All #RPGaDAY questions - click for full-size graphic.

This post is a part of the #RPGaDAY series for 2017 by David F. Chapman and RPGBrigade. For more information, see this post at AUTOCRATIK. I'm modifying per suggestions from S. John Ross as well as applying my own interpretations. Comment with your answers or links to your own posts!

Day 24 - Share a PWYW publisher who should be charging more.

I'm straight up taking a pass on this one. Time for an alternate question, pulled from this fine list at Casting Shadows!

Alternate Question - Campaigns: do you prefer set-length or open-ended play?

Currently, I prefer set-length, inasmuch as I'm taking that to mean the alternative to open-ended play. I'm not assuming set-length to mean a particular number of sessions or length of real-world time, but rather there's some kind of "end condition" to the story; a planned arc, perhaps, or some kind of campaign goal, or anything that will signal, in the fiction, that it's time for the campaign to wrap up. I'll also note that this answer is very much a product of the constraints of practicality. Given infinite free time for myself and all others concerned, sure, I'd love some open-ended campaign play, but I can't see that happening for a bunch of busy adults, at least not for myself or the circles I run in. I'll also note that I'm accepting the question constraint of sticking only to thinking about campaign play. Given my choice of all available options, I'd prefer one-shots at this point in my life to any kind of campaign, though you could certainly also make the argument that a one-shot is just a very limited set-length campaign. But given the kind of gaming time I have (or don't), and given the number of games still I'm still waiting to play, one-shots would be the way to go for me. For campaigns, life being what it is, I'd like to know we were working (playing?) toward something concrete and that we'd know when the game is over.

All #RPGaDAY questions - click for full-size graphic.

This post is a part of the #RPGaDAY series for 2017 by David F. Chapman and RPGBrigade. For more information, see this post at AUTOCRATIK. I'm modifying per suggestions from S. John Ross as well as applying my own interpretations. Comment with your answers or links to your own posts!

Blog fatigue must be setting in; it looks like I missed another day! This time, I didn't even realize it. So here's a special double-issue with not even a flimsy reason attached.

Day 22 - Which RPGs are the easiest for you to run?

My first thought for this question was immediately Lasers & Feelings by John Harper. It's not only a super-light game mechanically, but it comes complete with nicely constrained character creation, a setting, an adventure generator...basically everything you need to just grab it and go, even with people completely new to roleplaying and like ten seconds of prep time. It lightly piggybacks onto Star Trek for tone and maybe tropes, but in this particular case, because the adventure generator plots things out for you, that's not even really necessary for the core experience.

The question did give me a lot to think about, though. I've never really spent time thinking about the "ease" of running a particular game. In my mind, the big factor that a game can affect is the rule complexity, but that's more about how easy the game is to learn, and I feel like once you learn a game, the ease of running it is probably about the same as any other game. Some games will (or can) require more prep time, some may require more rules mastery than others, but once you're comfortable bringing it to the table, I feel like the ease of running doesn't depend on the game anymore. Games that are the easiest to run are the ones with a good group of players! If everyone's on board for setting and tone and so forth, and if you've got players that are imaginative and collaborative and enjoy playing, then honestly, the properties of the game itself aren't that important anymore. I think that there may be games that may be inherently harder to run due to their innate characteristics, like games that need a lot of record-keeping during play, for example. But it's my opinion that, by and large, ease of running is going to come down to the players and your GM techniques and toolboxes.

Day 23 - Which RPG has the most jaw-dropping layout?

This was a pretty difficult question for me, as layout is not something I particularly notice about games. As discussed previously, I do enjoy me some RPG artwork, but I don't feel like I get the same level of communication about a game from the layout as other people do. So to answer this question, I'm just going with a game that stuck out for me as being particularly eye-catching and easy to use, and that is Numenera from Monte Cook Games. I like the smooth two-column format bolstered by additional notes and references in an oversize margin. It's got nice, noticeable (but not intrusive) cutouts and boxed text, a classic style of table that appeals to me as an old AD&D-head, art that is plentiful, aesthetically pleasing, and well-placed (even in mid-text, which I feel like is a hard thing to do well), handy color-coded "parts" of the book (basically groups of chapters), even neat and evocative page decoration. It's pleasant to read as a text, and it's also useful as a reference manual, which are two sometimes opposing aspects that all RPG books have to try and accommodate. I don't think there's any question that MCG puts out quality products, and I feel like Numenera was the flagship offering in what became a spectacular line.

