The Rules of Data Brokering (or, 'So you wanna be a Lore Monkey')

I've mentioned it before that I am a fan of information gathering in games. I enjoy finding Lore, whether it's from the setting or from the players themselves. Backstories, locations and items of notes, secrets and documents, the full gamut. I also like data analysis and piecing together those bits of information to put together a narrative, or be able to take those pieces and be able to add it to the narrative as need be. It's one of the reasons why I enjoy playing and running in conspiracy games, because there are so many dots to connect and ways and means of exploiting those nodes against each other.

I'm a real life Mekhet, what can I say?

That's really where I found out I was good at dealing in information, or at least a fan of it. I used my talents both in game and in real life to listen and discover tidbits from people. Never got to use it, but by the end of game I had accrued a few sizeable bits of information that could be exploited if needed. It's the preferred MO of my favorite character, the Mage Rhys. He uses his knowledge of the magic in the City to investigate and discern pieces of information. He doesn't get the whole picture, but he can get enough pieces and push them together. My 7th Sea character, Aiden, was a thief who liked to play the Inish stereotype while stealing your conspiracy plans early on in the game. Playing Lore monkeys and data gatherers is kinda my jam in most games. From teenager hackers to that guy who knows every one. Some players are out to game the system, I'm out to game the setting. 

Of course, not every game is meant to explore the setting too deeply. Some GMs are more use to riffing the plot and don't have a lot of information saved up to make investigations viable or information consistently useful. Sometimes, the Game has a very tight plot and finding information nets you dead ends. I've run in to several of these games and I tend to find myself getting frustrated. There's no point in someone trying to find info if that info isn't some that isn't able/worth to be discovered. 

So here are my thoughts for Players and GMs who find themselves want to add some data brokers in their games.

The Rules for Brokering

The Rule of Necessity

The information that you're dealing in needs to be of use to the other PCs in the game. Whether you're a player or a GM, the information you're doling out must have something vital inside of it. It doesn't not need to be relevant to the immediate situation, but it should be something that can be used later on as necessary. 

Lately I've been watching and listening to the Critical Role podcast. During the earlier parts of the series, during a conversation the players were having, an NPC name dropped two antagonists from one of the players backstories. The player got to respond to that, but nothing is done for ten episodes. 

You can use the brokers to seed future information, to put Chekhov's Gun on the wall and wait to see when it fires off.

The Rule of Contradiction

Despite the fact that you're suppose to be selling this information in game, you're trying to give this information away out of game. Info brokers are meant to serve as a means of forwarding plot or otherwise finding ways to enhance or aid the plot move along. Finding a contact that can provide access, or a key secret of an enemy. 

The key thing for Players and GMs to be aware of is that this is a plot for plot economy. You're giving out information to handle plot to potentially have more plot (personal or setting based plot) later on down the road. 

While talking to other players while writing this, the notion of someone who gathers information and doesn't share is seen as a problem player. This is especially true for newer players trying to catch up with the plot and are willing to pay. If you're a broker, or have a broker NPC, your job is to catch those players up and tie them further in to plot. Giving people something to do is good work and promotes interest...and a character tied to making some interesting decisions.

The Rule of Acquisition

There must be some means of tracking this information down. Maybe you're a hacker, maybe you're a spymaster with a network of informants. Maybe you're psychic, maybe you're a psychic hacker with a network of psychic cyborg informants (I've played this game before). Varys has his little birds, Holmes his Baker Street Regulars. The method is almost as important as the information.

The reason I say this is twofold: 1) How you find this information out provides the context of that information. Are you dragging someone across the coals looking for information? Are you bribing a susceptible cop? Do you have blackmail information on some senator? Are you collating data from social media using algorithms that I will never, ever, be able to understand? 

How you get that information is important to context. Interrogation is notorious for not giving the correct information, and that brief information. Blackmail is a good way to cause enmity, passive collections means less vital information. 

I played a hacker in the later '80s, one of the first all time hackers....Hollywood hacking had everything set up on the computers, so cracking data wasn't as good as using the phones more often than not. You could do a lot with a tapped phone and a pencil than you could with the most powerful IBM computer. 

The other reason why keeping the means of acquisition clear is because it helps establish character. Social characters tend to create a network of informants and co-workers that can be relied on. Interrogators are often cold and ruthless. Hackers are eccentric loaners, and so on and so forth. These characters provide a service, that doesn't stop them from being characters.

For players, whatever your means, be prepared to work for your information. Data is not free, you know that as a fact. If it's information that you can easily acquire then it probably isn't worth having, despite how powerful your stats are in game. The rule of the game here is to make sure this information is good, and vital, and can help further along the game. 

And for GMs, make the acquisition of this information challenging to the players. Not just in dice rolls and challenges, but in hooks and traps for the brokers as well. A broker who isn't invested is a broker who isn't doing their job right. Keep the broker invested, but make them work for it. 

