Endgame (A.K.A. 100+ hours and the only choices I get are different colored explosions?) **ME3 Spoilers Inside**

Mass Effect. Great game series, loved them all. Yup, even with the micro-managing in the first one, but I could do without the mineral scanning of the second one. I've replayed them numerous times. And I've even started up a second play through of the third game, even knowing that no matter what I do will get the ending that makes me feel like Commander Shepard failed.
That's right, I feel like Shepard failed.
All of the endings weren't the commander overcoming the Reapers. All the choices were given by the Reapers. I didn't feel like there was anything about forging the galaxy's own future but instead going with 3 choices that were pretty much the same. Sure, the implications of what happens afterwards are a bit different between them all but I still felt like the commander failed, all three endings where what the Reapers' creator gave not one that the commander did. And even if I go with the indoctrination theory, the commander still failed, succumbing to the Reapers.
Now, before anyone jumps on me about not really having a choice in the games I need to say this. It's all about the illusion of choice. Of course there are only so many ways that it could have played out, but I wanted to feel like I accomplished something, like my avatar managed to succeed at some monumental task. I know that it's not truly up to my decision, that it's still a scripted outcome, I just want a good illusion of it.  As a game master, it's up to me to give the illusion of choice even when there really isn't a choice and this isn't something that I do regularly when I run a game, in fact, it's something that I really try not to do. I let the players decide what's going to happen, but in a video game I don't think that it can be done where it's free and open for the players to choose from an unlimited number of options. And that is where the illusion of choice, or influence, comes in. Please, make me feel like I had some input in the outcome.
Of course, I have pulled the "No matter what you do, the outcome will still be the same." in a game, but only once and I learned my lesson to never do it again.
Did I hate the endings? No, I'm just a bit disappointed. And yes, I do understand then endings and have dissected them quite a bit. I do feel like they were a bit rushed, too.
Does it mean I'm disappointed in the game? Oh, HELL no! I love the game. Just because it didn't end the way I wanted it to doesn't mean that the game itself isn't good, in fact it's going to suck more of my time and probably more of my hard earned money too!
Was I expecting a happy ending? No, I wasn't. I was fully expecting for Shepard to die, I just wasn't expecting things to go as bad as they did. I was hoping it would be just one of the endings and not all of them. To me it would have been a perfect ending for someone who just blazed through the game without completing the side quests.
Do I support getting a new ending? Yes. At least I support getting some clarification or additional information. If BioWare wants to leave the ending as is and say deal with it, I'll accept it, I won't be really happy about it, but I'll accept it.
I think BioWare did an exceptional job with this series and I don't think the flaming hatred is warranted. I appreciate the work of the Retake Mass Effect campaign and how they are trying to keep everything civil and level headed. But as the meme states, haters are going to hate, just don't let it get you down.
To BioWare, I love the game and will still love the series. Good job over all and I look forward to throwing more money and time at you in the future. And the multiplayer has been one of the things that I have had the most fun in playing. Just give me the ability to drive a Mako or Hammerhead or Something in multiplayer with a HUGE map and I'll be happy. Nothing quite like taking a tank for a spin.
To Penny Arcade and Child's Play, I'm sorry that things got out of control and caused issues for you guys, I love what you do and hope that you will continue to do it for many years to come, maybe centuries if we get the technology to stick your brains in jars... MUAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! Sorry, the Renegade side got out, but it would be for the good of the galaxy! Honest!
Keep your rifle handy and your aim true! Don the Evil Bassman

They aren't yours! (A.K.A. My issues with Fan Fictions! Also titled, Reasons to stop reading things on the internet!)

Fan Fictions..... *shudder*
I have yet to see any that are worth my time on reading. Of course, with how harsh I am on books in general this isn't something discouraging. I can't even read Harry Potter, or even Lord of the Rings, I am way too harsh of a critic for most books. It's due to something that happened long ago. I dissect any story I read. Heck, I can't even read my own writings (trust me, I think it's horrible and most will never see the light of day) without completely destroying them. I haven't even cracked the spine on a Twilight novel. There are very few books that I can bring myself to read without demolishing. Role-playing game manuals and recently, The Dresden Files. Okay so the RPG manuals really don't count, but the Dresden Files do. I really love the Dresden Files. And yes, I've tried reading Codex Alera, I dissected it and couldn't get into it, nothing against Jim Butcher or his writing ability, I think it has more to do with the first person conversational style of the Dresden Files... but I digress.

