Immersion in ttrpgs and larps

Every now and again, I see on Reddit and other places talk about immersion in ttrpgs and larps as being really important.

And because I’m not sure what that really means, I’ve tried to figure it out. 

(Clearly this isn’t the first time anyone has tried to do this, but this is my take on what immersion means to me.)

Define: Immersion

Asking Google (in April 2026) for a definition of immersion brings up this response:

Immersion (noun)

1. the action of immersing someone or something in a liquid.

2. deep mental involvement in something.

Google’s source is Oxford Languages.

#1 Immersion in a liquid

I’m pretty sure nobody in these discussions uses “immersion” to mean being immersed in a liquid. (Although Bubbles is an anthology of hot-tub larps, and Prawn is a larp set in a fish tank and held in a swimming pool. No doubt that players have joked about how immersive those games are. I know I would.)

Immersive experiences

But a broader interpretation of #1 would include immersive experiences, such as immersive theatre (such as Punchdrunk). The closest thing I’ve come to trying one of these was Alien War in London, back in the 1990s. (I’ve written about Alien War before.)

Sometimes these immersive experiences stretch the meaning a little. I think the idea of Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience is that you feel as if you are inside the painting. (I don’t know, I’ve not actually been – despite there being one on my doorstep.)

I’ve not done Bridge Command either. I hear it’s good, though I suspect you have to visit regularly to get the most out of it. If I went to London more regularly, maybe I would try it.

ttrpgs and larp

While I can imagine this kind of immersion in a larp, I don’t for a moment believe that this is what ttrpgers mean when they say immersion. Not unless the ttrpg they are playing is a game about modern-day folk playing tabletop roleplaying games.

And as far as larp goes, I think the idea is that a fully immersive environment lets players inhabit their characters without anything getting in the way.

Which sounds great, but I don’t work like that. I’m never not playing a game, and even immersive environments have elements that arguably drag players out from their immersion. (Some examples: Magic. Tracking wounds. Spectacles. Wheelchairs. Contrails. Power lines. Double-glazing.)

Worse, this kind of what-you-see-is-what-you-get feels a little too re-enactment-y to me. I remember watching magicians in a larp spend minutes casting their spells (drawing patterns in chalk, chanting, etc.), and it looked so boring to me. Can’t I just roll some dice? (And larps where you sleep in character? Ugh – I need breaks!)

Immersion of that sort isn’t a particular draw for me, but what about the second definition?

#2 Deep mental involvement

So this is the kind of immersion that works for me. I can get lost in a book. I can get lost in a video game. And yes, I can get lost in a ttrpg or a  larps.

But strangely, the immersion is different for ttrpgs and larps.

ttrpg/larp immersion as a player

Playing ttrpgs: In ttrpgs, I rarely experience immersion as a player. As a player, there are too many distractions for me to be completely immersed – and that’s not helped by the spotlight nature of ttrpgs. With four players and a completely fair GM, then I am only “playing” for 25% of the time. The rest of the time I am waiting and watching – which is fine, but not particularly compelling, and I’m unlikely to feel “deep mental involvement.” (I hate combat in ttrpgs for this reason. It’s so dull.)

Playing larps: But in larps, the percentage of time that I’m actually playing (rather than waiting or watching) is much, much higher. In the larps I enjoy, pretty much everything I need to resolve my character’s goals is held by other players – so there’s very little downtime. (In a weekend-long freeform larp, I will typically interact with the GMs for only a few minutes in total.) And so I find them much more involving and therefore immersive. The times I hate larps are when I’m bored – which usually means I don’t have enough to “do.”

ttrpg/larp immersion as a GM

As a GM, things are flipped.

GM-ing-ttrpgs: I find GM-ing a ttrpg completely absorbing. I’m fully focused on the players and on managing the game, the rules, and everything else. I’m completely immersed in the game – I don’t have the time to be distracted.

GM-ing larps: But in a larp, particularly the freeform larps I like to write and run and play, GM-ing is often a very passive activity. Once the game is set up and running, players often don’t need the GM. I am often only there for when the players need to interact with the world, and often they don’t need me much at all.

Immersion ≠ staying in character

It’s worth noting that for me, immersion does not mean staying in character. When I’m playing a larp I drop in and out of character quite often – but I’m still completely immersed in the game. (I find it hard to actually stay in character – I’m always playing a game.)

Other forms of immersion

So far so good, but “immersion” seems to have other meanings in ttrpgs and larps.

Immersion = staying in character

Having said that, for me, immersion does not mean staying in character; I recognise that the opposite is true for others. (As I’ve said, I’m lousy at staying in character.)

In fact, the Nordic Larp Wiki has this definition for immersion: Immersion" refers to a state of mind where a player does not need to actively suspend disbelief in the fictional universe, and where role-playing flows as naturally and easily as if you really were the character.

So I think this is about how much a player feels like they are their character and that they are in the game world. How real does it feel in their imagination?

If so, then immersion-breakers are things (in the rules or how the game is played) that pull players out of the game and their characters. (I’m not quite sure why things like rolling dice don’t pull you out of character, but presumably they don’t.)

While I see this in others (or hear about it in larp stories), it’s not something I experience myself. That’s because it’s always a game; I’m always just Steve. (Some people cry. I’ve never cried in a game.)

But maybe it’s a campaign thing? I suspect that over a number of sessions, ttrpg players become attached to long-running characters and may experience this kind of connection. I’ve never played a campaign longer than a dozen sessions or so; I’m usually itching to play something else by that point. So that’s never been me.

Anyway, as I’ve explained, that’s never been me.

Breaking immersion: collaborative world-building

When I am a GM, I like my players to help build the world. I’m a fan of Jason Cordova’s “paint the scene,” so when my PCs enter a new location or meet a new NPC, I might ask them something like, “What tells you that the owner of this store is struggling to get by?” 

But some players don’t like this. As far as I can tell, they feel that the GM should come up with these details. It’s suggested that answering meta-questions like this will break their immersion. 

(As a player, I like this sort of thing.)

Is immersion a player-only thing?

There may also be a player/GM difference. I’ve seen it suggested that those of us who are GMs first and players second (which is certainly true of me), don’t lose their GM-mindset when playing, so they still think about the metagame rather than getting wrapped up in their character.

And as a result, the feeling of character immersion (however you measure it) may be less important to them than to someone who is mostly a player.

But that’s just a theory. I don’t think it’s been tested.

Immersion: Am I any clearer?

Yes, I think so.

For me, immersion is important – but for me it’s the kind of immersion that means I am fully absorbed by something. (And even then, I don’t get that from all aspects of playing ttrpgs and larps.)

