GM Style

Paul
Administrator

Posts: 1,839

GM Style Jul 6, 2010 12:45:39 GMT -6

Quote

Post by Paul on Jul 6, 2010 12:45:39 GMT -6

So I'm bored.

My GMing style can be harsh at times but that is life. I don’t like to waste time looking up rules, if it isn’t too important I will just make something up. If you feel that the players are always right and things should always go their way then you are the not the right gamer for my group. If you feel that complaining and whining about 200 random robots show up to kill you then stop reading now. I don’t feel it is railroading if a story unfolds in front of your characters. This IS the situation you can either deal with it or leave. TRUE role players deal with it and play accordingly, isn’t that the point? I use a cause and effect style of GMing. In the above example about 200 robots if you attack you die, if you surrender you will be locked in a dungeon and need to escape, if you run you live to fight another day and if your friends surrendered then now you get to rescue them. That is how I do things. From a players point of view it may appear as railroading, but that is impossible because I tend to make up my games on the spot based on character actions.

I prefer more details on your characters actions. I don't like it when players simply state I roll my intimidation skill. Play your character, not the stats. Orion walks up to the security guard, puts his nose straight in the guards face and with a stern gruff voice says “If you don’t let me in, I am going to hunt down every member of your family and eat them for dinner!” Then roll the skill, as a GM I grant bonuses to rolls done in this fashion.

If you are a player that consistantly tries to derail the game then don't apply. I will fight cheese with cheese, don't like it then leave.

Place keeper

I am looking for any interest in the following:

Due to conflicting work schedules I’m down to only two other players.

I have current campaigns that are in need of 2-3 more people.

Star Wars Saga – Our main game.

TSR Marvel Super Heroes – The current group of two have not played MSH outside of our play by post together. The one guy has played the game in person with me before, the other has not.

I’ve had people have issues with my GMing style in the past. That was mainly due to the fact that I don’t tolerate whiners and power gamers. If the dice don’t go your way, don’t throw them at me. Yes it happened. What I expect from the players is just to go with the flow and play your characters as you see fit. There may be obstacles that appear to be unwinnable by the conventional means. This in my opinion isn’t railroading, it just means the obvious solution isn’t the easiest one. There is no right or wrong in my games, there is cause and effect. If you choose to charge with weapons drawn against 200 random robots, then you must accept the consequences.

I can’t really give a % of combat vs. role playing for my games due to the fact that I just don’t prepare enough to know. I have a general game idea then I just go with the flow. You are to rescue the princess, she is in the castle. That is about all I ever prepare. It is up to the players to guide me through the rescue. I may have a few encounters planned, but only stats and of that nature. There is a traveling Paladin seeking a room in the inn might be something I’d do for that example. In my head I have a preconceived notion on how this Paladin will react to the group if they choose to talk to him. The group would then decide to they want to talk to him or leave him be. Cause and effect, if they talk to the Paladin he might help the group (Depending on the role play), if not then they won’t get any help from the Paladin because he left early the next morning. On the way to talk to the Paladin I need a perception roll – failure means you don’t see anything, success means you see a thief sneaking around in the shadows. Cause and effect, if you choose to ignore the thief the thief will sneak in closer to try and steal your money. If you choose to confront him then role play. The thief denies trying to steal your money, roll perception vs. deception. You detect he is lying and really wanted to steal your money. Role play, do you try and kill him or take him to the authorities? Oh you just killed the thief, so now the town guard is charging around the corner to arrest you for murder. Do you attack the guard or surrender? You surrendered? Good they throw you in jail and take away your gear, your hearing is in the morning. During that role play you convince the town constable that you were just defending yourself and to prove your good intentions you agree to rescue the princess from the castle they give you back your gear and exclaim to not return unless you have the princess. Cause and effect, one thing will lead to another, to another, to another, etc.

I think you get the point. I also tend to ramble if you didn’t notice.

PS - The thief you killed had a family, and that family is now hunting you. After you rescue the princess (or failed) that will be the next game.

When I am a guest at a convention I am there to entertain people and add to the fun they have at the event. thus, unless the game session is advertised as one where the objective is to kill the PCs--and I've done a few of those--I try to keep PCs alive. Of course if a player doesn't want to have his character survive, the natural selection process of the game environment will take over.
-E.G.Gygax

Paul
Administrator

Posts: 1,839

GM Style Jul 6, 2010 12:46:25 GMT -6

Quote

Post by Paul on Jul 6, 2010 12:46:25 GMT -6

Found this on another site, read #3.

