Why the name, "LANCER Garage"?

A Garage is place where vehicles are sheltered and/or repaired. It seems almost natural that this concept would exist in a game about giant mechanized frames. In truth, the inspiration for my LANCER Garage lies in a different place than the concept of a "garage". Heck, it lies in a different game.

Breaking Down and Fixing Things

During Vampire: The Requiem's first edition, the developers went out of their way to distance the game from its then-ended predecessor (Vampire: The Masquerade) by turning away from the former game's Metaplot and publishing books that expanded the game-as-toolbox approach. Two books stand out because their ideas truly transcend the game they were designed for: Damnation City, a book chock-full of ideas on how to build a city, its politics, and how to play as the people at the top of the hierarchyy; and Requiem Chronicler's Guide, a book that I can only describe as a masterclass on how to break down a game's components to put them back together for full customization. Each chapter provides an analysis of the themes and the kinds of stories you can tell with Vampires as protagonists, with various degrees of rules-tinkering. One such sections is called Monster Garage, and in it Jared Sorensen breaks down how the Requiem-the-game's Systems tie to Requiem-the-narrative's "Gothic Horror", and turns it on its head: it becomes a lean, mean game about monsters doing monstruous things, "The Lost Boys" but your players play the bad guys. The name resonates with that idea.

Of course, it is not the only inspiration for what we are doing here.

A Philosophy for Game Mastering

I have been Game Mastering for years. I will not claim to be an expert at it, but I have made enough mistakes to learn extensively from them. One of the most important points about Game Mastering that is easy to forget is that the Game Master is a Player too, so if you as a Game Master are aiming to make sure all players come out of the game thoroughly entertained, you also need to work on having fun with the whole thing. Which means that you have to make even the tedious tasks of preparing the game something that contributes to a kick-ass session. That means you have to approach Game Prepping and Mastering with a bit of philosophy. I can tell you my three top aims, as a GM:

1. Make the game fun.
2. Prepare only what's necessary.
3. Let the story flow.

These three points are my own foundational way of thinking about Game Mastering. Your approach may differ, and that's fine. I find these three things guide me to be better at this, every time, and to design things that make the games I love more fun for me and my friends.

Of course, these ideas do not occur in a vacuum: they are the product of readin way too much about game theory, and coming up with my own conclusions. I encourage you to do the same. My top three authors on that regard are, in no particular order:

• Mike Shea from Sly Flourish: Champion of prep-light roleplaying. Focuses mostly on Dungeons and Dragons (and all games that have evolved from it), but his advice can apply to many other RPGs, often with better results.
• Jason Alexander from The Alexandrian: His Gamemaster 101 articles cover way more than introduction to GMing, they include a lot of different things that can spark new ideas you can implement at your table. It's high-concept stuff, but very well-written.
• Vincent Baker from lumpley games: Dude created Apocalypse World, the culmination of a lot of game design ideas that brewed in online forums. AW changed the hobby in ways subtle and overt. Baker's still writing quite a bit on game design too, so go on!

So while I am telling you to read these people for the more in-depth, general advice, in this little site of mine we are gonna focus on a single RPG: LANCER. Mostly because it is a great game, but also because its flaws make it one hell of a challenge to run sometimes. And by sometimes I mean quite often.

LANCER is broken (and that's a good thing)

Over at Pilot NET, almost every day there is at least one message, from a prospective Game Master, who is asking other GMs for advice/help on how to run the game. They always get replies, because in general GMs love to help. This is a good thing.

On the same channel, GMs of varying experience show their work, trade anecdotes and tips on how to run certain types of encounters, and so on. This is a good thing.

I have read a lot of what Lancer GMs have to say. A lot of their prep methods, the things they are anxious about, the things they struggle with. It is a lot. But, I have also noticed some common refrains, things that many GMs say and/or do, that make me think, doesn't this kinda SUCK in some way? Many GMs spend a lot of time doing unnecessary things, which is often true for TTRPGs in general, and even more so when the GMs lack experience.

