How much work do you put into your campaign?

ZorValachan · Unread post by **ZorValachan** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:16 am

Akashic Soldier wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:One reason I spend the first session of an on going campaign on character creation is to watch the PCs being created and see just what kind of experience they expect from the game/

I can handle ANY power with ease except the powers that allow them to reduce a hard plotted out mystery plot to a dice roll. Then I am left feeling "Man, what is even the point..."

Honestly, I would be less disheartened if they could level a city with the blink of an eye. Its just when they can unravel my entire plot effortlessly that I get my panties in a twist. I dont believe in retconing powers or nerfing them (I like to be a fair and just GM) but its happened to me TWICE now and it is by far my least favorite thing about GMing. Especially when you spend days planning and taking notes and stating **** out.

Yes, and it makes GMs into a-holes, because to keep the 'mystery' we have to answer in riddles or jerk the players/characters. Such as in games (not sure if PB has something like it) asking 3 questions, and the player asks, "I can ask a question?" and the GM answers, "Yes, you have two more". Then the party halts and spends 3 hours coming up with the next 2 questions and thinking of any way the GM could twist it.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:28 am

Akashic Soldier wrote:
Icefalcon wrote:If I come across a truly broken power, I just note it for future games that is is not allowed (such as the special abilities from Black Market).

*blinks in shock*

I agreed with EVERYTHING in your post except this which honestly shocked me! What makes you think the Black Market abilities are broken? Other than the one that potentially allows you to detect lies (and even that is a roll) I couldn't see how any of them could be a problem and its not like they're free you have to give up Related Skill slots for them (and to me that is a big deal)?

How about a character having major source of illegal income at 1st level? The ability for any character to gain Black Market abilities on top of what they already get? Criminal OCC's start with three free abilities and non-criminal OCC's receive two. I don't think ANY class, other than the ones specifically in Black Market, should have access to those abilities. Even then, some of the abilities should not be available until higher levels. Not all of the abilities should be allowed to all character classes, they should be a little more limited.

Where some people think these abilities are not overpowering in a game, I think they can be. The fact that all of them can be taken regardless of level is what, in my opinion, makes them the most broken. Add to that, that any character can get a minimum of two for free and that makes them doubly so.

Akashic Soldier · Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:21 am

Icefalcon wrote:How about a character having major source of illegal income at 1st level? The ability for any character to gain Black Market abilities on top of what they already get? Criminal OCC's start with three free abilities and non-criminal OCC's receive two. I don't think ANY class, other than the ones specifically in Black Market, should have access to those abilities. Even then, some of the abilities should not be available until higher levels. Not all of the abilities should be allowed to all character classes, they should be a little more limited.

Where some people think these abilities are not overpowering in a game, I think they can be. The fact that all of them can be taken regardless of level is what, in my opinion, makes them the most broken. Add to that, that any character can get a minimum of two for free and that makes them doubly so.

I guess but they're mostly home terf advantage. Have you read what is necessary to maintain them week to week or what you have to give up to be able to use them?

My players flatly refuse to use them because they're terrified one of their subordinates will **** up and their bosses will kill them. I literally was running a criminal game and no one would join the Black Market because they were scared of how they operated being too restrictive and they were really worried about the repercussions of not being able to live up to their responsibilities.

Snake Eyes · Unread post by **Snake Eyes** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:48 am

How much work do you put into your campaign?

A serious amount of work, infact i wrote a 10 page campaign backstory for a Robotech game i GM'ed.......I have a tendancy to run mid-high powered games, so i want to make sure i have everything squared away before i run a game

DhAkael · Unread post by **DhAkael** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:27 am

An immense effort...and... none what so ever.
Hear me out.
BASICLY what I do is create a massive load of campiagn material for future use, keep notes of past game sessions BUT, I let the actual session-in-progress and story arc evolve via the players.
Y'know what? It works.
Nearly 20 years and the meta-campiagn has been going since day one, with plot threads from the early years showing up in present games and twining with the PC's histories. It takes suprsingly little effort then to weave a compelling story, provided the players wish to weave their PC's into the narative's fabric.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:20 am

DhAkael wrote:An immense effort...and... none what so ever.
Hear me out.
BASICLY what I do is create a massive load of campiagn material for future use, keep notes of past game sessions BUT, I let the actual session-in-progress and story arc evolve via the players.
Y'know what? It works.
Nearly 20 years and the meta-campiagn has been going since day one, with plot threads from the early years showing up in present games and twining with the PC's histories. It takes suprsingly little effort then to weave a compelling story, provided the players wish to weave their PC's into the narative's fabric.