Back onto what this post is about.

Fan Fictions... My main issue with Fan Fictions is that they take characters that aren't theirs and come up with their own stories about the characters, often taking them into completely opposite directions than what the original author was going for. Now, I'm not against stories set in the same universe/world of the story that you are fan fictioning, and even then, to have the main character from the published book make a cameo would be okay. I think that it would be a good exercise to do a story about something happening to different characters in the same universe as the main story, but something a bit different. You get your story and you don't do anything that would be taking away from the original author’s plan. I know, I know, the original author probably would never see what you have written and you are writing it for your own amusement. These are just my thoughts. I also know that imitation is the greatest form of flattery. But I have been disturbed by reading a bit of a fan fiction where Harry and Ron hook up....

This also applies to Role-Playing games... I think that the original author should be the only one with stats for their characters. (Drizzit Do'Urden fans, I'm looking at you with this one.) But again, that is just me. I will admit, that I have stolen ideas for characters from movies, books, tv shows, and video games, but I have always used it as a starting point and changed the character and never claimed to be the same character, just inspired by that character. My biggest rip off... I mean inspiration.. was for a character named Xeron Shardliss. He is heavily based on the Prince from Prince of Persia the Sands of Time Series. Mainly I swiped the abilities (even then changed them around a bit), dropped the whiny attitude the prince has and replaced it with a more noble attitude, then added a roguish twist. Inspired by, but not the same as the Prince.

That's my take anyway. Again, I'm just an Evil Bastage if you ask the group I game with and I'm extremely harsh when it comes to writing.
Don
The Evil Bassman and Neutral Evil DM

The Fighter (A.K.A. What do you mean he hit me 4 times for 39 points each AND I have to roll fort save vs bitch slap?)

I've been seeing a lot of stuff about how the fighter is a worthless class. How that it isn't powerful because it can't cast spells and doesn't get a lot of skill points. That after 5th level fighters are useless.

For all of that I have to say... Have you even played a fighter past 5th level?

I really enjoy playing all the classes, but fighters have always been a favorite since my first real character was a fighter. Well, he ended up being a fighter magic-user at the end of it, but it was his fighter abilities that carried him through his adventuring career for the most part and the magic-user was added mainly for flavor rather than power. Anyway, fighters can be powerful in their own right. In fact, I don't believe that a single class is really any more powerful than the others. Each class has its pros and cons. And I'm not talking about all the other classes out of the other books, I'm talking core books.

The examples that I always see being given are a single 20th Level Fighter with no magic items goes up against a full powered 20th Level wizard, sorcerer, or other spellcaster. Yup, that is pretty much the only example ever given, just in different flavors.

A 20th level Fighter with no magic items attacking a fully equipped 20th level anything is a pretty poor example. A 20th level rogue with no items wouldn't fair any better. Neither would a Paladin, Barbarian, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Ranger, Druid, Bard, or Monk.... Okay, the monk might be able to do more while being nekkid but not much....Okay, so the monk would be able to stand up to most things... Fine, remove the monk from the list.. Anyway..

The point of the fighter isn't to be a blasting character. They aren't supposed to be the “gesture and a load of low level enemies just die”. They don't channel the divine power of their gods, they aren't a living embodiment of rage, they don't seek perfection of the body, and they aren't in touch with nature. Fighters are experts in martial combat. Play to that strength.

My example of a high level fighter, straight class.
Elric Kaliburn: Fighter, 20th level (I think) Specialization: Full Blade sword. Main Stat: Str 20
Items: Alchemical Full Blade (+2, Adamantine, Silver, Cold Iron) Could strike anything. - Non-Magical sword, Full plate of speed (+2 with haste for 10 rounds), Helm of Brilliance, Amulet of natural armor + 6, belt of Giant Str +6, Dancing Shield (large) +2, Boots of striding and springing, ring of water walking, ring of overland flight, cloak of protection +3, and a couple of other magical items that I can't remember at the moment.
Armor Class: 33 (dex +2), Hit points: In the 200+ range (good con and I rolled really lucky)
Feats: Weapon focus and specialization: Full Blade, improved sunder, cleave, power attack, great cleave, mobility, point blank shot, precise shot, dodge, lighting reflexes, iron will, eyes in the back of your head (from the fighters handbook), a combat reflexes, improved critical: Full Blade, and defensive sweep(a very broken feat from the ph2 or complete adventurer. What? I ran out of feats that I wanted for him and everyone else was using the other source books. This one feat was so broken I was accused of taking nothing but broken feats for all of the feats for this character).