1) Always expect your players to attack. Even good roleplayers in clearly dodgy situations. Maybe "expect" is the wrong word, but certainly PLAN FOR your PCs attacking even against impossible odds, because there is a fair chance they will. They are PCs and this is D&D, and your instincts that they feel everything will be CR appropriate and that they are the conquering heroes is a good one. Describing an enemy as totally awesome and badass is a good idea, but PCs take on impossible every day, and this particular bad guy probably won't immediately stand out as worse than the huge dragon they killed last week (for example) even with a paragraph of intimidating prose attached to it.

2) Leave outs. There are many different kinds of enemies out there, and some admittedly have no reason to leave your party alive. Some hold a grudge, or are murdering bastards, or are hired killers, or maybe it's personal. In cases like these, you won't want to show your NPCs or monsters backing down and letting their prey go, so leave outs. Maybe there is a great hiding place nearby. Maybe another monster comes by and distracts the original monster. Maybe a friendly NPC can show up and rescue the PCs. Chances are I haven't mentioned the exact solution to your problem here, and you'll need to come up with one on your own, but leaving outs is usually a good idea. Whatever outs you do decide to leave, make them obvious. The last think you want is for a TPK followed by "Well, if you had passed your spot check you would have seen the auto-win artifact."

3) Sometimes, you just have to beat the party down. Hopefully this won't result in frequent TPKs. If it does, either you're doing something very wrong or your party is, or maybe your party just can't deal with/doesn't want a game where they often have to run from fights. But if you do it right, you will be able to put the PCs in their places and let them know, "Not this time, not against these guys." A swift beat down sends a message that there are baddies you can't beat in a way warnings, metagame knowledge, portents and friendly advice just can't manage. After one good smack down, they'll probably wise up.

4) Think about encounter design in a larger context. The advice of sending one difficult creature against the PCs which they barely beat or survive, then showing them a large group of the monsters is sound. If they know they were almost wiped out by one baddie, taking on 30 will be an obviously suicidal action, and they will run. Probably (See point #1). This becomes more difficult if the threat is a unique monster that the PCs have not yet encountered and does not use cohorts. Having a single, unbeatable monster like this, and then having the PCs encounter it, is generally a bad idea because you can't control your players' actions, and you should always expect them to attack (point #1 again!). If for some reason you must, always remember point 2.

5) Accept you're not in control. In the final analysis, DMs need to come to terms with the fact that they don't control everything, and some player decisions will lead to character death. Once you accept this, the players will have to accept it, too. Don't stress out about how they will know to run away. They'll figure it out, or they'll die. This is a harsh-but-true reality. If you've done your job, given fair warning and left outs (preferably multiple, obvious outs), you have nothing to feel bad about. The players are responsible for their characters lives, not you.

When I am a guest at a convention I am there to entertain people and add to the fun they have at the event. thus, unless the game session is advertised as one where the objective is to kill the PCs--and I've done a few of those--I try to keep PCs alive. Of course if a player doesn't want to have his character survive, the natural selection process of the game environment will take over.
-E.G.Gygax

Paul
Administrator

Posts: 1,839

GM Style Jul 6, 2010 12:46:49 GMT -6

Quote

Post by Paul on Jul 6, 2010 12:46:49 GMT -6

I've come to the recent conclusion about my own styles lately.

I'm a dice chucker and this is why. If there were no stats there would be no dice and there wouldn't be a game. It would only be an interactive story. During yesterday's chat room game Dan/Sabby was facing an angry mob of 38. For the purist role player he played his character. He decided to retreat back into the store front and talk with the people. The clues that were presented to him (getting shot at 38 times and only needing to deflect twice) let him know that if he decided to attack he would have been able to easily kill them. For the dice chuckers I asked him to roll persuasion to convince the people not to attack. From a GM point of view I was looking for a set combination of words that would calm the mob.

"Lower your weapons. I'm just stopping these people from looting the burning building."

Was Sabby’s first response and wasn’t going to be good enough for the mob to stop their advance.

The people open fire on you again sabby,,,you are not hit, but you deflected 3 shots.