Even experienced GMs arrive at the channel, showing intricate maps tied to fine-tuned enempy compositions, and writing long summaries of the lore they want to create and dossiers of all the NPCs they are designing for their future game/session. You can tell they are putting a lot of effort into it. Good for them!

What happens when, well, all that planning leads to nothing? The GM can prepare the biggest plans, but they will never survive contact with the players and their own ideas on what the game should be about. A GM wants to run a full Narrative sessions, yet the players are itching to hop into the mechs and go into combat now no matter what. Or the opposite: a complex combat, ruined thanks to a successful diplomacy roll.

That's why modern approaches to Game Mastering encourage creating situations, not strict events. And yet in the LANCER GM space, you keep seeing events.

Doesn't this kinda SUCK in some way?

But here's the funny thing: the problem lies not just on the GM, but on the LANCER corebook itself.

The Lancer Corebook preaches you one thing but asks of you another

To be fair, the GM section of the LANCER corebook is mostly alright. It has solid advice, chief of it being to relinquish control of the narrative. Let the players try and break things. Make their choices matter. The more specific things you prepare, the more you are not letting the narrative flow where it must.

Surely you can see the problems that arise here, yes? The book tells you to play fast and loose, and when combat comes, to whip out a map, some NPCs, and a sitrep to keep things spicy. Except:

• Maps require time to prepare. Throwing together a quick map is feasible for smaller skirmishes, but the expected average Lancer map is a tad too large for that. Which means that it might be better for the GM to prepare in advance... Except, well, if we're "rolling with the punches", how much should we prepare in advance?
• NPCs are not always easy & fast to make. This is a side-effect of Lancer having a "bestiary" in which all enemies are made of legos: you can add and remove things from them. A generic encounter is easy to make, but if you're designing a set of enemies that fit the narrative, you have to plan ahead.
• Sitreps will not necessarily fit the narrative, which is a big thing. If the combat is just a bunch of no-names pew-pew-ing against the PCs, that's not fun. Similarly, if the sitrep doesn't quite match the narrative, it will be jarring to run it. The current state of Sitreps as they are on the corebook is simply insufficient -- it's a good start though.

Those are some of the most salient points that grind down Lancer prep. They're not all, and they're mostly from the perspective of one GM (me) who has both struggled and observed the ways in which other GMs have struggled. We can do better.

LANCER inherits the language and trappings of TTRPGs and Wargaming. So when it calls its GMing section "guide", we must take it to heart: it's just a guide. Thus, we must also inherit how TTRPGs and Wargaming have evolved: Hack the Game. Make it Yours.

A list of things to break apart and put back together

If we want to run Lancer with a leaner (even lazy) approach, we need to be willing to take a look at things as they are in the corebook, break them apart and then put things back together.

Here is my list of things I am cooking. You can think of it as a roadmap of things I want to develop, test, then write about.

• F*ck The Mission Structure: We don't need this as a codified game framework. I'll tell you why, in time.
• You're Doing Reserves Wrong: We all are. Because the book tells us so. This ties to the Mission Structure, so it makes sense we're also kicking some dust in this area.
• Mech Combat as Conflict Resolution: Or, how to run less combats. Or more combats but less tactical combats. You don't need to whip out the map on every encounter in a mech.
• Factions: Or, Fiction-first NPCs: Two parts to this. The first is how to define a faction within your setting, and the second is how to give it extra personality. Will this require new systems? Maaaaaaybe?
• You only need One Map: Or, "how to spend a lot of time preparing 'maps' for multiple sessions without worrying about the narrative while providing variety".
• Sitrep Chopshop: Once you've learn to run with Sitreps, you must learn how to run without Sitreps. By taking them apart. Use their parts instead, and connect them to the narrative.
• Spicing up Combats with Narrative Effects: Temp title. A framework seeking to enable players to do More Things in combat other than shooting and hacking each other.
• NPC Buddies: Examining NPCs-As-Companions. That's all I have. For now.
• Running for Smaller Groups: Lancer combat was not tuned for groups of less than 3 players.

You will find the list of completed articles accessible on the main page for LANCER Garage