E saving throws where you can choose the best of multiple attributes).

For the pregen characters I was planning on making fairly basic archetypes for people to choose from, one using each of the basic attributes:

A charisma based diplomat, a dexterity based scout, an endurance based knight, an enlightenment based sorcerer, an intelligence based professor, a perception based sharpshooter, a strength based swordsman, and a willpower based priest.

I felt these were archetypes that people could easily wrap their heads around while still getting a feel for the unique rules of the game. Should I instead go for more "out there" characters?

huttj509
2013-12-15, 04:33 PM
Back to the matter at hand, my system full allows any crazy character concept you can come up with, and has rules support for most. While it is very easy to play the fey priest or demon knight mentioned above, the biggest strength is that you can create the character as a person rather than just a class archetype. For example, a charisma based fighter is just as viable as a strength based fighter, although the two play very differently (it is not just like 4E saving throws where you can choose the best of multiple attributes).

For the pregen characters I was planning on making fairly basic archetypes for people to choose from, one using each of the basic attributes:

A charisma based diplomat, a dexterity based scout, an endurance based knight, an enlightenment based sorcerer, an intelligence based professor, a perception based sharpshooter, a strength based swordsman, and a willpower based priest.

I felt these were archetypes that people could easily wrap their heads around while still getting a feel for the unique rules of the game. Should I instead go for more "out there" characters?

Well, make more premades than you need.

Perhaps for each "type" have a "standard" and a "out there" available. So alongside the Swordsman, you'd have the Cha based Fighter, and the player can choose.

This way, even if the "standard" is chosen, they see the options and might think "hey, that's neat."

Using those descriptors you gave, some options I can think of to pair with them would be:

Int based "political strategist"
Dex based bodyguard

That sort of thing.


If you consider nonstandard characters a strength of your system, play it up, but also have standard options available to highlight the flexibility, rather than just "our fighters are different" if all they see is Cha based fighters, for example.

Talakeal
2013-12-16, 02:14 PM
Ok. Thanks for the advice!

Anyone want to help me come up with a brief summary / pitch for my game?

Here is a longer summary of what it entails:

The game originally started as an attempt to translate the SPECIAL system used in the Fallout CRPGs to tabletop for a campaign set in the world of Stephen King's Dark Tower series. Over time I modified it with so many house rules that it no longer really resembles the original game except for some of the skills, traits, and ability scores and being based on stats ranging from 1-10. The closest analogy to an existing RPG I have read would be a cross between Warhammer Fantasy Role-play and Exalted.

The game uses a single d20 + modifiers to resolve all conflicts. I chose a d20 because it was the largest single dice commonly available, and the single d20 mechanic is far more streamlined than even so called "d20" systems.

The genre of the game is a cross between a Gothic romance and a Sword and Sorcery pulp adventure, with some elements of high fantasy and westerns thrown in.

The setting is an apocalyptic alternate Earth set in the dark ages following the fall of Camelot.

The mythology of the game is mostly Shakespearean. British Arthurian folktales and fairy lore set against a backdrop of classical Greco-Roman mythology.

The main theme of the game is the conflict between morality and freedom, and the consequences of actions.

The game is very strategic. Combat is usually over quickly and can have long lasting repercussions.



So any ideas? Thanks!

Svata
2013-12-16, 02:28 PM
The Fiddle Game's a classic, but it gets harder and harder to do nowadays. Most of the time, I'd suggest a Kansas City Shuffle, but…


Dammit, I was gonna say something like that...