Blog Buddies: Psychhound
This is my next installment of my Blog Buddies project, a series of blogs where I interact with other creators in the ttrpg space. This month I'm chatting with @psychhound, and this time the topic is something that is near and dear to both of our hearts.
Hey Luka!
First of all, I just want to say that one of the things I really treasure about our friendship is the ways our interests overlap. You released the first edition of shadow / giant back in late 2023, and I released the play-test version of Protect the Child in early 2024. There's a lot of similarities in our games; both the Child and the Shadow are a mix of vulnerable & powerful, and the Monsters / Giant characters are all flawed individuals who struggle with responsibility. Both of our games are fairly setting-agnostic; you could play out their stories in space, in the past, in the present, etc.
I think that it's also interesting how both of our games play with power imbalance. In Protect the Child, the Child is dependent on the rest of the players… but they are played by the GM, who, historically, has consistently had the most control at the table. The player characters have a lot of say in how they approach obstacles, but the GM has fiat over how the Child reacts to the group's choices. In shadow / giant, the Shadow needs the Giant - they're too small, too frail, even with the magic that they hold. Yet the kid is an equal player in these games; they have agency, the choice to listen to the instructions of their guardian, and (this is important) the Shadow gets to roll dice.
Another overlap in our games is that we're both interested in a world that isn't necessarily kind to children. In conversations about children, I feel like kids are used as props, and goals are more like ideals - people concerned with how the world should be, rather than how it actually is. Children should be safe from harm, but we both know that this is not always the case. Children should be protected from certain life events until they're mature enough to handle them, but real life doesn't work like that. What's even worse is that kids don't have the same methods by which to advocate for themselves as adults; they're dependent on their caretakers.
One of the ideas that fueled some design choices for Protect the Child was the idea of children's liberation - the de-coupling of kids' need to be cared for and supported with the dependency on (and ownership by) parents or state-assigned guardians. Giving the Child super-powers makes them a problem that the monsters can't just ignore or shout down - neglect their trust or emotions too much and they blow up, making the entire situation worse. The Child also has Lessons, or self-beliefs that are difficult to change; characters can attempt to steer the Child toward something more positive, but they're limited due to the fact that at the end of the day, the Child is their own person.
I'm curious about how shadow / giant looks at the individuality of children, and how that individuality poses a conundrum to people who view children as property. I think the fact that the game is a duet game goes a long way in this respect, because in a game with two players - neither of which is in a GM role - it's easy to do away with hierarchy. The Giant and the Shadow's roles in this game aren't identical - they're asymmetrical - but I think that's a better representation of how children could be treated in a kinder world. A child's rights aren't less important, but their responsibilities don't need to the same as an adult's for them and their contributions to be treated with dignity and respect.
At the same time, I think we're both interested in characters that are not necessarily "good" parents. My monsters and your Giant are both flawed; the Giant can't communicate well with the Child, and my monsters have individual weaknesses that make certain aspects of parenting significantly challenging. I wrote the Rogue Renegade into Protect the Child specifically because I thought it was compelling to have a someone who had perhaps failed children in the past be a character option, especially because it's such a satisfying arc to watch them grow.
The biggest difference between our two games, I think, is the length of each. Protect the Child is best suited to a campaign. You watch over the Child as they get older, and learn more about who they are as a person as they face obstacles and struggle against an unfriendly environment. shadow / giant feels much smaller in scope, and not just because it's a duet game. The Shadow determines when the game ends, because once their skill # hits either end of their spectrum, they are no longer playable. They either lose control of their magic, or become too frail to travel further. This feels like a game that could end in one or two sessions, depending on how (un)lucky the Shadow is - and the Shadow doesn't have the same capability to grow up over the course of play, because neither player marks experience. Protect the Child is a big-picture examination of how we as adults do (and do not) have the ability to influence who a child becomes over time. shadow / giant is a snapshot - a small piece of what is a larger story.
My meandering thoughts lead me to these questions for you:
Why do you think we are drawn to flawed characters? What makes imperfect parents interesting to you?
In the second edition of shadow / giant, how are you going to play with the Shadow's agency? What power balances or imbalances do you think might exist?
Did you have a specific goal in mind when you created an endgame condition that centred on the Shadow? Would you agree with me when I say that shadow / giant doesn't explore growth, or would you say that growth exists in other forms?
What kinds of conversations would you be excited to see in relation to the themes of shadow / giant? Are there threads between our two games that you've seen that perhaps I've missed?
I’m looking forward to reading about what thoughts this sparks! (And I’ll be re-blogging this post with a link to the response when I get it!)
