Why Development Stopped On DOOM 4

Not too long ago, the Scooby Gang turned 50 years old and it's still as much a part of the pop culture as ever. To kick off this October, let's take a look at the majority of their video game adaptations. Spread over 11 systems, there are 19 games to get through in this Scooby-Doo collection so let's get started!

Read more »

Today, I'd like to write a bit about something that I think we all do as narrators from time to time: Limiting the options that players have for writing about a situation.

Limits are good. Limits, at their base, are a way of ensuring that the scene has focus. When we set up a challenge at all, we are putting limits on the scene in general - limits of saying "the scene is now about this problem, and it needs to be addressed." We're defining what the actual problem is, and to some extent unavoidably defining the sort of things that can be done to address the problem.

But it's important to recognize when we take these definitions too far.

I've been playing a roleplaying game outside of Storium recently, using some pre-prepared scenarios that I found, and I've been struck by something in reading those scenarios: Oftentimes, they focus extensively on what definitely won't work. They spend a lot of time discussing why the players should absolutely not try a particular tactic with a situation, and how many brick walls can be thrown in their way should they dare to attempt such a thing. They're not quite set up to allow only one path forward, but they dwell a lot on why solutions A, B, C, D, E, and F are all terrible ideas that will only increase the scenario's difficulty. They show the walls, not the paths forward.

I've noticed a similar mindset subtly sneaking into Storium games at times. In our challenge setups or narration, we can sometimes spend time focusing on what won't work - on the walls set up in the way of particular solutions. Maybe we show the player characters trying a solution and discovering it won't work in the opening narration. Maybe we just describe something as impossible on the card or in the outcomes or in the narration.

Sometimes, this is fine. Sometimes, this is appropriate.

But it is definitely something we should question.

Storium works best, I have found, when players have enough information to focus their writing without limiting their ideas. That is: The problem is well-defined, but the solutions are left as open as possible given the problem at hand.

If the problem is a powerful wizard who the heroes need to get past to get to their goal, the solutions could potentially involve all sorts of things - maybe the heroes manage to fight the wizard and drive him away, maybe they evade his attacks and race beyond him into the fortress. Sometimes, limiting those options is perfectly appropriate...but it's important to be careful just how far you take the limitations. For instance, it might be appropriate to say that the party has to fight the wizard, because he's set up a magical barrier over the exit or because it's just too dangerous with him raining magic around the area. But further defining that the wizard is absolutely invulnerable to non-magical attacks himself is probably going to take it too far - it'll most likely make players of non-magical characters struggle a bit to figure out how to participate in the fight. Or, alternately, it might be appropriate to say that the wizard can't be killed and the characters need to escape - the wizard is just too powerful and his defenses too strong. But it'd take it too far to say that his attacks are unstoppable and his defenses are so strong he can't even be shaken by the characters at all, most likely, because again, it seriously limits what players can write and the ideas they can come up with for the scene. Some characters might have things they can realistically write to make just running away interesting, but others might really need to be able to provide some cover for the others or manage to disrupt the wizard for just a moment (or at least, attempt to do so and get turned aside, if they're playing a Weakness).

Similarly, consider an investigation. Maybe you're asking players to find information on a criminal gang that has troubled the area. That's fine. But if you go to the extent of saying that the other gangs in the area definitely won't share their information, or that police contacts are totally mystified and have no knowledge of the gang at all, well, that's probably going to cause people some trouble. You're limiting the ways that players can write the scene, and that's likely to make it tougher for them to come up with ideas.

Remember: Storium is about helping people write. The things that you put in your narration should encourage writing, not oppose it.

That's not to say that you should totally avoid limitations. Yes, there are times that they fit the story. If it's expressly established that the gang is totally new to the area, for instance, it makes sense that the heroes might not be able to trust contacts that would be working from existing knowledge...but how are the heroes able to get the information? Word the challenge in such a way that you reveal the possibilities rather than set up the walls. And don't just give one option! Show a wider field of openings, something that lets the players still have room to get creative on their own.

And remember to ask yourself: What is this challenge actually about?

In the case of the gang, for instance: Is the question really about who the heroes are able to go to for the information they need? Or is it just about what they are able to find out? If the latter...does it really matter whether they are able to use their contacts with the police? Or is the question just about whether they find information about the gang in the first place?

I want to be clear: Sometimes it does matter how the players are able to accomplish something. Sometimes that can be a problem you need to address as narrator. Sometimes it can cause trouble for a plot if players are allowed to do things a certain way, even if that way fulfills the overall concept of the challenge. That's very true.

But not all the time.

Not even the number of times we as narrators think it is true.

So...when you're setting a challenge up, take a good look over the card and narration associated with it. Look over what you've written, and ask yourself:

• Have I set up any limitations here I didn't intend to? Are there places where I suggest something is impossible where I didn't mean to?
• Have I set up limitations that I intended to...but that on second thought, really don't matter? Are there places where I have put limits that will make my players struggle to write, rather than providing useful focus?