All #RPGaDAY questions - click for full-size graphic.

This post is a part of the #RPGaDAY series for 2017 by David F. Chapman and RPGBrigade. For more information, see this post at AUTOCRATIK. I'm modifying per suggestions from S. John Ross as well as applying my own interpretations. Comment with your answers or links to your own posts!

Day 21 - Which RPG does the most with the least words?

I'm choosing to focus more on the "least words" part of this question than anything else, and based on that criteria, it's hard to go wrong by checking out the 200 Word RPG Challenge organized by David Schirduan and Marshall Miller. In particular, my pick for today's answer is one of the winners for 2017, Grant Howitt's Mechanical Oryx. Mechanical Oryx packs a surprising amount into its 200-word frame: a mysterious and compelling setting, interesting resolution mechanics with narrative inputs, a gameplay currency, even ideas for character advancement! In just those few sentences, I can immediately picture the world and its troubles and know what the game's story will be about. And lest I spend more words talking about the game than there actually are in the game, I'll leave it at that.

All #RPGaDAY questions - click for full-size graphic.

This post is a part of the #RPGaDAY series for 2017 by David F. Chapman and RPGBrigade. For more information, see this post at AUTOCRATIK. I'm modifying per suggestions from S. John Ross as well as applying my own interpretations. Comment with your answers or links to your own posts!

It finally happened: I missed a day. Enjoy this special weekend double-issue!

Day 19 - Which RPG features the best [awesome] writing?

I interpreted this question to be lean more toward the non-rules portion of the writing. My first thought on this was Underground, because it was such a joy to read, but I already went on about that game on Day 11, and I didn't want to repeat myself too much. My second thought was Orkworld, but that one I gushed about on Day 17. That'll teach me to go on tangents. I think for my official pick I'll go with Monsterhearts by Avery Alder. Just a few weeks ago or so did I finish my readthrough of the second edition, and it was most excellent. I actually don't have a lot to say about that wasn't already said in Martin Ralya's recent G+ post:

It's lean, without an ounce of cruft anywhere on its frame. It's devoid of blather. This is a bullshit-free presentation honed by years of actual play, design chops, and feedback from others. It's fucking beautiful.

It's also packed with advice delivered in the best way possible for an RPG: conversationally but directly, with its intended audiences in mind. I love design notes and anything that brings in all the stuff that exists on the edges of the actual text -- like intent -- and MH2 makes so much explicit so well that it just rocks.

I agree with everything Martin said. Monsterhearts is not only a great game to play but also a great game to read. Reading it makes you want to play. That's probably the best indicator I can think of for a well-written RPG.

Day 20 - What is the best source for out-of-print RPGs?

I understand the value of digital RPG projects, including digital copies of books, but I am all about physical books. To that end, I interpreted this question as where to get physical copies of out-of-print books. I'm assuming there's a baseline answer of hitting up your FLGS(es) or used book stores, but I'm also discounting PoD solutions like DriveThruRPG, just because that's never what I'm looking for when I'm looking for old books. To that end, my favorite source is Noble Knight Games. They're usually my first stop when I'm looking for a specific out-of-print book, but I've also just found stuff there that I didn't even know I wanted. I think, as a retailer, they're just right in my sweet spot of what I'm looking for. It's getting harder to turn to my FLGSes for older stuff, because I (like a lot of people) are also very interested in the avalanche of new (and largely indie) games that are coming out all the time, and there's only so much a store can do with limited shelf space. (I also live in New York City where physical real estate is at a ridiculous premium, so a sprawling game shop with endless inventory is not a tenable situation out this way.) But, yeah, I'm a big fan of Noble Knight. If you're interested in older games and haven't yet had the pleasure, give them a browse and see if you find anything you like!

All #RPGaDAY questions - click for full-size graphic.

