On Referees #

The Picaroons playkit doesn’t mention the referee role at all. It’s none of the playkits business how and who facillitates games, though the genre it’s situated in likely implies to most readers that it expects someone to take up a referee role.

Just because something is expected or implied from surrounding context doesn’t make it necessary though, and if your table prefers to share, rotate, or split up refereeing considerations, do it and don’t let anyone tell you you’re wrong.

Adjudication Flow #

Here’s a way to figure out when tests are called for that works well for me:

Intent: What does the player want?

Approach: How does their picaroon try to get it?

Adjudicate: Only after the player answers both questions, the person(s) responsible for adjudication should answer for themselves:

1. Can this Intent+Approach succeed?
2. Can it fail?
3. Does failure have meaningful consequences?

If any answers are no, narration or discussion will do. If, only if, all three answers are yes, test.

Tests usually succeed on a 5+.

Interpreting Results #

Sometimes the outcome is clear to you, maybe even most of the time, especially when the test is a success. Great! On the other hand, it can be tough to know what to do with a failure.

Usually, results of “nothing happens” make at least some folks at the table bored. That’s why I suggest the adjudication flow above. If that’s the only outcome for failure, skip the test and say the Picaroon succeeds.

So what else might failure look like? It could look like partial success, lost resources, wasted time under pressure, a set back, increased difficulty, or a radical shift in available options. It’s always contextual.

Campaigns #

Picaroons as a playkit doesn’t particularly care if you play it as a one-shot or series of connected sessions. Running campaigns is an enormous topic that (as with all things game related) is very contextual to table preference, play culture, and experience. I don’t have such hubris as to tell you I definitely know the Best Way to run connected sessions, but I can tell you about some techniques I find useful:

• If the table is casual and not particularly concerned with continuity, just have a week of downtime between sessions and start each session in a new picaresque.
• If the table wants minimal structure, maintain a rumor/job list board and have everyone vote between adventures on what to do next. From there, the table could play out the initial securing of the job/investigation of the rumor or just launch into a picaresque for it.
• If the table wants more detailed structure, maintain a rumor/job list board and use it as above but also include consequences and callbacks for prior player actions–maybe an old enemy has come for revenge, a friend is in need, or their ignoring of a problem has made it worse.

Picaresques #

There isn’t always a picaresque ready to use for an adventure, especially for those you’re coming up with yourself. Picaresques as included in the core Picaroons zine and elsewhere are meant to skip the “getting into it” stage of starting an adventure and just dropping the picaroons in media res. When I write them, here’s how I think about it:

• Give the picaroons a reason they got involved with the adventure–something to gain, or prevent, or otherwise call them to action
• Immediately stick the picaroons into an encounter with at least one choice to make
• Include a short table that alters the encounter slightly—I prefer adventures which give me some surprises and options as a referee