CAIN and the "Lancer Problem"

Wanna play Lancer? Yeah, get in line.

I’ve been reading Tom Bloom’s CAIN recently, because I promised my friend I would run it for them. (They made a really sad face until I agreed.) And CAIN is fantastic! I’m enjoying it.

This is not a review of CAIN. Rather, this is a thinkpiece on something CAIN brought to mind in my own game design, and in other games, that I think is incredibly important and doesn’t get enough attention.

The Lancer Problem

What is “The Lancer Problem”? In my experience, it’s this:

More people want to play Lancer than want to run Lancer. As a result, Lancer ends up on everyone’s to-play list without many people getting to experience it.

Now, I actually have played Lancer. It should be noted, however, that I played Lancer in a pretty rules-light environment, specifically because our GM didn’t feel comfortable running Lancer’s combat in an Actual Play scenario.

Looking for Game Masters

For many games, GMs are in short supply. People who feel confident running a game are a small sliver of TTRPG enthusiasts on a good day, which is why my friend was so deeply desperate to have someone run CAIN for them. But, I’m willing to bet that more people will get to experience CAIN than Lancer, because CAIN has extremely robust GM support included in the manual.

There are a lot of reasons for this lack of confidence. The big names in the AP scene mythologize the GM as the Master Storyteller in a way that can feel unattainable for the average hobbyist, for one. Many people enter TTRPGs through Dungeons and Dragons, which is the most difficult game I have ever run, personally. This sets up the expectation that GMing will always be as difficult as DMing. (It fully isn’t, BTW)

But here’s the thing: if no one feels confident running/facilitating your game? Your game doesn’t get played.

Best case, you end up with Lancer, a game everyone loves and very few people have the chance to play. Worst case, you end up with a game no one plays or talks about, because it seemed a little interesting but who would run it?

CAIN and Lancer

Now, Lancer is a good game. It deserves its masterpiece reputation as far as I’m concerned. But, the fact that few people feel they can run the game and experience it is a problem.

CAIN, on the other hand? CAIN seems to have a much better understanding of the GM’s role. There’s clear guidance for how to use mechanics in free-form situations, and there’s frameworks for encounter design right in the manual. The mechanics are clear about what is whose job, and they take a lot of improvisation off the GM through touches like the Risk die.

CAIN wants you to run the game.

If you’re willing to be a Game Master, CAIN is going to be right there holding your goddamn hand the whole time.

The Lesson

I’m just gonna repeat this: If no one feels confident running your game, your game never gets played.

In other words, whether you’re writing a sleek and modern game like CAIN or a more involved game like Lancer, you need, absolutely need, to make sure that you provide enough support to make damn sure people are willing to step up and be the Game Master.

One of my current WIPs is looking to address the Lancer Problem in some weird ways that I’m still testing, and I wrote a lot of GM support into Rangers of a Broken World, too, because this is a pet subject of mine. There are a lot of ways to do it, but the lesson is this:

Ask yourself what a person would need to run the game, and give them every tool you can to succeed.

Some ideas:

• Sample encounters

• Encounter-building guidelines

• Examples for things that are improvised or free-form, like consequences

• Clear rules for what is and is not the GM’s job

• Sample one-shots with robust guidance explaining the designer’s intentions

• “If all else fails” principles that help a GM make choices even when the specific problem isn’t addressed

If you can manage this, then people will actually play your masterpiece game, and form those beautiful memories you’ve been trying to build.