Elric was a fighter. Pure and simple. His to hits were 32/27/22/17, and damage was 20-39 points meaning average damage was 28 points per hit with a critical being between 40-78 damage with 56 points on average meaning medium creatures have to roll fort save vs death. If Elric were to just hit and do average damage with each of his hits it would be 112 average, with the range of damage being 80-156 for non-spell damage. Only Meteor Swarm comes close to that damage and that's only once or twice when you look at Elric being able to dish it out EVERY round. Not to mention Elric's love of sundering weapons and cleaving into the soft wielders of the weapons.

Yes, a force cage would stop him in his tracks, but that is why he is with a group of adventurers. He's not alone. That is what the adventuring group is for. Elric was a contributing member of the group and extremely valuable in combat. He was one of the group’s 2 major damage dealers. The other being Calixto, the ranger.  That's another thing that is forgotten in these debates, an adventuring party. Everyone has a place, no one can do everything. The spell casters support the big damage dealers and help take out the lesser folks while the tanks bee-line for the big bad guy.

Try this one, who would win if they were in a null magic area, the 20th Level Fighter or 20th level Wizard? Neither! Cause the great big ancient red dragon stomped them into oblivion. HA!

Encumbrance and Equipment (A.K.A. Why wagons are handy in D&D.)

For a long time I've played in and run games where the players didn't have to worry about encumbrance with their equipment. Usually due to having magical bags to store the stuff in or having easy access to transports. However, in this new D&D campaign I'm starting, encumbrance is an issue. Players are not only having to watch how much they are carrying, but where they are carrying it (I need to be able to determine what pickpockets can get their hands on, hee hee).

Back long ago when I was playing AD&D, I had to worry about encumbrance and the weight of my character's equipment. After struggling with it for a little while, I realized that I could use a wagon! So from that moment, when my characters started getting enough loot/equipment they went and got a wagon. We almost always had hirelings that would watch the party's camp so I just gave them a bit extra gold and they watched my wagon as well. It caught on with other members of the group and soon everyone had wagons and boy did it get interesting. The best time was when the group had about 10 wagons, most of them were covered or enclosed and they all had magic on them in some form or another. We would circle them around our campsite, set up the watch, then put a cover over the whole thing with a hole in the center of the cover for the smoke to go out, and then activate the magics to make it secure. The group was about 15th level when doing this. We called it our portable canvas tower. Then the group would leave their hirelings and followers there at the camp and trudge into the dungeon, if we needed anything that was at camp, our mage would teleport back to it, grab the stuff and port back, it was easy.

Then someone ticked off a demon.

But that is another story. This is about the encumbrance and equipment.

Treasure has a weight, all treasure, and equipment has weight, so what happens when you combine both? Things get heavy, characters start to slow down. No more are the characters going to be carrying around 1000s of gold pieces at at time. Now, I'm not doing this to be mean (Though part of me is getting a bit of a sadistic kick out of it), but I wanted to do a "back to basics" game, even though it is in 3.5 D&D. So I wanted to count encumbrance again, get people to think about how they are going to accomplish these tasks they set out to do. And having to keep track of what your character is carrying is part of that. You have to plan more to get through. In all honesty, I think that the players will get more out of it since they are going to have to put more into it. And this is where a wagon would come in very handy.

Recently, I've found groups(not just members of my group, others that I have talked to as well) scoffing at the idea of having a wagon coming along with the group. This boggled my mind until I realized that no one was used to encumbrance. At the time it was easy to transport thousands of gold pieces and treasure, but not this time. This stuff can get heavy so it's time to figure out how you get the treasure back to town to sell it off. My suggestion? Get a wagon and a bunch of sacks. Big ones if you are lucky enough. Oh yeah, a horse to pull the wagon. I've seen groups forget to get a horse for their wagon. But remember, someone needs to watch the wagon while the characters are in the dungeon otherwise things might go missing.