The other kinds of immersion? Not so much.

“Character generation is massively overrated”

Source

Why don’t campaigns come with pre-generated characters?

Call of Cthulhu’s Masks of Nyarlathotep expects the investigators to drop everything and leave the country to solve the murder of their “good friend” Jackson Elias.

Delta Green’s God’s Teeth requires a very specific set of player characters – a single Delta Green agent (the lone survivor from their cell) and some friendlies.

Traveller’s Secrets of the Ancients requires the Travellers to care about a distant relative they’ve never met.

(And as I discussed in my review, Traveller’s Legend of the Sky Raiders requires down-on-their-luck Travellers stuck on a remote planet far outside of the Third Imperium.)

I don’t know of anyone who puts their regular groups through these enormous campaigns. Instead, they create characters just for the campaign. With a bit of luck (or good guidance), the players must create characters that care about whatever it is that is driving the campaign. But given the campaigns themselves rarely provide much guidance, that can be luck more than judgement.

(And if you get it wrong, it can feel like the PCs are doing what they are doing because the players are playing the campaign, and not because it’s something the PCs are driven to do. Or you get mismatched PCs, as Neil Gow describes here.)

A better approach: pregens

But wouldn’t it be easier if the campaigns came with pregens? Characters suited to the campaign? With suitable skills and, more critically, the right connections, interests, and drive to follow the leads and see the campaign through?

Even if players would rather create their own, such pregens would provide a template for what would work for the campaign.

The pregens could even have room for the players to tailor them (like PbtA’s playbooks).

But don’t players hate pregens?

Well, that’s the theory. But I’m not sure.

Which is to say, I disagree – for at least four reasons:

• My experience of playing freeforms for over 30 years is that players are very happy to play good pregens that are linked to the game.
• Having run and played many convention games in the past ten+ years, I find that games work so much better with PCs designed for the adventure. I’ve never heard anyone complain.
• As I hinted at above, characters in PbtA games are largely pregens. And PbtA games are very popular.
• Reviews of ALIEN’s Chariot of the Gods and other adventures often praise the conflicting agendas of the scenario’s pregens. Players seem to love them. (And similarly, Greg Stolze’s disturbing Jailbreak.)

So the argument that players hate pregens is, in my experience, tosh. 

How did we get here?

I blame D&D’s concept of “modules” and the idea that pre-written adventures can be dropped in anywhere for any adventuring party. With that model in mind, why would you provide pregens? (I hate the term “module” for adventure or scenario, but let’s not go there.)

But I started with Traveller – and I followed that with Call of Cthulhu. Traveller’s original LBB adventures were scattered across the Third Imperium. There was no way a single adventuring group could do all the adventures, so inevitably, you’d have to create new PCs for the adventures.

And to be fair, Traveller’s adventures came with pregens. But they were just a list of stats and skills – no actual character. If Traveller had been more bold, and made their pregens more compelling so that players actually wanted to play them, things would have been different.)

Legend of the Sky Raiders

Here are the pregens for FASAs Legend of the Sky Raiders.

That’s it. That’s all you get. (Ironically, the key NPCs in Legend of the Sky Raiders would make better pregens.)

Call of Cthulhu

As for Call of Cthulhu, most of their adventures are independent investigations scattered across the globe. They were often deadly – the game doesn’t encourage campaign play. (Maybe that’s changed with the latest edition, which I’ve not seen.) If your investigator survived one investigation, they were hardly motivated to dive into a second. Or third…

So, pregens.

What’s the solution?

Give your adventures pregenerated characters. Write them for your one-shots, write them for your campaigns. Give them meaningful hooks and links to your adventure, and make them compelling.

As for me, I try to practice what I preach. I’ve put pregens in most of my published ttrpg adventures, particularly the more recent ones. And where I haven’t, it’s usually for a mission-based game where the game's characters are already focused on driving the adventure (such as Abaddon’s Puppet for The Dee Sanction).

Adventure Crucible: Review

Adventure Crucible: Building Stronger Scenarios for any RPG is a Kraken chapbook by Robin D Laws.

Physically, Adventure Crucible is a 52-page A5 booklet with very thin covers. (I’m keeping mine in its plastic cover.)

Adventure Crucible concentrates on “trad” RPGs – it excludes “story games” (which in this case seems to mean anything that isn’t trad). But that’s okay; it keeps the book focused.

Adventure Crucible looks at five common RPG scenario structures: the Dungeon, the Mystery, the Chain of Fights, Survival and Intrigue. (Two others, Picaresque and Drama are lightly touched on.) I’ll be honest, I hadn’t even realised there were so many different scenario structures – but that’s probably because, for me, some of them are almost indistinguishable from each other.

Obstacles

But before we get to that, one key element of the book is the obstacle, which is broken down as follows:

Dilemma: The expression of the obstacle

Choices: The choices the players are presented with.

Consequences: The consequences of those choices.

Rooting interest: Why the players should care. (“Rooting interest” doesn’t feel like a helpful name to me.)

All RPG scenarios have obstacles with choices and consequences, and Adventure Crucible recommends that scenario designers ensure their obstacles offer meaningful choices with consequences that the players care about. Well, yes.

Scenario structures

So, the scenario structures. Below, I go into the basic structures in more detail. They can, of course, be mashed together (and often are, as a dungeon becomes more compelling when mixed with a mystery).

Dungeons

In dungeon scenarios, the characters explore a discrete physical space; obstacles are monsters, traps and physical hazards.

And I’ll be honest, I can’t imagine anything worse. I’m not a big fan of dungeon-crawling board games, but at least they have the decency to be a board game.

Tellingly, Laws opens this section with “People who tire of the Dungeon format can tire of it hard.” I don’t ever remember actually liking the format. For me, dungeons lack one of my three key pleasures of roleplaying: a plot.

Chain of Fights

In a chain of fights, characters fight a series of enemies (the obstacles). For me, there’s such an overlap between this and Dungeons that it hadn’t occurred to me that they might be different. (But then, I’ve never felt the need to run Feng Shui.)

As far as I can tell, the main difference between the dungeon and a chain of fights is that in the latter, each fight contains a clue leading to the next one. (Rather than just going into the next room, as in a dungeon.) At least chain of fights does have a plot, which is a step up from a dungeon.

Survival

In a survival scenario, the characters encounter dangers while defending something or someone, which is kind of a backwards chain of dights. Obstacles include getting whatever it is the group needs to survive.

I don’t have much to say about dungeons, chain of fights, or survival structures because I don’t find them interesting to play. They’re basically adventures about combat, and if I wanted to do that, I’d play a miniatures war game. (And I don’t enjoy miniatures games either…)

Mysteries

In mysteries, the characters investigate something.