If the answer to any of those questions is "yes," think about what you can do to open things up for the players. You still want the challenge to be focused...but focused and limited are two very different things.

Tabletop gaming has always had its share of women-hate and male toxicity.

Sexes were historically separated from playing together for thousands of years in order to avoid licentiousness. This was simply an extension of the general separation between the sexes. By the 19th and early 20th century, at least in Europe and the US, the sexes had found ways to mingle by means of parlor games, many of which we would consider overly racy today (a great many of them involved kissing and/or groping, for example).

The last hundred years of tabletop games saw women relegated to "women's divisions" (in Chess, for example), "girls" games (aka pink and/or about makeup and jewelry), or even the kitchen in the belief that they don't have what it takes to play at a man's level. They often don't, if you exclude them from serious training opportunities, exclude them from playing against top players, diminish their desires, goals, and accomplishments, require them to deal with unchecked harassment, and require from them a fanatical devotion to play for endless hours with unwashed, excruciatingly rude, and sexist jerks. Despite this, there are always a few women who are able and willing to complete with many of the top men in any game.

I had hope that in our little corner of the world, harassment would get no worse than that, and hopefully better. While anyone of any sex might get killed playing Dominoes in a Jamaica coffee shop or throwing dice on the streets of Taiwan, tabletop games remain a relatively safe, family-friendly, and gender-mixing activity. Chess, Go, and Bridge have women's divisions, but the majority of their competitions are mixed and relatively safe. Wargaming is a men's club, but it's not toxic to women as far as I know. CCG and RPG events are/were known to attract mostly young male jerks, which scared off some women (see above) but I hadn't thought that these jerks' behavior rose to level of toxicity associated with Gamergate. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

Women are not only harassed, but sexually assaulted at these conventions; the organizers and police are often unable or unwilling to help them. Apparently the CCG and RPG players who grew up  in their little boys' club are now adult enough to feel entitled and powerful enough to join the ranks of the male toxics, white nationalists, and "pickup artists", just like the Gamergate folks. And just as in Gamergate, douches post harassing videos and posts claiming that woman who complain about harassment are lying for the attention, as a result of which teeming hordes of similarly minded jerks harass them more, and more seriously. And when called on it, of course, they post endlessly, harassing everyone with why they are right and everyone else is lying and "missing the point". Ho hum, how familiar.

Seems like this behavior is getting worse, not better, and I can think of a few reasons why. I just wish that they didn't infect my hobby.

                                             Warlord Pioneers romping through the bunny fur

Out of all the privacy-focused products and apps available on the market, Brave has been voted the best. Other winners of Product Hunt's Golden Kitty awards showed that there was a huge interest in privacy-enhancing products and apps such as chats, maps, and other collaboration tools.

An extremely productive year for Brave

Last year has been a pivotal one for the crypto industry, but few companies managed to see the kind of success Brave did. Almost every day of the year has been packed witch action, as the company managed to officially launch its browser, get its Basic Attention Token out, and onboard hundreds of thousands of verified publishers on its rewards platform.

Luckily, the effort Brave has been putting into its product hasn't gone unnoticed.

The company's revolutionary browser has been voted the best privacy-focused product of 2019, for which it received a Golden Kitty award. The awards, hosted by Product Hunt, were given to the most popular products across 23 different product categories.

Ryan Hoover, the founder of Product Hunt said:

"Our annual Golden Kitty awards celebrate all the great products that makers have launched throughout the year"

Brave's win is important for the company—with this year seeing the most user votes ever, it's a clear indicator of the browser's rapidly rising popularity.

Privacy and blockchain are the strongest forces in tech right now

If reaching 10 million monthly active users in December was Brave's crown achievement, then the Product Hunt award was the cherry on top.

The recognition Brave got from Product Hunt users shows that a market for privacy-focused apps is thriving. All of the apps and products that got a Golden Kitty award from Product Hunt users focused heavily on data protection. Everything from automatic investment apps and remote collaboration tools to smart home products emphasized their privacy.

AI and machine learning rose as another note-worthy trend, but blockchain seemed to be the most dominating force in app development. Blockchain-based messaging apps and maps were hugely popular with Product Hunt users, who seem to value innovation and security.

For those users, Brave is a perfect platform. The company's research and development team has recently debuted its privacy-preserving distributed VPN, which could potentially bring even more security to the user than its already existing Tor extension.

Brave's effort to revolutionize the advertising industry has also been recognized by some of the biggest names in publishing—major publications such as The Washington Post, The Guardian, NDTV, NPR, and Qz have all joined the platform. Some of the highest-ranking websites in the world, including Wikipedia, WikiHow, Vimeo, Internet Archive, and DuckDuckGo, are also among Brave's 390,000 verified publishers.