Glad to see you around for the third episode of I.M.O. In this installment I will attempt to cover the two minor styles of gaming, horror and humor, and to give guidelines on how to effectively use the different styles of play to create a better, IMO of course, campaign. I will begin with horror gaming, which I will seek to approach from a different vantage point than the one normally chosen. Instead of focusing on the heroic horror of modern literature and film (in which good triumphs over horrific evil, usually from beyond the grave) I will focus on the raw horror of the helpless struggle against darkness. One of the main reasons for this approach is that everything that need be said about generic horror in roleplaying games has already, at least IMO, been said by Kenneth Hide in his excellent Nightmares of Mine published by ICE (if you play or wish to play a horror RPG do yourself a favor and purchase this book).
The type of horror I wish to talk about can be, in the short-run (although I have heard of CoC games that have used this style for long running campaigns), far more intense than generic horror. In this mode of horror, which I will call raw horror for lack of a better name, the characters are absolutely non-heroic. Far from it, they should be weak, afraid and flawed, in short everyday citizens confronted with raw evil. What is more the characters should not have a real chance, escaping an adventure alive should be an achievement in and of itself. Haunt the characters, torment them, frighten them and kill them in the most graphical and gruesome ways you can get away with. In raw horror the fright comes from two of humanitys most deeply rooted fears, the fear of helplessness and the fear of the unknown. Never let the characters know exactly what they are up against, never let them feel safe, always ensure that they are aware that one unlucky move will spell their gruesome doom, keep the tension high.
While raw horror can IMO be awesomely effective it can only be employed if two base requirements are met. The first and most important is that the players are willing to go along with this style of play. If you believe that your players will not feel comfortable with being power- and hopeless do not try raw horror. This does not mean that your players must know that they will be playing raw horror, turning a normal game into one of raw horror can lead to truly unsettling and interesting roleplaying experiences. The second requirement is that your players develop an emotional attachment to their characters. Should they fail to do so, a good deal of the experience will go to naught. IMO a good way to enforce the players ties to their characters is to get them to flesh out their characters background, especially the personal details. Knowing his character’s childhood memories, a description of his family, goals in life and the like can make a player far more likely to bond with his character. Also, ensure that players play characters they like. Finally, allow one or two characters to get away for a few sessions, this will give the other players hope and will make the inevitable death of the surviving characters all the more horrific.
When playing raw horror be sure to use a system that allows for it to work. GURPS (if you dont get bogged down in rules) CoC, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (if played with beginning characters) and FUDGE come to mind. Should you play raw horror be sure to ask the players when they have had enough. In most cases this style of play will only remain viable for a few sessions.
The same is true for humor roleplaying. Humorous roleplaying, as a distinct style of its own and not as the addition of humor to an otherwise serious game, is IMO one of the hardest styles to maintain. First and foremost humor gaming requires all participants to be in the right mood. If someone at the table is not feeling light-hearted and ready to amuse themselves humorous roleplaying can turn out to be no fun whatsoever. IMO it is best to only start a session of humor gaming when everybody who shows up is already in the right mood. In such cases playing a serious session can be hard anyways and a humor game is sure to please.
The easiest way to play a humor game is to use a game system designed for this style of play (Toon and Paranoia come to mind). I will not go into detail on how you can squeeze the most fun out of these games, the books themselves already contain exhaustive and excellent advise on how to make these games work. Another way in which humor games can be approached is by using a serious system and twisting it into the humorous. This can be all the more fun if you use the system you are currently using for a serious campaign.
If you do this you can allow yourself and your players to make fun of all those elements of the game that have proven to be annoying or plain stupid in the past. This can include bad plot elements (i.e. railroad adventure that enraged the PCs), poorly designed (or played) NPCs or PCs, infuriating locations (the city in which nobody seemed to know anything) and so on. By doing this you can, in my experience, turn bad gaming experiences into great comedy. Everybody involved is usually more than willing to laugh about events that caused tension in the past. Do not forget however to ensure that no one’s feelings are hurt. Aim the humor at the actual events, not the people responsible for them. If you are amusing yourself at the cost of game designer, which will be the most common source of bad game elements anyway, this last caveat can usually be ignored (unless, of course, you are playing with the game designer). As an added benefit this use of humor gaming can greatly reduce real-world anger stirred by bad gaming.
No matter what type of humor game you play you should always place fun above everything else. Trying to create a challenging or involving humor game is IMO doomed to fail. Also when playing a humor game you should decide whether you would use subtle humor or all-out comedy. IMO it is best to make this decision according to the mood you are in. If you are feeling giddy and uproarious go for all-out comedy. If you are merely feeling witty or funny go for subtle humor. If you start a session with subtle humor it is quite possible to go accelerate things into all-out comedy once everyone gets going. Shifting back from all-out comedy to subtle humor on the other hand is IMO not something that tends to work.
Now that I have given a rundown on four styles of gaming (as I see them) I will talk about how they should be used, IMO of course, to create a workable campaign. Few people will endeavor to play a game of epic heroism as described in my first column and fewer still will go for a pure culture game detailed in the last I.M.O. The number of game masters willing to run a pure horror or humor game is likewise negligible. The vast majority of us seek to play a balanced game that is largely realistic (or heroic) but includes elements of heroism (or realism), horror and humor. While this is usually the best way to ensure that everybody feels happy it can also cause the game to become unfocused.
Unfocused roleplaying games are IMO a very bad thing indeed, for the players of such a campaign will not know how to roleplay their characters. Should they seek to create a realistic person with plausible motivations and a reasonable personality or should they play a larger than life hero who has nerves of steel and always comes up with a plan before acting? The biggest problem with these questions is that usually different players within the same group will come up with varying answers. So while one player may simply mow down the street gang assaulting the characters another may hold her fire, seeking to avoid injuring these poor misguided youths. The first player will inevitably feel annoyed at the second and vice-versa. What is worse, the GM might be expecting a third course of action altogether from the players. All this can lead to total confusion and general malcontent. If the GM then, either by accident or to teach the PCs a lesson (say by ensuring that slaughtering orcs now suddenly has consequences although it never did before), changes styles of play in mid-campaign the chaos will be complete.
To avoid such disasters it is IMO vital for everyone involved in the game to know the style of play that will be prevalent, and which styles secondary, in the campaign. Ideally, this should be decided upon by popular consensus. Knowing the pure , extreme forms of the styles (as I attempted to describe in these last three columns) can be very helpful IMO when making these selections. All you have to do is to choose how close you want to come to this extreme. Also, make sure that the rules that you are using support the chosen style of play.
Finally switching styles in mid-play can IMO, when done rarely and responsibly, be a great deal of fun. This could include such things as switching a culture game into a heroic campaign (say once the characters uncovered some powerful magickal artifact) or turning a culture game (or even a heroic campaign) into one of raw horror. In the former case the players should be informed about the immanent change, in the latter case their unawareness of the change is what will make it so effective.
This piece concludes the first three-column mini-series of I.M.O. Hope you have enjoyed it so far. Next time I will talk about different styles of GMing and the gamest versus actor approach to roleplaying.