My favourite type of RPG scenario activity is the mystery. That’s probably because Call of Cthulhu was one of my early RPGs, and Cthulhu is all about the investigation. I also create a lot of scenarios, and as an author, I find mysteries the most satisfying type of scenario to create.

Obstacles are finding clues and, in a horror game, mental distress from experiencing the supernatural.

Adventure Crucible spends longer on mysteries than any other type of scenario structure, claiming that they are the hardest to write. That’s probably true, and I’m currently wrestling with an investigative scenario that seems to be causing more problems than it really should. They certainly seem to have more moving parts than other types of structures. For example:

• You need a villain with a plan. Adventure Crucible notes that players (and GMs running the scenario) expect the bad guy’s plan to make sense – which isn’t always as easy as it sounds.
• You need to know what they want, and what they are planning to do if the PCs don’t get involved. (So a countdown clock or timetable.)
• You need to know what the antagonist has done so far, so you can seed clues for the PCs.
• And depending on how you write your adventure, you need locations and NPCs where clues may be revealed. (The book doesn’t really mention this, but clues don’t have to be fixed in any one location. A clue can pop up anywhere.)

The climax or resolution of an investigation can often be the trickiest section to write and run. Mysteries don’t always suit a pitched battle as a finale – PCs who are good at investigating aren’t necessarily going to be strong in combat. And if you want your villain to react to the PC’s actions, it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly where and when the resolution takes place.

Intrigues

In an intrigue, the characters vie for influence and power. Obstacles are getting favours or stuff from other characters, usually at a cost.

Games of Amber and Vampire are described as intrigues – along with something described as “Gloranthan Freeforms.” But I’m not sure how many freeforms (Gloranthan or otherwise) Robin Laws has played, because while I would agree that some are intrigues, many are not.

I don’t really know how to write a pure intrigue scenario (unless we are talking about freeforms, in which case I’ve written a book about that), and I’m not sure Adventure Crucible explains it properly. I happily add factions and hidden agendas to characters to create an element of intrigue, but that’s often overlaid onto a mystery (see my Perfect Organism scenario for ALIEN).

Picareseque and Drama

Two more adventure structures are mentioned in Adventure Crucible but are only lightly covered:

Picaresque, in which the characters amble around and cause trouble. (Sounds like sandbox murder hobo-ing to me. Also not my style.)

Drama, which appears to be an excuse to cram a reference to Hillfolk into the book. I’m not sure you can write a scenario for Hillfolk, as it's so player-driven.

As an aside, when I look at what I like in roleplaying games and the scenario structures presented in Adventure Crucible, I seem very limited in my enjoyment of what makes a good game. But that’s because I think most scenarios (especially one-shots) are mysteries: there’s usually something going on, a plot of some sort.

And because I find combat dull, that rules out the first three structures.

Building stronger scenarios

So has Adventure Crucible helped me build a stronger scenario? I’m not sure it has, but it’s made me reflect on some scenarios that didn’t really work and why that might have been.

Where I have struggled to engage with scenarios (and this isn’t always me running them) is often where the core activity isn’t clear. If you’ve heard Robin D Laws speak, you’re probably familiar with the term “core activity” – it’s what players do in the game: “You are X, who do Y”.

When that’s not clear, scenarios can stumble.

For example, I once played in a very short Star Wars game that didn’t make it past the first session. I can’t remember what characters we created, but they weren’t the usual Star Wars characters – they weren’t rebels or bounty hunters. Our core activity was never defined, and the game collapsed when we didn’t react the way the GM expected us to. While we really could have used a proper session zero, the lack of a core activity for Star Wars didn’t help.

Some games don’t have a single core activity (RuneQuest, Traveller), making things more complicated. For example, I don’t really know what a typical Traveller adventure is. (Unlike a typical Call of Cthulhu or Liminal investigation, which I can easily imagine.)

Other London

In terms of Other London, so far, my scenarios have all been mysteries with a hint of intrigue. (Faction power plays are happening in the background – the PCs focus on the mystery.) 

One reason faction splatbooks aren’t on the horizon is that I’m not sure what the core activity of other factions would be.

For Desk 17 it’s clear: you are police detectives investigating supernatural crimes.

But for a fae court? Or a vampire gang? Or the Custodians of the Echo? I’m not sure, and until I can figure that out the fae, the vampires, and everyone else are staying as NPCs.

Overall

So overall, while I’m not sure it’s made my scenario writing any stronger, I found plenty of food for thought in Adventure Crucible.

Games played in 2023 (so far)

Compared to recent years, 2023 has started quietly.  So far, I’ve had 19 sessions, fewer than one a week. 

Those 19 sessions comprise:

• Ten freeforms (hurrah! I like freeforms!)
• Three episodes of Kingdom
• Two episodes of Cthulhu Dark
• Several one-shots: Fiasco, Fate Accelerated, ALIEN and For the Queen. I last ran a session at AireCon, back in March.

Most games have been at conventions. I have two online TTRPG groups. Until recently, they’ve been meeting weekly, but thanks to events outside anyone’s control, they are both on hiatus. As a result, in 2023, I’ve managed only five “weekly” sessions.

Maybe I need to find a new group?

Social skills in RPGs

I’ve recently been playing Fate Condensed, The Troubleshooters and ALIEN and noticed something odd about social skills.

While combat skills are usually straightforward—melee and shoot (or variants thereof), social skills are ridiculously complicated. 

Examples from some RPG rulebooks I have close to hand:

RPG	Combat skills	Social skills
Fate Core and Fate Condensed	Fight, Shoot	Deceive, Empathy, Provoke, Rapport
The Troubleshooters	Melee, Ranged combat	Charm, Subterfuge
ALIEN	Close combat, Ranged combat	Manipulate, Command
Liminal	Melee, Shoot	Charm, Conviction, Empathy, Rhetoric, Taunt
Traveller	Gun Combat, Melee	Carouse, Deception, Diplomat, Leadership, Persuade
Trail of Cthulhu	Firearms, Scuffling, Weapons	Assess Honesty, Bargain, Cop Talk, Flattery, Interrogation, Reassurance
Call of Cthulhu	Fighting, Firearms	Charm, Fast Talk, Intimidate, Persuade, Psychology
Tales from the Loop	None – no fighting	Charm, Lead, Empathise

Traveller also has Gunnery (for ship combat) and Heavy Weapons (for artillery). And when it comes to melee, Trail of Cthulhu separates armed (Weapons) and unarmed (Scuffling) melee combat. I’m not sure why it needs to do that.

So it feels like we know what we want with combat: hitting and shooting things.