This post is a part of the #RPGaDAY series for 2017 by David F. Chapman and RPGBrigade. For more information, see this post at AUTOCRATIK. I'm modifying per suggestions from S. John Ross as well as applying my own interpretations. Comment with your answers or links to your own posts!

Day 18 - Which RPG have you played the most in your life?

This is another one that makes me reach back into the misty memories of the past. Back when I had all sorts of free time for playing RPGs, my gaming followed a very different model than it does today. Back then, stable groups, campaign play, and a not very wide awareness of available games all meant that there was a lot of gaming of not very many different titles. Many years later, following a bit of a dry spell, I got swept up not only in the indie game explosion, but also a renewed interest and ability to attend cons as well as a much wider social circle than before. This all led to gaming that not only tended more toward one-shots, but also tended toward playing a little bit of a lot of different games instead of the other way around. So any "what have I played the most of" questions spanning my whole gaming career are going to have to tilt toward my early years. Another thing I pondered for this question was whether to count different editions separately. In the end, I think I'll go with "yes" on that; I don't feel the need to call AD&D and 3.5 the same game, any more than I would call any two PbtA games the same game just for both being PbtA. Similarly, I wouldn't consider the various World of Darkness titles (Vampire, Werewolf, etc.) the same game; I'd consider those separate.

Going by sheer hours logged, it's going to be hard for me to decide between Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (first edition) and Vampire: The Masquerade (second edition). I think I can tilt the scales toward AD&D, but that is pure guesswork on my part. Mostly that's based on the memory of having quite a few different AD&D characters but mostly having GMed V:tM. If we discount number of sessions or actual play time and just go by number of characters made, I would definitely have to give it to Champions (fourth edition). That game was my first exposure to a point-buy generic system, and I was simply entranced. I really enjoyed coming up with just the right powers and modifications to fit the visions I had, and I would make character after character, basically just to do the math. It seemed to me at the time the height of creativity. Years later, and after encountering more GURPS players, I would come to know this as "the character-creation game," which honestly is still one of my favorite games. (Well, favorite solo games, let's say; though I won't discount the draw for me of any game with a robust group chargen mechanic.) I liken it to, when playing any of a number of adventure or tactical video games, instead of actually playing the game, spending all my time customizing the character avatars. Which I have no regrets about, by the way. Fun is fun, after all!

All #RPGaDAY questions - click for full-size graphic.

This post is a part of the #RPGaDAY series for 2017 by David F. Chapman and RPGBrigade. For more information, see this post at AUTOCRATIK. I'm modifying per suggestions from S. John Ross as well as applying my own interpretations. Comment with your answers or links to your own posts!

Day 17 - Which RPG have you owned the longest but not played?

I'm going to give myself permission to meander a bit on this one, if only because it was a nice little trip down memory lane. I won't lie, it does irk me a tiny bit that there must, by definition, be an objectively correct answer to this question, but I lack the resources to be certain about it. For one, I've been buying RPGs for a long time now, so determining what I've owned the longest takes me way back. Two, because I have not kept exacting historical records of my purchases, and because the vast majority of my older library is packed up in storage boxes that would take me forever to go through, I'm having to rely on my admittedly spotty memory about my own youth. Before I start down that path, though, I want to take a quick detour that was highlighted for me by seeing other people's responses.

I saw a mention today of Orkworld by John Wick. This would actually be an excellent candidate for today's answer for me, too, except I know it can't be the one I've owned the longest. I know I've never played it, though! I suppose I probably would if the opportunity arose, but it's not on the ol' bucket list or anything. I just loved reading this game, though. It functions perfectly well as a setting book, and I'm happy enough to treat it as such. As a game it brought some interesting ideas to me, like using the time scale of seasons and having it be significant to the narrative, but mostly I just dug all the detail and love that went into the setting. Let's not mince words; this game is about orks. As such, you are presented with orkish culture, biology, ecology, and whatever else you'd need to really make a good go at roleplaying them. This book made me love orks. It was also instrumental in the development of what became a long love affair for me of thinking about the lives of monsters outside their interactions with PCs. I got to know orks as a people, and I found myself wanted to get to know the rest of the lot, too. This was mostly thought exercises for myself; I never delved too deeply into getting books about it or anything. (Good thing, probably, too, because my shelves are already bursting.) But Orkworld was very significant to me in that way, and I think Wick did a tremendous job. I often feel like this is a bit of a hidden gem, but that's probably just for me personally. Not only have I never played it, but I don't even really remember anything about the system, so...I have to assume that it didn't make much impression on me as a game. But as a book, as a work, I loved it and still do.