I keep stuff from all of my previous games also. Sometimes stuff is tied in from one campaign to the next, especially if it is is run in the same world.

DhAkael · Unread post by **DhAkael** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:02 pm

Icefalcon wrote:
DhAkael wrote:An immense effort...and... none what so ever.
Hear me out.
BASICLY what I do is create a massive load of campiagn material for future use, keep notes of past game sessions BUT, I let the actual session-in-progress and story arc evolve via the players.
Y'know what? It works.
Nearly 20 years and the meta-campiagn has been going since day one, with plot threads from the early years showing up in present games and twining with the PC's histories. It takes suprsingly little effort then to weave a compelling story, provided the players wish to weave their PC's into the narative's fabric.

I keep stuff from all of my previous games also. Sometimes stuff is tied in from one campaign to the next, especially if it is is run in the same world.

It saves on creating massively pre-scripted plots for every game, only to have the GM do the "Galactic Plot-rail express 3-9; now leaving platform 6..." when the players decide to do something else. :demon:

One thing I can NOT stand (no names) is when a GM is so enamoured of their script they will fudge dice, makes "rocks fall" or out right go "Your charcater tries going East, but they end up going West, because that's where the story is." OR throw a tantrum because you have just pimp-smacked their big-bad of the week in less than a melee round.

The above previous post(s) make for a low stress situation for both players AND GM.

Colt47 · Unread post by **Colt47** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:33 pm

DhAkael wrote:
Icefalcon wrote:
DhAkael wrote:An immense effort...and... none what so ever.
Hear me out.
BASICLY what I do is create a massive load of campiagn material for future use, keep notes of past game sessions BUT, I let the actual session-in-progress and story arc evolve via the players.
Y'know what? It works.
Nearly 20 years and the meta-campiagn has been going since day one, with plot threads from the early years showing up in present games and twining with the PC's histories. It takes suprsingly little effort then to weave a compelling story, provided the players wish to weave their PC's into the narative's fabric.

I keep stuff from all of my previous games also. Sometimes stuff is tied in from one campaign to the next, especially if it is is run in the same world.

It saves on creating massively pre-scripted plots for every game, only to have the GM do the "Galactic Plot-rail express 3-9; now leaving platform 6..." when the players decide to do something else.
One thing I can NOT stand (no names) is when a GM is so enamoured of their script they will fudge dice, makes "rocks fall" or out right go "Your charcater tries going East, but they end up going West, because that's where the story is." OR throw a tantrum because you have just pimp-smacked their big-bad of the week in less than a melee round.

The above previous post(s) make for a low stress situation for both players AND GM.

That's why I always have two outcomes when I have a villain or NPC that is important to the game: Path A: Villain/NPC Lives, Path B: Villain/NPC Dies. Most of the time if the villain in question is worth his salt he has a backup plan in the event of his passing. Kind of like in D&D when in an adventure module I can't remember, the PCs could kill the main villain and then they run into him again two adventures down the road. Why? Because he had planned for his eventual demise and had a simulacrum on standby. Sounds cheap, but it was actually hinted throughout the adventure that the person in question had access to the resources to do so.

Actually, that's one good thing to take away from this: if someone wants to have a recurring villain make sure they have a good back drop as to how he can come back in the case of his/her untimely demise even if the next encounter is just a subordinate pretending to be the villain in question.

Noon · Unread post by **Noon** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:45 am

It really is cheap though.

Why not just have the organisation react organically - sub bosses start carving out turf for themselves, trying to take over the whole thing. Some might continue in part the evil plans, if it profits them.

Or just end the campaign at that point. Pretend that Luke actually killed the emperor one movie early, so they wrapped it up at three. Think in terms of the plot structure revolving around the PC's actions, not the PC's actions revolving around the plot structure.

Colt47 · Unread post by **Colt47** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:53 am

Noon wrote:It really is cheap though.