With social skills, however, we’re all over the place. And while there are a lot of similarities (several examples of Charm/Rapport), systems often have their own peculiarities, such as Traveller’s Leadership (used during combat) and Trail of Cthulhu’s Cop Talk or Reassurance.

I want to think that the skills are chosen to reflect the way the designer expects the game to be played. I suspect that’s why something like “Assess Honesty” is in Trail of Cthulhu: it’s important to know when you’re being deceived.

However.

Thinking back to recent games, the social skills I’ve most often wanted are persuade, intimidate or deceive.

You can argue that charm and provoke/taunt are different styles of persuasion. (Do they need to be separate skills? I don’t know.) And intimidation is arguably just a type of persuasion (that’s how Traveller treats it).

But it feels to me that some games specialise too far—I’m not sure what the value of Rhetoric is in Liminal. And Call of Cthulhu has both Charm and Persuade. What did playtesting show? When was Rhetoric used? Were Charm and Persuade used equally and for different things?

Because characters have a limited pool of skill points, numerous social skills makes characters less effective: skills will be spread more thinly.

I’m not sure I have an answer or a conclusion. Other than were I designing a skills-based RPG, I’d have a good long look at my skills list.

As for me, I will pay more attention to my social dice rolls, record what skills I need, and revisit this subject.

Revised NPC stat blocks for ALIEN

As I found with Liminal, I am finding myself frustrated with standard stat blocks. This time, it’s Destroyer of Worlds, for Alien. 

Very minor spoilers ahead.

Ambush

So, one of the encounters in Act 1 is an ambush by a named NPC and five insurgents. However, Destroyer of Worlds, and Alien, make it hard work. Here’s how it currently works:

Page 54 lists the Ambush event—the insurgents try to take the PCs prisoners. There’s no mention of their stats or weapons or what their tactics are.

Page 17 lists the named NPC. (I'm going to ignore him for the remainder of this post, and concentrate on the faceless insurgents. Although the wider point applies.)

Page 19 lists stats for all the minor NPCs, including the insurgents. There we find this:

Page 84 lists the AK-4047 stats:

The M4A3 service pistol, meanwhile, isn’t listed in the Destroyer of Worlds book (it’s in the main rules), although you can get the information you need from the PC character sheets:

So, time for a quick quiz.

How many dice does an insurgent roll if they are attacking with their AK-4047 at medium range?

Ummmm…

I really don’t want to be flipping between pages just to find out how many dice I am rolling.

Better stat blocks

First problem is the stat block.

Even for key NPCs (as the one directly above), the stat block is hard to use.  That’s fine for everyone who knows that Command is a Wits skill (or is it Empathy)? But it would be much clearer if they laid it out like this:

Strength 4: Close Combat 1, Heavy Machinery, Stamina 1
Agility 5: Ranged Combat 5, Mobility 1, Piloting
Wits 4: Observation 4, Survival 1, Comtech
Empathy 1: Command 1, Manipulation, Medical Aid

That way I can immediately see that for Command, I’m rolling 2 dice. (10 for Ranged Combat!)

Would that be so hard? It takes up a bit more space, but it’s MUCH more usable.

Insurgents on Trello

But even that’s not quite what I’m looking for. This is a combat encounter so I need to know how many dice they are rolling. I’ve therefore rewritten the stat block to make it easier for me to use in play.

I’m using Trello to manage the game, and I’ve created a card for the insurgents that looks like this:

(The card will also include the named NPC stats as well.)

This tells me:

• The dice they’re rolling—all I need to think about are range and aiming modifiers.
• Space to track each insurgent’s health.
• Their tactics—they are trying to capture the PCs so they try to get them to drop their weapons first. I like to think about these ahead of time rather than figure out something sensible in the middle of play (when I am busy).
• Their reactions when they start losing—they will flee rather than fight to the death.

And if I need their skills, then they’re at the bottom; out of the way, but there if I need them.

Curse of knowledge

My instinct is that the designers are suffering from the curse of knowledge. They are intimately familiar with how the game works, but they’ve forgotten how to think like a newcomer. 

Unless you’re fully familiar with Alien (and I suspect most of us play Alien between other games), the current stat blocks are confusing and require endless cross-referencing and looking up of tables.

A plea

I don’t suppose that Free League will change their stat blocks, but if I ever write an adventure or encounter for Alien, I'll make it as easy to run as possible.

Using Trello as a virtual tabletop for RPGs

Inspired by this blog  I thought I’d try using Trello as a virtual tabletop. 

I’ve played a few games on Roll20, but I find that while it suits combat-oriented systems (like D&D) well, it’s not so good for something more abstract like Fate. Perhaps my three biggest criticisms of Roll20 are:

• The players can’t collaborate as much as I would like to.
• I can’t easily go back and see previous scenes and maps—only the GM can move me.
• I can’t easily see other players character sheets—at least not without having a zillion pop-ups.

So I thought I’d give Trello a spin.

What the heck is Trello?

Trello is a “a web-based Kanban-style list-making application”. It’s a productivity app, used to organise work. Essentially you create lists (categories) into which you put cards (your tasks).

You can click on the cards to see more detail (such as more text, checklists and so on).

And you can use it for RPGs.

The player's Trello board for Achtung! Cthulhu

Setting up Trello

I’ve just used Trello for my Fate Accelerated game of Achtung! Cthulhu. (I've discussed Achtung! Cthulhu before.) Here’s how I used it: 

• First, I created a GM board. This had everything on it that I needed – the background, locations, foes, NPCs and any pregens. (I normally run one-shots, and I’ve usually prepared pregens.)
• For my Achtung! Cthulhu game, I created these lists: Game admin; Current scene/clues; A list for each PC; NPCs; Locations; Clues; Foes
• I populated each list with individual cards. So the locations list had the various locations that I think will be needed, along with a photograph and a short description. NPCs included a photograph and their stats.
• For Fate Accelerated characters, I broke down the various parts of the character sheet into different cards – each aspect was its own card, approaches are a card, stunts are on another card, fate points are on another. That way all the character info can be seen by everyone.

But that board was just for me.

I then created a duplicate of that board for the players. I deleted the cards I didn’t want them to see (yet), leaving them with the opening situation and the characters. (And blank lists for locations, clues and foes.)

A Trello card - a Liminal foe

How did it work in practice?

I made the player board public, so the players could all see it without needing a Trello account. Unfortunately, without an account the players couldn’t edit the cards and make their own changes. It wasn’t a problem for a one-shot, but for an ongoing campaign I would encourage my players to create a free Trello account.

During play, as the players met a new NPC, or encountered a foe, I copied cards from my GM board (which I had open as a separate tab) over to the player board. That worked fine, and all the players had all the information in front of them.