Never underestimate the usefulness of a wagon.

Psychology in Gaming (a.k.a. The art of warping not so young, but still squishy, minds)

Over the years I have learned a moderate amount of psychology and use it in the campaigns that I run. Well, most of the campaigns, Tales of the Doc Wagon didn't have any psychology in it on purpose. There is always some amount of psychology being used in any game, regardless if it is intended or not, but what I am talking about is the deliberate use of psychology in creating and running a game, and even then it's more of the behavioral aspect of psychology.

I won't get into exactly how I use it, don't want to give away all my tricks, but the big thing that I use it for is to help mold the game to make it more enjoyable, giving the players a chance to invest themselves a bit more in their characters. One of the other things that I use it for is for dramatic tension, I know how to make a villain that can get under someone's skin and get the players wanting to take the character down. This is done through the villains personality, actions, or associations. I've had times where players meet a villain who hasn't done anything yet, but they hated him  just because of his personality (incidentally one of the people that they thought was part of the evil side was actually one of the good guys, he was just a jerk).

Here are 3 things I use to mess with minds:

Betrayal: There are few things that hurt as much as betrayal. Of course having an NPC betray a group is almost always expected, which is why I like to use player characters. Betraying a group with a PC is one of the most dramatic things that I have seen. But it only works if the player of the character goes along with it and they never did anything that made the others believe that it was going to happen. I use this very sparingly.

Playing to Fears: I will exploit fears, both player and character. Yes it's a cheap shot, but very effective when done correctly. Can't do it too often otherwise they get used to it. The trick to this is bring the fears into the game but never ever make it completely hopeless, there always has to be a way out, otherwise the player and/or character will just give up and that is not a good thing.

Misinformation: I do think of this as a psychological aspect since it is based on an individual's perception. I'm not talking about giving bad or incorrect information, I'm talking about giving a bit of information but with some parts missing so that the PC's speculate on what it is and/or means. In fact, I generally don't give the PC's completely bad information (i.e. Out right lie to them) but I will give rumors and gossip which they will sometimes take as fact. It's great listening to the players discuss these things, makes it hard not to grin when they are going in the wrong direction with it so naturally, I grin at everything.

There are other aspects that I won't get into here because I don't think I can describe what I do correctly. Heck, I probably didn't describe what I did put correctly.

However, using psychology as a Game Master is a bit tricky, you have to be careful because it can backfire really really really badly. I've caused players to cry at certain events that have occurred, I've gone too far and made everyone feel that there is no hope when they are actually more than capable of completing the task at hand, given nightmares to players for weeks after the session where I played with their mind, and made one player so frightened that she couldn't be by herself for a couple of days afterwards (though, I have to admit, it was a massive ego boost for me, and her boyfriend thought it was funny). And, of course, the current gaming group thinks I'm evil.

Now, I will warn players when I am going to start using a lot of psychology to take a campaign into a darker direction, and I give them the option to tell me to back off and I will tone it down. Last thing I want to do is get everyone mad at me and not want to game anymore.

One final thing, madness, I've seen few people that can pull off a character going mad/insane/bonkers/cuckoo/crazy correctly. Yes Cheli, I believe that Cobalt Blue was done correctly, and Scott, stop glaring. Insanity can be hard to pull off, so research on it is very helpful.

Just some musings on some of what I do for RPGs, I won't get into the video games that use psychology, that's another post.

Cthulhu is amused.

Telling the Story (a.k.a. Sharp Plot points really hurt. Also: Red Herring Mania!)

Most of my campaigns are Sandbox style and the game I'm running right now is a VAST Living Sandbox that has a lot of instances of rippling effects across the campaign.