In any case, back to my actual answer. And we're going to take the long way around to that, too, because I feel like typing a lot today, I guess. The first thought that occurred to me was In Nomine, the RPG of the hidden war between Heaven and Hell. It's by Derek Percy and published by Steve Jackson Games, but it was an adaptation of a French RPG by the same name, published by In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas. They way I came around to this game was twofold.

Firstly, in order to answer this question, I started trying to think back to my early days of buying RPGs, and In Nomine jumped out at me because of the unusual way I came to buying it. It was at some long-ago DEXCON (I think probably 6?), and I had "won" some prize at a game of Toon. I can't remember the circumstances or why I won something. I probably have a certificate around somewhere. Anyway, part of the prize was a gift certificate or something to the Steve Jackson Games table at the con (because Toon was also an SJG title), and later on when I was browsing the table, it was literally just the eye-catching cover that led me to express interest in In Nomine. I had a gift certificate, here was a cool-looking book...sure, why not? So that's why the game came to mind as an early purchase.

Secondly, the reason it came to mind as a game I'd never played was because I became famous in my circle of friends for not running the game. A particular group of friends and I were all ridiculously obsessed with the movie The Prophecy. If your'e not familiar, it stars Christopher Walken as the angel Gabriel who has parted ways with God and started a second rebellion, similar to Lucifer's original one. (Special bonus parenthetical: Lucifer in that movie is played by one Viggo Mortensen, capturing the hearts of that little cadre of teenage goths back in the 90s, years before he would later set loins aflame as Aragorn.) In The Prophecy, it's clear that Gabriel has his own agenda, completely separate from both God and Lucifer, so naturally the question arose: how would this affect the setting as written in In Nomine, which leans on the polarized opposite sides of God and Lucifer? Given the arrival of a third option, which archangels would jump where? Which demon princes? We formed an RPG group and set about to find out. I spent months hacking the setting to fit this new model of spiritual politics. We spent late night after late night talking about characters, examining world concepts...preparing the campaign, basically. Suffice it to say, it never materialized. This was on the cusp of college for some of us, adult life for others; people became busy, moved away...eventually I moved away...the campaign never started. It became an in-joke for our group: "Hey, when are we going to play this new game?" "Right after Rob runs In Nomine." I call it the greatest campaign that was never played. I'm sure if I dug down far enough, I could find all my old notes and junk. Anyway...that's why I thought it would make a good answer to this question; even if I was wrong about it being the game I've owned longest, it still made for a couple good stories.

Except that it doesn't even fit the second criteria! In being so lost in my own nostalgic memories of the good old days, I completely forgot that I did play in an In Nomine campaign, with a totally different group after I had moved away and failed to start up the Prophecy campaign. It was relatively short-lived, as I recall, and after that arc, I don't think I ever picked up with that group again, but it was multiple sessions, at least, so there's no way In Nomine qualified as a game I never played. Back to the drawing board.

As I started tracking backward again, I thought of another big one that I never got around to playing: SLA Industries. I remember picking up the game, it having come recommended by a friend of mine, a gamer whose opinion I hold in high regard. It's kind of a...cyberpunk horror game? I think? I have to admit that I remember starting reading the book, but I'm pretty sure I never even finished it. The friend who recommended it to me at the time lived somewhere far away, and where I lived at the time, I remember having enough trouble even finding people to play "regular" RPGs, let alone some weird European cyberpunk. I think the game remains a classic in some circles even today, but I just never managed to get into it. So I thought that it was likely to be my answer today.