I would have liked to see them create their own cards to make notes with, but as they didn’t have accounts that didn’t happen. Maybe another time.

But what about maps?

One thing that I don’t like about Roll20 that I didn’t mention above, is its assumption that you will use a map.

Now, when I run a tabletop game, I use maps sparingly. I don’t use miniatures and so Roll20 is overkill. In fact, Roll20 encourages the kind of games I don’t enjoy playing (ie, a miniatures boardgame).

An aside: I’ve noticed that I’ve used Roll20 so much lately—usually as a player, once as a GM—that I’ve started to become brainwashed into thinking that when I run an RPG online I must have maps. And that’s not true. Before I used Roll20 so much, I was perfectly happy running a game using nothing more than a Googledoc.

So in my Achtung! Cthulhu game, I set up a Google Jamboard (their virtual whiteboard) that we could use for a map. We used it a bit, but I found it awkward swapping between Trello and the Jamboard. Next time I’ll see if I can run the game without a map. I’ll keep the Jamboard as a backup if I need it, but I’ll try not to use it. 

Downsides

As with any VTT, you can spend longer prettifying Trello (and Roll20) than you will actually spend playing the game. We spent about four hours playing through my Achtung! Cthulhu mission, and I’m sure I spent at least as long as that populating the boards ready for play.

(And that doesn’t count the time spent writing the mission in the first place—although this was its second time through, so I don’t count that.)

I justify this by telling myself that I’ll run the game again. And I will—it’s the game I’m running for Furnace this year. But I also enjoyed prettifying Trello and adding bling, which is odd because I don’t do that when I’m running at the table. 

My next Trello game

I’m not 100% sold on Trello yet. I like it a lot, but I suspect I won’t get full value out of it until the players can also contribute. But I’ve only tried it the once, and I’m going to use it for my next game: Liminal.

Liminal on Trello

Update: Three months later and I’m using Trello for my Liminal campaign. I’ve got the hang of it now – we use Discord for chat (with the Dice Maiden bot for dice rolling), and most of the action happens around the Trello board.

Some further thoughts:

• Unlike my Achtung! Cthulhu board, for the Liminal characters are single cards on a “PCs” List. That reduces the amount of space they take up, which is better for the locations, NPCs and so on.
• Enabling players to update the cards is great – I’ve found that they’ve found pictures for NPCs and added other great embellishments.
• My GM board has evolved a bit. I originally imagined that I’d have all the NPCs, locations, etc on it, and then copy them to the player board. But I’ve found it’s better to move (rather than copy) the cards as that reduces the clutter.
• I’ve found using checklists in a card really useful for countdown clocks, or to remind me of the various encounters and incidents I have planned for a session. You can have multiple checklists in a single card, which is really handy.

While I’m finding Trello great for a campaign, it might be more than I need for a one-shot or single scenario. I’m still exploring though.

System doesn't matter. Except when it does.

Gaz and Baz in the recent What Would the Smart Party Do? podcast talked this time on the tricky subject of "does system matter" in tabletop RPGs. They are clearly in the "yes" box.

I'm not so sure.

Why system doesn't matter (to me)

Aside #1: There's no wrong way to play. This post is why system usually doesn't matter to me. If it matters to you - great. I subscribe to the Risus approach: there's no wrong way to play.

I had a bit of hiatus in tabletop roleplaying, that ended in 2011 or so when I started going to conventions again and I started online playing. When I think of the games I've played since then almost all of them were played in the same way: the GM presents a situation, the players respond. Occasionally dice are rolled to determine the outcome of an action. Mostly play consists of questions and answers, with some banter between the players. Dice aren't rolled as often as a read through the rules would suggest.

That applies to 90% of the games I've played (or run) since my return to tabletop gaming: Fate, D&D, Liminal, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, Monster of the Week, Cthulhu Dark, Blades in the Dark, The Cthulhu Hack, Shardland, Call of Cthulhu, Owl Hoot Trail, Spirit of 77, Shadow Hunters, Dungeon World and no doubt several I have forgotten.

Taking some recent examples, when Guy ran Shadow of the Demon Lord it didn't feel very different to Neil's D&D game. Sure the background was different, and I played a clockwork robot instead of a dwarf. But the character sheets and mechanics were been pretty interchangeable, particularly to someone like me who isn't familiar with either.

Similarly, my Other London modern urban horror-fantasy is very similar to Liminal. There are differences in the background and the setting, but I don't think my players would notice if I ran Other London using the Liminal rules, or vice versa.

Often when I'm playing a game, I'll think about the system we're using and try and figure out how it's different. And often it isn't - not really.

So from this perspective, system doesn't matter.

I like the things I like

We all like different things. I'm not a big fan of crunch, and so my games tend to be fairly fast and loose. Similarly I prefer GMs who run their games that way. Others are different.

I've had both good and bad games of D&D, and the difference is often in the GM. (And GMs can be uneven - we all have our off days.)

Ken and Robin talked about system in episode 373 of their podcast (I made a note because I knew I was going to come back to it). They're game designers so obviously they think that system matters, but they did acknowledge that more important than the rules is the GM. They have most influence.

They also noted that some people don't like learning new rules. That's me - I don't like learning rules. (I'll play anything, but I'm relying on others (usually the GM) to help me with the rules.)

I don't like learning new rules because for most of the time* I know I will run a game pretty much like any other. I suspect my running of Trail of Cthulhu would be almost indistinguishable from Call of Cthulhu. So why learn the new rules if it it isn't going to make a difference?

* That "most of the time" is important. We'll come back to that.

System mastery

If the system doesn't matter, surely that makes system mastery irrelevant?

There's (at least) two aspects to system mastery. One is knowing when to use the correct ability/mechanic for the situation. When I'm new to a game I expect the GM to help me there. For example, when I run Fate, it's not always clear to new players that in a combat against a tough foe they need to create advantages that other players can use - so I will remind them of that. It's not fair to punish them because they're not familiar with the game.

The other aspect of system mastery is when you've internalised the rules so that you often don't need them and they fade into the background. You can roll the dice and have a pretty good idea if you succeeded or not.

In the Smart Party podcast, Gaz and Baz talk about their frustration with people who say they like Chaosium's BRP because it fades into the background - to the point where they no longer use it. Well, once you've mastered a system it should always fade into the background - most of the time you don't need it any more.

"In an RPG, the fun happens between the rules"

In a blog post that I can no longer find (it may have been moved), John Wick makes an interesting point: "In an RPG, the fun happens between the rules." I agree. For me, the fun is in the story and the banter, not the rolling of dice. And with few exceptions, the system is always about the dice, not the story or the banter.