Then after a few more exchanges Sabby starts to play on the mobs lack of wealth. Which is what I as a GM was looking for.

Sabby: "Just because the empire treated you like trash, does not mean that you can't be more then you are. The New Republic is always looking for more able soldiers, and workers."

At this point the mob was listening and a roll was used. The DC for that check was 15. It was a lower DC due to the words that Sabby/Dan used. If he said something like lower your weapons or die (he originally tried something like that) then that DC would have been 20-25 due to these people have nothing to really live for.

Dan rolled a 12 + 6 = 18

At this point the mob was on Sabby’s/Dan’s side, all but 4 of them. Those 4 then shoot at Sabby. Next round 14 members of the mob point their weapons at the 4 that just shot at Sabby. Why? Because Sabby said they may have work for them. They want to protect their chance for a better life.

This is where it gets kind of funny.

Sabby: "Just lower your weapons we can work this out. I don't want anyone to get hurt."
[17:12] Deep Thund: roll it
[17:12] OnlineHost: Danimal 924 rolled 1 20-sided die: 2

The DC for this roll was 20. The people once again don’t care they just want a better life. If Dan/Sabby said something like “I’m sure we can find work for everyone the DC would have been 15. However it didn’t matter because the roll was so low and the 14 decided that they need to protect Sabby (their meal ticket).

IMO this is a great example of a fair balance of Roll playing and Role Playing. This is what is going through my head when we are going through encounters. I did not plan any of this a head of time and it was all done on the fly. The rolls and actions of Dan/Sabby changed the story drastically. If Dan/Sabby would have kept saying things like “Don’t make me kill you, I don’t want to hurt you, and this isn’t worth it Dan/Sabby would have murdered the entire group because Sabby would have needed to defend himself. Is a dark side point warranted if that happened? I would say no, Sabby defended himself. Through Dan’s/Sabby’s actions and words he was able to defuse the situation.

The dice and a characters choice of words play an equal factor in my games. This is a perfect example of it.

When I am a guest at a convention I am there to entertain people and add to the fun they have at the event. thus, unless the game session is advertised as one where the objective is to kill the PCs--and I've done a few of those--I try to keep PCs alive. Of course if a player doesn't want to have his character survive, the natural selection process of the game environment will take over.
-E.G.Gygax

Paul
Administrator

Posts: 1,839

GM Style Dec 28, 2010 18:07:20 GMT -6

Quote

Post by Paul on Dec 28, 2010 18:07:20 GMT -6

This is great advice:

The average roleplayer is quite ok with rails. After all, one doesn't get to the next dungeon by refusing to go to the next dungeon, and just about all the video games they play are on rails too, so why not?

Rail roading "correctly" isn't all that hard, as long as you avoid a few pitfalls.

Two core rules: Be Honest and Don't Panic

If you're going to do X with a game, be clear about it. If the point is to go on a mission and you say so, your players will fight you less. Likewise, most of the problems I've seen erupt in games come about because the GM basically freaks out and tries to force his story down player's throats. If you just calm down and think your way through the problem, you'll probably be ok.

If they don't have a choice, don't give them a choice

I don't know how often I've seen a bad GM place players in a situation where they're free to do what they want... except they're not. Something like:

"A dark, shadowy sinister man wants to hire you for a job. He's really spooky and dangerous!"

"Um... no, I think I'll pass."

"... you... you can't! He puts a gun to your head!"

"I fight him!"

"You... you can't defeat him! He's invincible! He kidnaps your family! He curses you to die unless you do this quest! He magically teleports you to the start of the quest! You have to do the quest!"

Obviously, our GM intended on them doing this quest, but he did so by offering them a choice and then snatching it away. It's clumsy and instantly leads to resentment. How is the player supposed to know what it is you secretly intend?

No, if they need to be on the quest, put them on the quest. There's no rule that says you can't start the game with the players already in media res. Have them begin in the dungeon, explain to them that they're on a quest. It's a rare player that will object and say "No, my D&D character would never go into a dungeon."

If you must present a false choice, at least offer the illusion of choice

Let's say the point of the game is to involve the players in a struggle for power between a king and his vizier. You don't really care which side the players are on, just as long as they're involved. You might start the players in a tavern and have a king's agent approach them, explaining the situation to them and asking them to assist him. Then he leaves. Moments later, a shadowy agent slips in and tells the players that there's more going on than they know about, that the king is a wicked man, and that if the players really want to help the people, they'll join his side in this crusade against tyranny.