The Rule of Subjectivity 

Simply put, information is open to interpretation. That's what the point of Data Brokers are for, to sift through the information and sell the context. The information you find can be wrong, or that the information gathered isn't complete. 

This is one of those where I have to separate the player and the GMs needs here. I encourage GMs to have multiple sources of information (whether they are competing brokers or not) that have different interpretations or pieces of information. I also encourage that information to be open to interpretation that can be gotten wrong. 

I've mentioned before that in my Mage game, I had characters who investigated things in different ways. Spirit servitors, Ghostly provocateurs, Scrying Windows, and Dream Visions. Depending where and when they ask, they will all get similar but different points of reference. I did this to tie the different and disparate PCs closer together and also to corroborate what was valid and what wasn't. Sometimes they got information wrong, sometimes they got it right.

Let me make it clear that wrong information does not mean a dead end. Sometimes getting things wrong causes its own storylines, or reveals something new about the world and its characters.

For players, You can be wrong about your information, but you cannot be the source of that, especially to the other players. If you're dealing information to your other players, you are working on a level of trust with them. If you consistently dead end them they will not deal with you and you'll be in a corner playing with your index cards full of information you cannot use. You're providing a vital service for the rest of the game in a support role, if you can't provide it, what are you doing?

Words of Advice

For the GMs

Playing the information game isn't easy. Because it requires having information about the plot already set up. This means that it is very possible for the PCs to figure things out early. If you're someone who prefers a plot driven story that players and PCs react to, then this may not be for you. That's fine. Let your players know that if they're edging towards information gatherers. Let them know that information may not be easy to get because things are in such motion that you can't get access to it. Be transparent that this is not the kind of game for that. Again, been there, it's a good way to lose a player. 

For the Players

Being an information brokering PC is a form of support role. Your job is to gain and disperse information. You have a valuable service to provide. You don't have to be a friendly character, you can have your ulterior motives, but you are playing to further along plot. Information that isn't being used is useless. You drive the plot bus that the other players get on, and you're the one with the map navigating to the next stop. Be prepared to work for the information you're looking for, be prepared to  work with the GM to get this information.

The information broker, or the lore monkey, or how you want to call it is one of my favorite types of play in the game. It's discovery of the setting and sharing that information that makes it intriguing. It's digging in to the world and digging yourself in to deals and troubles. I love doing it because it allows characters to delve in to the setting by using their wits and their words. I hope my words have helped you, and I'd love to hear your experiences with dealing in information in gaming.

Later

I have a Patreon, focused on my serialized fiction. One of my series, Bleed, focuses on the lives of role players both in and out of game. It is released to the public monthly, and patrons receive early and immediate access. If you like what you read here, please consider supporting. That'd be cool of you.

The Heat of Combat

I'm co-opting my blog to discuss stuff from my work with New York Jedi. Don't worry, it's relevant to the larpers too. Our conversation was about characters and combat and how the latter needs the former. This is my thinking on the matter.

A fight is rarely just for the sake of fighting. There is always something about it going in, there's always a reason why people are fighting. The phrase 'just for the sake of fighting' doesn't apply because there is something that lead to that thinking. We aren't machines that are programmed just to hit things. We aren't NPCs meant to just stand there and knuckle up. We're Characters, the focus of our stories and the support of other stories. We have motivations, reasons, and methods.

And that's what fighting allows us to do. As a writer, it's always been my belief that fights are a ways to show character without having to say a word. When you're in a situation when something as important as someone's Life is on the line, you're going to see what people will pull out of their metaphorical bags. Even if you're a cold blooded murderer who is used to killing and shows no emotion, that's something that should show.

One of my pet peeves when watching fight choreography is when the fight is mechanically beautiful--the actors and stunt men are all on cue and all--and there is zero characterization going. My major target are the fight scenes in The Star Wars prequels. They are magnificently choreographed and rehearsed, and visually stimulating. However, if you look at the actors in their fight, there is nothing going on there. They are doing a rehearsed dance. There's no emotional content there...and yes, Jedi feel emotion they just aren't bound to it. It's one of the reasons I prefer the Luke vs Vader fights, because there's a game going on there in Empire. Vader is testing and toying with Luke. In Return of the Jedi, Luke is pissed and hauling away. You can cut to that scene, having never known anything about what was going on, and realizing that there are stakes in this fight.

In Revenge of the Sith, two guys take part in a protracted fight amongst a literal lava field. Zero feelings coming off them. The environment is what the emotion, and the only reason why we know there are stakes is because we've know where this fight ends.

The same thing happens in The Matrix films, especially the later one. The most grievous example for this is the Neo/Seraph fight. Here...watch this:



And that's it. There's nothing really telling us anything about these characters. There's nothing indicating in the fight itself (key word) that this was a test of character or judgment, which is what it is alluded to. It really just seems to be a fight for the sake of having a fight. As a geek who loves shiny things, it's visually appealing. As someone who sees this stuff as research, it's annoying. It feels like porn, where the plot is there only to justify the action...as it were.