I think it's one of the reasons why I prefer RPGs with few rules - they have more space for fun than those with many rules.

Aside #2: RuneQuest MGF. I think the only time I played RuneQuest was with some Glorantha fans in Sheffield. But we didn't use the system - we used something they described as "maximum game fun". You picked three things you were good at, one thing you were bad at, and a secret. And that was it. I don't remember if we rolled dice or not. System? What system?

Invisible rulebooks

Then there are the invisible rulebooks we all carry around in our heads. S. John Ross talked about them, but that post is no longer on his site.) Essentially we all have our own view of how the world works and our game decisions are filtered by those rulebooks. And those are the rulebooks we consult when the players try to do something that's not in the official rules.

I freely admit that I make extensive use of those invisible rulebooks. Back in the 90s, when I was doing masses of roleplaying, I ran more than one multi-session game with nothing but 2d6 and my invisible rulebooks.

I mostly still do that. Except that I say I'm running Fate Accelerated (a very light system) because I'd never get anyone to play in my games if I told them what I was really doing.

A melon stall in D&D?

The Smart Party talk about running a melon stall game using D&D, and note that while there are lots of combat rules in D&D, there's nothing about running a melon stall. They're not against running a melon stall using D&D, but note that if the did that they'd probably use a different ruleset.

If the melon stall arose naturally out of the game, then I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But I do concede that if you want to run a melon stall game then D&D would be an odd choice of rules.

Boardgames and RPGs

If you did want to run a melon stall game, you might be better off with a boardgame. I can't think of any specific melon stall games, but there's plenty of trading games in that general area.

I don't play boardgames the way I play RPGs. When I sit down to play Villagers, I play Villagers - I'm not trying to apply my internalised Cosmic Encounter rules to Villagers. So Villagers is a very different experience to Cosmic Encounter. Or Tiny Epic Galaxies, or Rhino Hero Super Battle, or Ticket to Ride.

RPGs aren't like that. You can do anything in an RPG (S. John Ross describes this as tactical infinity), and often that's what the players want to do. And when they do that you need to consult your invisible rulebooks because there's no game rulebook big enough to cover everything.

When system does matter

And then there are the games where system does matter. Yes I said it. Sometimes, system does matter. Even to me.

For me, there are two reasons that systems matter:

First, it matters if I accidentally join a game with a system-heavy group or GM. I probably won't enjoy myself as much. That's not what I enjoy, and I'm in the wrong place.

Second, some RPGs really are doing something different. Everything I've described above probably comes under the heading "trad" (or traditional). But there are (a few) exceptions.

Here's my list (these are just the games I'm familiar with - I'm sure there are others):

• Hillfolk - it's roleplaying, but nobody would call it "trad". I've played Hillfolk once, and I'd like to do it more.
• Monsterhearts - in my experience a lot of PbtA games are played in a traditional style, but not this one.
• Cthulhu Dark - Cthulhu Dark is played much like Call/Trail of Cthulhu - but it's much, much bleaker. There's no fighting the monsters, and no happy endings, and the system helps drive this.
• Follow - a GM-less game by the designer of Kingdom and Microscope. None of them are traditional RPGs.
• Fiasco - another GM-less game.

Cthulhu Dark - when system matters

Looking at the list above, with the exception of Cthulhu Dark, all the games have a strong player-v-player element. So they play very differently to traditional RPGs and that's probably why the system matters so much.

Aside #3: Two games of Hot War. I've played Hot War twice - both of them one-shots. Hot War is a game of relationships, paranoia, factionalism and betrayal. It's also set in this crazy 1960s post-apocalyptic setting of a shattered London haunted by crazed Soviet monsters. 

My first game used the setting and a bit of the rules. It was a perfectly enjoyable investigation that ended up with a confrontation with a grotesque creature below London. But we could have been playing Call of Cthulhu.

My second game used the Hot War mechanics and translated it to a SF setting (which felt a bit Outland in tone). It used the Hot War mechanics to create a wonderful player-v-player game where my character lost everything.

Both games were great. Different, but great.

So in summary

For me, system doesn't matter in tabletop RPGs. Except when it does.

 Note: I've edited this a little from the original to correct an error.

Tabletop RPGs - Online

Dr Mitch has done it, Dom has done it, Guy has done it, and the Smart Party has podcasted about it. So never too late to jump on a bandwagon, it’s my turn to talk about playing tabletop RPGs over the Internet.

Way back when

I’ve been roleplaying online for five or six years now. My face-to-face games are usually at conventions (or occasionally when my nephews and nieces get together), but my semi-regular games (with people I’ve been playing with since the 80s) is online.

Initially, we had a lot of stability problems with people dropping out and losing connections. We tried Skype and Hangouts (back when it had an online dice roller mod) but we found that Facebook Messages was pretty reliable - and we still use it today.

For our tabletop, we use a Google doc that contains character info, game notes, maps and diagrams. I’ve been using Google Drive for years and it’s second nature to me, but the other players haven’t picked it up as quickly. I think that’s a message to remember - even if you’re very familiar with the technology and think it’s easy to use, people who are unfamiliar with it (even if you think them to be tech-savvy) may struggle.

Even when Google had a dice rolling app, I don’t remember using it much. We found it as simple just to roll the dice as normal and report our results. We’ve never worried about cheating.

Today

Today, stability is much better. This year we’ve been gaming once a week since January pretty consistently, and I don’t think we’ve had any of the old technology problems that used to plague us.

We still use FB Messages and Google Drive though - that’s enough for us.

Google does have some good tabletop-friendly tools aside from Docs. I’ve enjoyed using Jamboard, their interactive whiteboard. Dump a map on it and sketch away - just like using a sheet of paper (although it’s not as intuitive using a mouse compared to a pen or pencil).

This is taken from Jamboard from one of our sessions.

One thing that is essential, and that’s a microphone and headset. Using the computer’s mic and speakers runs a high risk of feedback, which is annoying for everyone. It doesn’t need to be anything fancy - one of the players in my group uses the earbuds that came with his phone and they’re fine.

To Roll20 or not to Roll20?

I do have a Roll20 account, but I’ve never used it. To the initiated it looks like there’s a huge learning curve required in setting up a game, which creates two barriers.

• First, the learning curve. If I don’t have to learn it I won’t.
• Second, I don’t want to do that sort of prep for my games. Normal prep is more than enough for me, without having to think about uploading stuff to Roll20.

(I’m sure some of you are thinking that I’m making too much of this. Remember the bit where I talked about even tech-savvy people struggling with the unfamiliar? That’s what’s going on here.)