But then...I realized I was going about things the wrong way. What I had been trying to do was work my way backwards to think about my longest-owned game, but what I should have been doing was working forward. So. At my start in the 80s, all I ever got was AD&D stuff. That's how I was taught, that's what was played, and that's what I bought. It probably wasn't until the early 90s that I even got interested in other RPGs. Like...I had been vaguely aware that GURPS existed...I kinda knew Call of Cthulhu was a thing, but there was never a need for any of that stuff with the group I was in, and I didn't have a lot of disposable income anyway. It wasn't until I moved to a new town and started playing with a new group that I started sampling different games, so I remember coming to Champions and the Hero System; I sunk some money into that. Taking this little memory trip also served to remind me that I bought those games because I was playing them, though. I learned about new games through my gaming groups; this was long before I would buy games just because I was interested in games. Feng Shui, TMNT, that eventual and inevitable point where Vampire: The Masquerade would enter my world. Definitely I threw a few bucks at White Wolf in my young life...

Wait.

White Wolf.

Something's tugging at the back of my mind. Not White Wolf proper; I played a lot of that World of Darkness stuff. But surely that involvement would have put new things on my radar, things that I might never have...

Oh. Oh no.

Yes.

I think the actual answer to this question might be a little game I bought called HoL. I don't even know what to link to when I mention its name; here's the Wikipedia page. HoL was...well, it was a game. It was a game about...I'm not sure. Ultraviolent criminals living on a planet made of garbage? I think there are really only two things you need to know about HoL. One, the actual, published text consisted entirely of handwritten pages. (Handwritten largely, if the author is to be believed, at an IHOP.) Two, the game was so out there that White Wolf didn't even really publish it; they created a separate imprint (charmingly called Black Dog) to handle HoL and other games of its ilk. I initially checked it out because of the enthusiasm one of my friends had for it, but reaing it just made me feel a little bad inside. I didn't know it at the time, but I think that was the start of my relationship with edgelords. I won't go on about it. If you want to hear more, the fine gentlemen at System Mastery did an entire episode about HoL. If you like, you can listen to them complain about it instead of me. So, yes...until I can factually countermand this by going through my library, I'll stick with HoL as my answer and...well, just look forward to tomorrow, I suppose.

All #RPGaDAY questions - click for full-size graphic.

This post is a part of the #RPGaDAY series for 2017 by David F. Chapman and RPGBrigade. For more information, see this post at AUTOCRATIK. I'm modifying per suggestions from S. John Ross as well as applying my own interpretations. Comment with your answers or links to your own posts!

Day 16 - Which RPG do you enjoy using as-is?

This question gives me as much pause as the last one did, and for the same reason: I'm not particularly in the habit of hacking up games. So with that in mind, it sort of becomes a question of which RPG I enjoy, full stop, which is, you know...quite a long list. But in pondering the question as which RPG do I enjoy particularly for the rules-as-written, the one that comes to the forefront for me is Headspace by Mark Richardson. I love this game. It's billed as cyberpunk, but that doesn't highlight what I love about it. The central conceit, that party members are all connected to a shared consciousness (the titular "headspace"), and the fact that the rules are all built around that concept, make this an extremely easy game to run, play, and have fun with. The idea and mechanics of the shared consciousness addresses so many stumbling blocks that may crop up in other RPGs. Splitting the party is a non-issue as far as needing any special running techniques; all party members are in continuous, instantaneous, and rather intimate contact. Niche protection? Forget about it; the party members all share skills. That same state of affairs similarly solves the "nobody wants to play X" problem. Even character death is mitigated as a player nuisance because the "ghost" lives on in the shared consciousness. Like many other Powered-by-the-Apocalypse games, Headspace character generation forges intraparty relationships and so forth, but these relationships are very mechanically important during play -- moreso, I think, than in many other PbtA titles. Moreover, character generation is also party generation, which is a trait shared by many PbtA games, but still something I enjoy greatly about Headspace, and it's easy to make it background, session zero, or session one stuff. I believe it's also less troublesome to swap players in and out over the course of a campaign, though I admit I have never tried this; I just appreciate it in theory. In short, the game has all the strengths and gameplay I might get out of any of a large number of PbtA games plus a host of cool new tech that makes it super smooth to run. If you haven't yet had the pleasure, I highly recommend checking it out!

All #RPGaDAY questions - click for full-size graphic.