You can have a brilliantly choreographed fight while still have character. One of my favorite fights is the Shu Lien vs Jen scene from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.:



In this fight, you're seeing raw talent and potential against training and experience. Jen, who is a young learner with a powerful sword, is arrogant in her power but can be seen wavering at times when Shu Lien tries something new. Shu Lien has experience with multiple weapons, but she's also clearly getting frustrated as the fight goes on. They don't seem to want to kill each other, if anything it looks like an argument they're having without saying a word.

Fights are tools to bring about dramatic tension. It either is the cause of the tension, or what breaks the tension. It's like a fever breaking, and once it does there is a level of release. Of Catharsis. A good fight in storytelling should bring about an emotional release. The people watching it should care that this fight happens, otherwise you're just there flapping your arms around and serving no one.

Which brings me to Larping. Yes, I hadn't forgotten you, my dear friends. As many of my friends in Mind's Eye Society will tell you is that I hate the combat system. A lot of work went into converting the tabletop rules for the White Wolf games into something that was more convenient for larp. Somewhere, though, it never really translated over. So, whenever combat scenes happened, people would go right back to tabletopping it out. That was never fun for me. We'd go from being these dramatic characters to suddenly playing what was essentially Pokemon with our sheets. That grinds a good RP flow to a halt and kills the mood for me. I've just handed STs my sheet with my information when we realize that the combat is going to last anywhere longer than ten minutes.

Combat only seems to work in Mind's Eye Society when the integrity of the setting is upheld. When I mean Setting in this instance, I mean the physical location your characters are occupying. This is done by making the space you as players are occupying as close an approximation as possible. This is difficult when you're a monthly game low on resources and moving from studio to studio, but with careful planning you can get creative.

One of my favorite combat scenes I ever took part of, I was an NPC, a group of three. The Vampires had us cornered for making them create more Vampires and then mindwiping everyone. The fight happened in a room next to where the main game was being played, so only the people in the fight were actually present. That gave us a whole room to move around in. There was only one exit: The door. The first thing the Vampires did was put someone against the door in case one of the NPCs made a run for it. And we did. There was movement, strategy and thinking that had to be played out relatively live (if somewhat drawn out). It was a lot more dynamic and a lot more dramatic then just sitting in a circle and waiting our turn to attack.

My favorite combat scene in MES that I've ran happened over a MacGuffin. There was a fight over a tape recording left by one of the Mage Leaders from twenty years ago. It had sensitive information for a lot of people. Conflicts arose and a fight broke out. Watching two Mages duke it out physically and magically while one tried to leave the room was refreshing.

Talking with a friend of mine during the writing of this, he made some valid points. The rules in World of Darkness games seem more intent on Killing than Fighting. There is also another point he made: In Larp Combat, it always seems to be a standing fight. No one tends to look for cover. This isn't Final Fantasy and we just stand there until our turns start. If there's a fight, I'm running for fucking cover.

Lately, I've been gravitating towards systems that promote more acting out the actions. I've lately been looking at Dresden Lives, which is currently testing out it's mechanics. The system has both Physical and Mental damage, meaning that there are more ways to deal with a person other than hitting them with a sword. There's also the matter that health pools are a lot less than most games. Death can happen fairly easily in these games. There's less incentive to jump in blindly as a player.

Then there is also the boffer larp games. I mean, there are the 'boffer monkeys' who just go out to hit things, but there's a sense of combat and urgency when you have to play it out. Part of me does notice the scrimmage line style of boffering, two groups meeting face to face like battles of old. I'd love to see more strategy, but then again I need to get out more and experience boffer larps better.

So the question becomes 'how do we make combat more interesting'. I have a few ideas, some are better for the stage, some for larps. All apply.

1) Show, don't tell.
As someone who likes writing grand epics about their characters, allow me to be the first person to say this: I don't really care to hear about your character background. Show me your character, make me want to ask questions.

2) God Mode Is Lazy
Having a character who can't be killed or otherwise defeated is lazy ass storytelling. It's lazy for the stage and it's lazy for larps. Where is the drama or the reward for putting your character through this? What is the incentive for someone to engage with you when the outcome is already known? Which brings me to...

3) A High Stakes Game
Fighting is rarely just for the sake of the fight, even nihilism is reason. People don't just fight each other. So what are the stakes in this fight? Is there a goal, an item, Fate of the City? Your life? What is the cost if you don't win on both a personal and grand scale level.

4) People are Watching
A fight for storytelling is also a fight infront of an audience. They need to be engaged. This is common stage combat 101. If your audience doesn't care, you're not doing something right. This works in larps too, the key is that your audience are also the other players, and the storytelling staff (if you aren't one yourself).

These things go counter to what I believe to be the common US conception of "I hit it with my axe". People sometimes play just to hit things. That's cool, but there's a growing population that enjoy the telling of their story. Fighting is one way to do that. It's one of the reasons I want to make a larp based around it in the form of a martial arts tournament. It's finding the balance between winning and playing that is the trick.

Later.