Worse, I am yet to be convinced that Roll20 will improve my gaming experience. I can’t get excited about fog-of-war, and I’ve never run the type of game where it’s important to know exactly where your character is on the map. (As you’ll know if you follow my blog, I play a lot of Fate.) I don’t like crunchy games, so the fact that Roll20 automates some of that crunch isn’t a big selling point for me.

But I’m happy to be proven wrong - I’m sure one day soon I’ll sign up to play (not run) a game on Roll20.

To video or not to video?

Until recently, I did all my online gaming on my laptop. I didn’t have enough screen space to see the maps/character sheets and also everyone’s video, so I just ignored the video. It didn’t matter as far as I could tell.

Now I have a big screen (thanks to much more working from home) I have space to do both, so we’ll see how that works. (Although at the moment I’m struggling a bit with video, but hopefully I’ll get that fixed soon.)

My experience

I’ve never tried playing online with more than four other players and a GM. Normally it’s just two (so a total of three of us). I don’t really like playing normal tabletop games with more than four other players, unless the GM is really good at keeping everyone involved.

As a player, I find that I need an online game to be fairly pacey - even more so than a tabletop game. I’ve always found it easy to be distracted when it’s not my “turn” (hence preferring smaller player numbers), particularly if the game is taking a leisurely turn and I sense I can drop out without affecting anything.

Online gaming can make that worse because there’s less PC to PC chat. With my regular group (just the three of us - so two players and a GM) that’s less of an issue, but with larger numbers I’ve noticed that it’s not so easy to do PC to PC chat, which can mean that there’s a greater danger of players becoming spectators (and I’m not good at that).

Online, I find it easy to be distracted by the rest of the Internet when I find yourself spectating. So as a player I like the GM to keep things moving with everyone involved as much as possible. (And hopefully as a GM, I practice the behaviours I like to see! But I may not be the right person to judge.)

As a GM though, I find I’m entirely focused on the game with no time to be distracted.

Duration

I find that two hours is plenty. It’s fairly easy to find a two hour slot during a working week - any longer and it starts feeling that you’re taking up a full evening.

I haven’t tried playing for longer, but my experience of long conference calls at work is that two hours is enough. If you’re going to play for longer, take lots of breaks. (Even at two hours you should take a break - but we don’t always remember to do that.)

Online Tabletop Tips

So here are my tips for online play:

• Be aware of players not being familiar with the technology - what may be familiar to you will probably be difficult to someone else
• Use what you’re comfortable with - choose a setup that works for you. If that’s Roll20, great. If it’s something simpler, also great. There’s no wrong way to play.
• Keep it punchy - be aware that the whole of the internet is only a click away.
• Two hours is enough - longer isn’t necessarily better.

One-shot RPG GM checklists

So this is my RPG one-shot GM checklist.

Beforehand

• The scenario
• Rules (and summaries)
• Dice
• Pens and paper
• Cards for name tents and aspects
• Food and drink

Introductions

• Names
• X Card
• Set the scene
• Rules check
• Ground rules (taking breaks)
• Tents

Building the team

• Characters - pregens or character generation
• Teambuilding

The scenario

• Equal spotlight time

Wrap

• Epilogues
• Thank everyone
• Tidy up

So that’s the raw checklist. Here’s a bit more detail.

Beforehand

This is to remind me what to bring. Most of it is self evident, and my dice, index cards and pens are in my All Rolled Up. Paper is usually a notebook.

My All Rolled Up

If the game has a one-page rules summary (for example, Fate Core here) then I’ll bring a couple for players to refer to refer to.

Depending on the venue, I’ll bring water to drink and some snacks to share. (I play a lot of one shots at GoPlayLeeds, which is held at the Geek Retreat gaming cafe and they’d rather I didn’t bring my own food and drink.)

Introductions

I like it when everyone knows each other around the table, but I also find that I forget to do it (which is why it’s on the checklist).

This is when I’ll introduce the X card (if I’m using one), and also set the scene and any ground rules (such as when we are taking breaks) so that everyone is on the same page.

At this point I will find out who knows the system I am running. If they’ve already played it, then great. If not, then I give them the key points (and a rules summary if I have one). If they’re completely new to roleplaying, I’ll explain that all they need to do is describe what they’re doing and I’ll figure out what dice to roll.

Building the team

This is the point where the players meet their characters - they either build them from scratch (if the system is simple) or I hand out pre-generated characters.

To me, this is one of the most important sections - it’s when I try to turn a bunch of players sitting around a table into a team. It doesn’t always work, but that’s what I’m aiming for. All the great one-shots that I can remember playing in have some form of team building in them, and I really miss it when the GM just dives straight into the adventure.

Some games (notably DungeonWorld and other PbTA games) include team building as part of character generation, but you can add it to any game.

Some ideas:

• Ask each player to describe a scene from their last adventure - ask the player on their left what impressed them in that scene.
• Use backstory cards and a setting grid.
• Take an idea from DramaSystem - what does your character want from another character (respect, love, trust, etc) - and why can't they get it?

(I've experimented with adding "drama aspects" to Fate, with mixed success.)

The Scenario

This section only has one point, which is to remind me to give everyone equal spotlight time. As GM I try and monitor this, but I’m probably not the best person to say how successful I am.

Spotlight time becomes more important as player numbers increase. I don’t like playing in games with more than four players as I find it hard to remain fully engaged when I’m in a big group. As a result, I don’t like running games with more than four players.

That’s a bit of a problem at conventions where five or six players is standard, mainly due to the player-GM ratio. I’ve run both five and six player games, but I’d rather have no more than four.

Hillfolk’s scene-calling system automatically ensures that everyone gets at least some time in the spotlight. I wish there were other systems that were as easy to use.

Wrap 

Once the scenario is over it’s time to tidy up and thank everyone for playing.

But before you do that, finish the scenario with an epilogue - get the players to describe what their character is doing or thinking as the final credits roll.

Overall

As you can see, the checklist is weighted towards the start of play, because those are the points where I am most likely to forget something. If I’ve set everything up properly in advance, then that makes the game run that much smoother.

And a checklist for players?

Preparing a GM checklist does make me wonder what a player checklist would look like - but I think that’s a topic for another day.

Over the Edge: too many words

My formative RPGs were Traveller and Call of Cthulhu. While Traveller now has a vast background, at the time when I first started playing (in 1981) it didn't.

Both games are mainly character creation and rules, and in Traveller's case I learned about the Third Imperium from snippets here and there from the adventures, supplements and the Journal of the Traveller's Aid Society.

So it never really felt like learning lots of background. It was just stuff that I learned as I was going along, and it was never hard work.