This post is a part of the #RPGaDAY series for 2017 by David F. Chapman and RPGBrigade. For more information, see this post at AUTOCRATIK. I'm modifying per suggestions from S. John Ross as well as applying my own interpretations. Comment with your answers or links to your own posts!

Day 15 - Which RPG do you enjoy adapting the most?

I interpreted this question by taking "adapt" to mean "hack" -- specifically "rules hack." "Adapting" could also refer just as easily to "reskinning," which is just as valid, but which doesn't give me much in the way of choosing one game over another. Reskinning, in my mind, should take advantage of a ruleset, certainly, or at least take it into account, but I don't find particular favor in reskinning one system over another by virtue of the system. I'm of the belief that the choice of a system for reskinning should be driven by what you're reskinning to. Rules hacking, however, implies a different set of criteria. The rules you are hacking definitely will affect the enjoyability of the hacking process.

This question also gave me a certain amount of pause, because upon some self-reflection, I realized that hacking games is not really something I do a lot! There are a million games out there, and I get a good experience out of many of them. If I find that a game experience isn't quite for me, it's often a lot easier and more productive for me to just find another game rather than try and hack up one that doesn't do it for me. I think the most common occurrence for this kind of thing for me, personally, is to bring the setting from one game into the system for another, but that's honestly just more reskinning if I don't drum up modifications to the second system. And even if I do, it's often small things or swapping in or out independent subsystems, basically just for the ease of not having to worry about design issues.

So. For this question, I'm going to wander into theoretical territory. If I were into adapting games, I think my system of choice would be Fate Core by Leonard Balsera, Brian Engard, Jeremy Keller, Ryan Macklin, and Mike Olson. This answer is potentially a bit of a cheat, not only because Fate Core proper is a generic system, but because it's purposely built to be modular and hackable. Those properties are exactly why I would find it an enjoyable system to hack, though. Fate certainly does promote, if not a genre, then a particular style or tone of play, in that it's geared for high, fast action and capable, heroic protagonists who are generally expected to succeed at things. These are qualities that I tend to enjoy in RPGs anyway, and so if I needed to adapt a system to run a game that looked like that, Fate would be my go-to. Also aside from being designed to be hackable, Fate hacking is also explicitly supported and encouraged by Evil Hat. For example, the Fate System Toolkit is effectively a manual on how to perform rules hacks on Fate Core, and I certainly enjoy hacking any system that tells me how to hack it. The kinds of games that Fate Core encourages, its design as a hackable system, and publisher-led support to hacking it all make it my top choice for today's answer.

All #RPGaDAY questions - click for full-size graphic.

This post is a part of the #RPGaDAY series for 2017 by David F. Chapman and RPGBrigade. For more information, see this post at AUTOCRATIK. I'm modifying per suggestions from S. John Ross as well as applying my own interpretations. Comment with your answers or links to your own posts!

Day 14 - Which RPG do you prefer for open-ended campaign play?

I'll start with a small bit of interpretation, because upon seeing a lot of the answers that people have come up with, I think "open-ended" may present a bit of ambiguity. I'm taking it to mean that the campaign has no particular narrative end point, that the campaign will continue as long as people are willing to play it. Even with such a condition, I still imagine there would be discrete story arcs or similar in play, but specifically I'm considering such a campaign to largely be based on the party (as opposed to, say, the setting). Sure, party members may be lost and others gained over the course of the story (whether characters or players), but I'm imagining that there must be a continuity from each session to the last for it to count for this question.

With that in mind, I admit that my answer is driven by a lot of my old-school beginnings. I can't envision such a structure without the classic d20-based high fantasy, a genre that Ken and Robin would term "F20." That said, I also don't see any particular reason that I would prefer an old-school game to realize this old-school vision. My game of choice for this would be 13th Age by Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet. Any D&D, Pathfinder, or other F20 player will "get" 13th Age immediately, at least mechanically. Moreso for 5E players, actually. 13A even predates the publication of 5E by a bit, but it is very clear that they share a lot of common DNA. (Just look at the designers.) The edge that 13A holds over 5E for me is that 13A does a bit more abstraction, a bit more constraint (necessitating less system mastery), and introduces mechanics to drive narrative elements. 13th Age is my go-to for bridging die-hard old-schoolers over to more narrative games, and it's this same quality that appeals to the old-schooler in me that would want to see it used for an open-ended campaign. I can't recommend the game enough, particularly if you want that F20 feel without the same level of crunch. I find the abstracted skill system ("backgrounds") particularly compelling. If you're looking for a good halfway point between F20 and a fully narrative-driven game, you owe it to yourself to give 13th Age a spin.