I'm running a Mekton Zeta game, the games are set up as if the campaign is an Anime series. The main name of the series is Darkest Eve, with the individual seasons having their own names, Rogue Queen Saga for the first season of 24 'episodes' and Cast to the Black as the second season. There are 4 seasons scheduled, totalling 96 episodes, with the possibility of a few more to wrap up the campaign if needed. Of course, the players have the option of canceling the series at the end of a season, but they won't get to find out what happens in the story if that happens. Yes it's blackmail, but if you kill the story before it's done then you probably will never know the end. The series is set in space and has giant robots that the characters get to pilot around, there are other races and space battles along with going out to a great big asteroid field to do some mining. The story for the beginning of the campaign is that an officer of a galactic territory is leading a crew to find what is called Lost Tech. This lost tech is from a civilization that predates all of the civilizations that are around now, even humanity (BTW, Earth was lost a couple of thousand years ago. Well, the entire solar system was lost.). Now here is the part I wanted to get to, the story.

The group hasn't been directly told what the main goal of the campaign is. They know what the story is and are helping it unfold, sometimes in ways I didn't think of. I've given them the option of me directly telling them what the main goal is but they haven't wanted me to reveal that yet. Mind you, the goal doesn't mean they will know the story. This is how I am trying to keep the interest going in the campaign for the 96+ games that I have planned (loosely, I gave up on planning it out fully when the PCs altered things a bit with their actions).  I have given clues to what the main point is, but I have created a number of 'Side Quests'. These are making up the main part of the first part of the campaign and they are rather fun and even have an effect on the game world. This is also giving the players reason to explore the game world (or universe in this instance) since they don't really know what the direct goal is. It's been my experience that if the players have a direct goal they will pursue it, often forsaking everything else for it. This way they get to explore and shape things more their own way.

2 main problems with this style of storytelling:

1: Not enough information to keep the characters moving in any direction. PC's can get lost or lose interest if there isn't anything going on.

2: Too much information. PC's can get lost in the information and with all the stuff that there is to do.

I have set up a work around for that, the group has a mission that they are on, searching for Lost Tech. Anything that deals with that they are on top of. Everything else is just icing for them. Whether or not this is the main plot or goal of the series has yet to be seen, heck it might even be a side quest. Am I ever going to tell? Maybe, maybe not. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

The Consequences of the PC's Actions (a.k.a. What do you mean I got the queen pregnant and then king found out?)

I love to have the PC's actions have consequences, either immediate, short term, long term, or campaign altering!  Ah the joys of killing a major noble of a kingdom... Many times in my games have PC's sparked wars, released things they shouldn't have, or just plain mucked up things that really should have been left alone. These repercussions don't even have to have anything to do with the main goal of the campaign but sometimes can become the main goal. These things can be a pain to keep track of if there are too many changes, generally I keep track of the major or far reaching ones for the whole campaign while minor ones might be forgotten later in the same game session. In a related note to the Encounters post, the PCs actions can have a rippling effect across the game world that can alter many things. Like I mentioned in Encounters, if an event happens that the PCs really needed to be there for but they decided to go somewhere else what has changed (These type of instances can only occur in Living Sandboxes)? I just continue going on and let the PCs hear about it and they realize that they should have gone to the castle for the coronation ceremony of the new king rather than going berry picking with the naked hot elven babes.

Encounters/Events (a.k.a. The stuff that goes on between tangents.)

This is just my thoughts on the effects of what the PCs do in a campaign, but it does  kind of tie into the Static and Living worlds a little bit, but not much.

Encounters and Events are the staple of a good game. How I define an Encounter is a real good question, I really can't say there is much of a difference between an Event and an Encounter in the grand scheme of things. How about this, Encounters directly involve PCs and an Event is something that the PCs are witness to but don't necessarily get involved in? Anyway, there are 2 types of Encounters in my book, random and planned. Now random encounters are exactly that, random. They happen for no real reason other than the dice said so (GMs generally will come up with a reason for the Frost Dragon to be in the desert, or at least they should). I don't really have any issue with random encounters but sometimes I have issue with planned ones.

For Planned encounters are times that the PC's need to be somewhere specific for something to occur but what happens if the PC's never go there? Do you force the encounter? There are GMs that I have gamed with (and I have done this a couple of times myself) that will move the encounter to where ever the PCs are, regardless of it if makes sense for it to occur there or not. I know that some GMs work really hard to create encounters and want the PC's to find them but rather than shoe horn it into a spot, change it to suit where it is, and if the group is trying to avoid it because they don't think they can handle it, don't force it. But I have to admit, I've done it too.