(Call of Cthulhu obviously uses real history, mixed with the monstrous. There's a small amount of backstory regarding the war with the elder things and shoggoths, but that's in Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness rather than the rulebook.)

And the other contemporary games of the time (the early 1980s) were mostly the same. AD&D was just rules. Tunnels and Trolls, and GURPS, likewise. I never played RuneQuest or Empire of the Petal Throne, the two background-heavy RPGs of the time. 

Somewhere along the way (I guess in the mid 1980s with the arrival of Skyrealms of Jorune and MERP) increasingly detailed backgrounds became vogue. I remember in the 1990s remarking that I didn't like reading RPGs because they had too many words.

On reflection, it wasn't that they had too many words. After all, I still read novels.

But I really didn't want to have to learn another set of complex rules that didn't really change how the games are played. As far as I could see, there really wasn't that much difference in terms of the Chaosium system, the Traveller system or the AD&D system. They were all rules that just governed whether you succeeded at doing something, and one was pretty much like another.

At the time, I was also heading towards simpler systems. I realised that most dice rolls in RPGs were just answering a yes/no question, and I ended up running my games with players rolling two dice to see what happens. At the time, this was a bit weird. Now I run Fate Accelerated, which has a little more structure, but not much.

I also didn't want to have to learn a complicated new background - not when I could have just as satisfying games set in worlds I already knew.

I guess I don't have the temperament for system or background mastery.

Twenty years later

Twenty years later, my views on RPGs haven't changed.

I know this because I recently bought Over the Edge (OtE) and various supplements from Bundle of Holding. I had high expectations because OtE has a great reputation, but I'm afraid I found it full of words.

OtE rules: surprisingly complicated

Character generation was okay, although more fiddly than I was expecting. The simplicity that I recall from the reviews at the time (3 traits and a secret) is complicated with fiddly rules for hit points and optional rules for experience dice.

The rules were also more complex than I expected. The rules for most things are fairly simple - roll some dice to beat a target number, where both the target number and the dice you roll vary (but not by much). But combat, inevitably, takes up several pages and contains range tables and special cases that, for me, do not appeal at all.

Background: blah blah blah

Then we hit the background, and goodness that's a pile of text I will never, ever read. There are descriptions of people, factions, places and more. There are maps, and room-by-room descriptions of some key locations. Some of these are annoying - such as the room-by-room description of a hotel. I know what a hotel looks like - what I really need to know is why this one is different.

(It's this kind of thinking that lead me to create Tales of Terror, which is nothing but story ideas.)

I know a lot of people like this sort of stuff - and it leads to system/setting mastery which is a draw for some. But for me, mastery is in simplicity - what is the least I have to do to run a compelling game session. I'm all for being prepared, I can improvise most things as long as I know the key points. But that's all I really want - the key points. Unfortunately I found the key points buried in OtE.

To be clear, I don't mind learning background. But I want to do it as I'm doing something else (enjoying a novel, watching a movie, reading or playing a scenario), not as an infodump.

Sandbox

For me, OtE also suffers for not being clear as to what the PCs are up to. I suspect it's a product of it's time (and was also a problem with Traveller and, to a degree, Call of Cthulhu) so I think this is only something I'm noticing from 2017. I suspect that most of my games these days are convention one-shots means that I'm looking for more direction here than OtE was ever going to provide.

To be fair, OtE does have a go, by encouraging players to give their characters reasons for being on Al Amarja (OtE's fictional Mediterranean island). But that's something that needs to be done as a group, and for me I'd rather the game was narrower in scope and gave player characters a defined role.

So overall

So there we go. Over the Edge has too many words for me, but I accept that I'm a bit unusual in that department.

Maybe one day I will play it, but I'm unlikely ever to run it.

Hopeless at creating characters

I’ve recently come to the conclusion that I’m not very good at creating characters for tabletop roleplaying games. I don’t mean I’m not very good at rolling them up, but I mean that when given a blank canvas, I struggle to come up with an interesting character concept and backstory.

For example, recently I played in a Star Wars game (using Fate Accelerated). The premise of the game was that we were a couple of guys in a spaceship in the Star Wars universe. So did that mean we were bounty hunters? Criminals? Traders? Rebels? Imperials? Something else?

The GM really didn’t mind - it was up to us, the players.

So between us we created a small crew of a trading spaceship and we set off in search of cargo to trade (and inadvertently running the risk of turning the game into Traveller).

But I found it hard to create a character I was interested in.

Story not sandbox

I think the problem for me is that I want to see a story, not just a sandbox. In fact, I’m not even sure I particularly like sandbox play (if I understand the term correctly).

I really want my games to have a beginning, middle and end. And I don’t want that middle to be wandering around the game world poking the scenery with a sharp stick to see what happens. (Okay, that’s perhaps extreme, but I’ve seen it happen. That’s not the case as far as our Star Wars game goes.)

And when there’s a strong story, in my experience you need characters suited to that story.

I think my gaming history has lead me in this direction:

• Call of Cthulhu: I played (and wrote) far too much Call of Cthulhu in my early, formative years. And as Cthulhu tends to be all about the mission/scenario, I kind of have that in my blood. (I can’t imagine a Call of Cthulhu sandbox…)
• One-shots: These days I play in (and run) a lot of convention one-shots. They tend to be mission-focused, due to the nature of a short, one-shot game. They also tend to have pre-generated characters designed to suit the scenario. (At least, the best of them do - but I’ve talked about that before.)
• Freeforms: I play in (and write) a lot of freeform larps. Freeforms are often little more than a bunch of pre-written characters put in a setting and told to get on with it. So I’m either used to being given a character that suits the game, or I’m writing characters that I know will be fun to play given the game I’m writing.
• Sandbox inexperience: When I look back, it turns out that I’ve not played in many true sandboxes. There has always been a point to the adventures. (And the last sandbox I played in was over 20 years ago.)
• Short games: I prefer short games. I’ve never run or played in a long campaign - 10-12 sessions is the absolute most I’ve played or run, and 6-8 is probably more common. I don’t think I’d want to play in an epic campaign - there are too many games out there that I want to play.

Solutions

I like it when a GM gives me some guidance as to what sort of character suits the game we’re going to run. For the Star Wars game we did some collaborative world building, but looking back the key bit we missed was to define the issues that the game was about. We didn’t follow the Fate Core or Sparks process, and maybe if we’d done that I’d have a clearer idea of the character I wanted to play.

And I really like pregenerated characters, although that’s more work for the GM. And it’s nice to be able to tailor a pregen, so the PbtA playbooks are pretty close to perfect, and I’ve started using that basic idea when writing pregens for my games. (Some excellent examples here for Fate.)