That was my first thought, and I stick with it as my answer, but I kept seeing another title mentioned that I think I'd like to also bring up, and that is Ars Magica, currently in its fifth edition by David Chart. This is another classic game with deep roots in the hobby, and it is definitely worth mentioning that one of the original designers was, as with 13th Age, one Jonathan Tweet. (The other was Mark Rein•Hagen, a name certainly familiar to old World of Darkness players.) This game has tremendous potential for an open-ended campaign, primarily because it uses a "troupe" system in which players each have several characters to play and also rotate the GM responsibilities. Despite perhaps testing the limits of it, I still feel this falls within my original criteria for "open-ended campaign play," and truthfully there's only one big reason that my original pick wasn't unseated by Ars Magica: I've never played it! So from what I know of it, I would like to play that game in an open-ended campaign, and again, based on what I know, I think it would perform brilliantly. But not having had actual first-hand experience, I ultimately feel better sticking with my gut and naming 13th Age my pick for today. But I couldn't let this answer go by without at least bringing up Ars Magica.

All #RPGaDAY questions - click for full-size graphic.

This post is a part of the #RPGaDAY series for 2017 by David F. Chapman and RPGBrigade. For more information, see this post at AUTOCRATIK. I'm modifying per suggestions from S. John Ross as well as applying my own interpretations. Comment with your answers or links to your own posts!

Day 13 - Describe a game experience that changed how you play.

This is one of those times where I kinda wished I'd read ahead and done some planning. The first thing to come to mind was actually the story I related for Day 7, though I suppose that didn't necessarily change the way I play directly; it was more a memorable early experience in a long life of gaming. I like to think that I could take away a little something from every game, that the evolution of my playing style is just that -- an evolution -- and it took place as these things do in small increments over a long period of time.

This may be a cheat, but if there have been any quantum leaps in how I play, I like to think one of them happened the first time I read the rules to Apocalypse World. (And I'm also including GMing in this definition of "play.") A lot of gamers talk about how AW "just" codified a lot of techniques that they'd already been using, and there's certainly something to that, but even so, reading that ruleset and seeing all those things laid out was incredibly eye-opening for me. Failing forward, using conflict resolution rolls for entire scenes and not just as a turn-by-turn mechanic, the incredibly abstracted combat and damage system, the whole "play to find out what happens" principle... These are all things that spoke to me right through my little gamer heart. It's strange to even think about it at this point, but before that, I think that I had considered the story that emerges from a game to be something that was wrapped around the rules. The rules were there for you to play a game; a story was what emerged while you were playing it. AW really crystallized for me the idea that the rules can be used for the story, that generating the fiction was the game. Reading that game was me finding something I didn't even know I wanted. I often say that AW started a genuine revolution in game design, but for me personally, it also started a revolution in how I think about RPGs and, yes, how I run and play them.

The reason I call this a possible cheat is because I read the rules to AW long before I had a chance to play it. (I first became aware of the game via this newfangled entertainment form called "podcasts." Speaking of personal revolutions.) So, I imagine that the intent of this question was to ask about a gaming experience, but the answer I came up with was in its most literal form, a "game experience" -- not just an experience I had with a game, but the way I actually experienced a game. Only in this case, I'm talking about game in the sense of a book, a ruleset, and not a game in the sense of a session. (This hobby has a lot of ambiguous terminology, it turns out.) But whatever the case, I'm not losing sleep over it. AW opened me up to an entire new philosophy in both gaming and game design. I truly believe that it changed the face of the hobby itself, and I suppose that statement is legitimately up for debate. But I can state with certainty that it massively changed the hobby for me, and so, sure, I bet that changed the way I play.