Static and Living Worlds. (a.k.a. 'The Universe revolves around Me' and 'What do you mean it doesn't revolve around me?')

This kind of goes with my previous post about Linear vs Sandbox style of games and is my take on my 2 classifications of game worlds, Static and Living.

When dealing with the Sandbox style in the past (playing and running for some of it) I have found that many game worlds seem to wait for the PCs to appear for something to happen. Almost like the barbarian horde that is just over the ridge has a lookout watching for them and when the PC's arrive the horde just "happens" to attack at that time( I have the image in my mind of this horde sitting around drinking tea and discussing the finer things when someone runs in shouting "The PCs are here!" and at that time they all grab weapons and charge, after cleaning up the tea of course. Makes me think of the Capitol One Card commercials actually). I call these type of worlds as Static. That isn't a bad thing, it just means that the world revolves completely around the PCs.

In Living worlds life goes on when the PC's aren't there. This can be a nightmare to keep track of. Living worlds are constantly changing, evolving, growing, and moving so when the PCs go back to a place they've been or have heard about it can be completely different. Kingdoms can rise or fall while the PCs are out and about. Of course this can make the players wonder if they are doing the right thing in the game since there is usually a lot of information coming to them.  Static worlds are good for keeping a group on the right track since the world doesn't change much at all without the PC's there so information is still relevant regardless of when the PCs show up. Living worlds can be overwhelming since things change and evolve as the campaign progresses, and sometimes thing are completely different when the PCs get there.

Nothing against either one of these style of campaign worlds, its just my perceptions of the 2 types that I see.

Railroad vs Sandbox

After running a game last night (Sat the 23rd) I got to thinking Railroad and Sandbox games. Here are my interpretations of each of them.

Railroad - setting a direct line for the players to follow with little deviation. The characters have little input on what happens in the game, they just move from plot point to plot point. The beginning, middle, and end of the story have already been planned out.I've played a few of these types and have run a couple I think...

Sandbox - a setting that is completely open, no real direction, just open world. The characters can go anywhere and do anything. The beginning has been created and there is a loose idea on what will complete the campaign but the middle and end are completely open for the characters to dictate.This is the style I really like to run.

Now there are good things with them: Railroad games are always moving forward and the players always know what is going on and what to do. Sandbox allow the players to shape the game and have more control over their destinies. And there are bad things: Railroads don't let the players feel like they are really affecting anything. Sandbox games can leave the players wondering what is going on and what they need to do next, feeling lost in the game.

I like to run games with a Sandbox style but I have to make sure that I give enough information so that the gamers aren't lost in trying to decide what to do next.

Dragon Age and Mass Effect

Warning! Warning! Spoilers for Mass Effect and Dragon Age (not many but they are there).

Okay, I've said that Dragon Age is kinda like a medieval version of Mass Effect.  A lot of people said "Oh no, the games are nothing alike other than they were both made by BioWare." Well, sorry to break it to you, but they are more alike than people think.Here are my observations on how they are alike (Disclaimer: Them being alike isn't a bad thing, they are both great games and deserve to suck away hours of your life... you will enjoy... you will enjoy... as long as Action RPGs are your thing). I have only played through a bit of of Dragon Age so far but I'm on my 10th playthrough for Mass Effect (that doesn't include Mass Effect 2). Here we go:

1: The Main Characters join a special elite organization that wields incredible influence/powers as part of the main plot: Specters (Mass Effect), Grey Wardens (Dragon Age)

2: There is a big nasty evil that people don't completely believe is out there: Dragon (Dragon Age, at least at the point where I am in the game), Reapers (Mass Effect)

3: You can pursue a romance with one of your cohorts: I'm not going to bother listing who.

4: There is a place for you to speak with members of your party/crew: The Normandy (Mass Effect), The Campsite (Dragon Age)

5: Your choices carry over to future games: too many to list.

There are other similarities between the 2 that are more than just standard rpg stuff. Though Dragon Age has more RPG elements than Mass Effect. Combat in Dragon Age has a delay, making it like turns in combat, kind of annoying actually.

The games being similar isn't a bad thing, like I said before. But with these specific things in common, I consider Dragon Age to be Mass Effect Medieval... okay Mass Effect D&D