There's no three things the players can do: they can join the king, they can join the vizier, or they can make a run for it. Unfortunately, if they make a run for it, BOTH sides will assume the players are working for the OTHER side, and try to kill them. The guards will lock down the gates because of the riots in the streets, and so on. The players will end up involved in this quest, but they're at least presented with a sense of having a choice. Specifically, what they choose to do at least shapes the color and flavor of the story, even if they never actually leave the rails you have plotted.

Remember: It feels like railroading if you force players to make a choice your way. It feels less like railroading if things just keep happening TO the players.

If someone must do something, have an NPC do it.

Let's say you want this rich romance between the princess and a player character that results in her running away with the player character. How can you be sure that the player will like your princess and won't just rebel and walk away? You have two options: The first is that the princess falls in love with the PC and won't take no for an answer. It doesn't matter to the king that the PC isn't in love with her, all he sees is that she keeps trying to run away with him. You either have the romance you want, or this comic game of obsession and misunderstandings, but either way, you'll get your band of knights chasing the players to the hills.

Alternately, you could ditch the PC altogether and have the romance be between the princess and an NPC that's associated with the players. This will tie her to the group without forcing you to deal with uncertain variables like whether the players will find her interesting or annoying.

Rails are not one dimensional

Have you ever looked at rails? They're narrow, sure, but they do have some breadth. You should too. Be flexible in your story. You could have a very narrow story where the players choose to defend the king, fall in love with the princess and then agree to go into a dungeon, but you'll have multiple points of failure. You can get much the same story if you're willing to broaden your goals a bit. If your story instead focuses on the players being involved in a coup and then tangled in a romance with the princess and then the ultimate key to freedom being found in a particular dungeon, the chances of your players going along with your rails goes up, as you're far less likely to violate their intentions, character or interests.

Let them toot the horn every once in a while

Kenneth Hite once said that players don't mind being on rails as long as they get to toot the horn every once in awhile. If the players are certainly central to the story, if it feels like everything revolves around them, they're less likely to object to the fact that they're on rails.

Put all of this together, and you have a game where the players are important, where they do have some choice (but no choice offered will let them "go off the reserve"), important plot elements swirl around them and typically happen to them, and you have a pretty acceptable game, in my experience.

When I am a guest at a convention I am there to entertain people and add to the fun they have at the event. thus, unless the game session is advertised as one where the objective is to kill the PCs--and I've done a few of those--I try to keep PCs alive. Of course if a player doesn't want to have his character survive, the natural selection process of the game environment will take over.
-E.G.Gygax

Paul
Administrator

Posts: 1,839

GM Style Jan 8, 2011 10:35:09 GMT -6

Quote

Post by Paul on Jan 8, 2011 10:35:09 GMT -6

This is good so I wanted to share.

A DM Should:

know the game's rules and assumptions.
know his players' assumptions of the campaign he is running.
know your NPC's motivations and relationships.
know how to build an encounter to present a challenge, minimize grind, and offer multiple viable strategies. This means knowing which monster roles do what as well as player and character styles.
be mindful of an encounter's tempo.
always ask for feedback at the end of each session.
err on the side of awesome.

A Player Should:

invest in his character, and find ways to invest in other characters.
develop an efficient and fast means of tracking his character's hp, surges, power usage, etc.
know how his character's rules interact with the game's.
never let the system get in the way of roleplaying, and never let roleplaying get in the way of fun.

When I am a guest at a convention I am there to entertain people and add to the fun they have at the event. thus, unless the game session is advertised as one where the objective is to kill the PCs--and I've done a few of those--I try to keep PCs alive. Of course if a player doesn't want to have his character survive, the natural selection process of the game environment will take over.
-E.G.Gygax

Post by Paul on Jul 6, 2010 12:45:39 GMT -6

Post by Paul on Jul 6, 2010 12:46:25 GMT -6

Post by Paul on Jul 6, 2010 12:46:49 GMT -6

Post by Paul on Dec 28, 2010 18:07:20 GMT -6

Post by Paul on Jan 8, 2011 10:35:09 GMT -6

Shoutbox