Why not just have the organisation react organically - sub bosses start carving out turf for themselves, trying to take over the whole thing. Some might continue in part the evil plans, if it profits them.

Or just end the campaign at that point. Pretend that Luke actually killed the emperor one movie early, so they wrapped it up at three. Think in terms of the plot structure revolving around the PC's actions, not the PC's actions revolving around the plot structure.

It depends on how it is handled. Again, the simulacrum example probably needs a bit further explanation, but in both cases it's someone else who is a pale imitator attempting to take the role of the original person and usually being relegated to a lesser role in the remaining campaign. As long as the PCs have the power to change the flow of events, it is perfectly acceptable. The point of a player in a game is to cause change, not simply observe a status queue.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:35 pm

Noon wrote:It really is cheap though.

Why not just have the organisation react organically - sub bosses start carving out turf for themselves, trying to take over the whole thing. Some might continue in part the evil plans, if it profits them.

Or just end the campaign at that point. Pretend that Luke actually killed the emperor one movie early, so they wrapped it up at three. Think in terms of the plot structure revolving around the PC's actions, not the PC's actions revolving around the plot structure.

I agree. The plot should evolve organically. If your big bad guy dies to early, elevate a new one (unless the resurrection thing is already written in to the story, and it only works once) and just continue off the changes. This is one of the reasons I spend so much time working on my games. I plan something, the players do something unexpected that changes the outcome or negates what I had planned, I have to go back and change what I had planned. Although, if I had something truly world changing planned and the characters ignored it in favor of trivial crap, I make the world changing stuff keep happening in the background. In that way, they may eventually want to get involved in the metaplot instead of wandering from trivial adventure to stupid shenanigans.

DhAkael · Unread post by **DhAkael** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:08 pm

Icefalcon wrote:
Noon wrote:It really is cheap though.

Why not just have the organisation react organically - sub bosses start carving out turf for themselves, trying to take over the whole thing. Some might continue in part the evil plans, if it profits them.

Or just end the campaign at that point. Pretend that Luke actually killed the emperor one movie early, so they wrapped it up at three. Think in terms of the plot structure revolving around the PC's actions, not the PC's actions revolving around the plot structure.

I agree. The plot should evolve organically. If your big bad guy dies to early, elevate a new one (unless the resurrection thing is already written in to the story, and it only works once) and just continue off the changes. This is one of the reasons I spend so much time working on my games. I plan something, the players do something unexpected that changes the outcome or negates what I had planned, I have to go back and change what I had planned. Although, if I had something truly world changing planned and the characters ignored it in favor of trivial crap, I make the world changing stuff keep happening in the background. In that way, they may eventually want to get involved in the metaplot instead of wandering from trivial adventure to stupid shenanigans.

WIN!

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:17 pm

DhAkael wrote:
Icefalcon wrote:
Noon wrote:It really is cheap though.

Why not just have the organisation react organically - sub bosses start carving out turf for themselves, trying to take over the whole thing. Some might continue in part the evil plans, if it profits them.

Or just end the campaign at that point. Pretend that Luke actually killed the emperor one movie early, so they wrapped it up at three. Think in terms of the plot structure revolving around the PC's actions, not the PC's actions revolving around the plot structure.

I agree. The plot should evolve organically. If your big bad guy dies to early, elevate a new one (unless the resurrection thing is already written in to the story, and it only works once) and just continue off the changes. This is one of the reasons I spend so much time working on my games. I plan something, the players do something unexpected that changes the outcome or negates what I had planned, I have to go back and change what I had planned. Although, if I had something truly world changing planned and the characters ignored it in favor of trivial crap, I make the world changing stuff keep happening in the background. In that way, they may eventually want to get involved in the metaplot instead of wandering from trivial adventure to stupid shenanigans.

WIN!

Thank you.

Colt47 · Unread post by **Colt47** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:24 pm

As long as the PCs have the power to change the flow of events it's acceptable. Wonder if people just kind of skipped my second post up there, as I even said that the example I used probably involves more explanation than it's worth.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:54 pm

Colt47 wrote:As long as the PCs have the power to change the flow of events it's acceptable. Wonder if people just kind of skipped my second post up there, as I even said that the example I used probably involves more explanation than it's worth.

I never infringe on the players' ability to affect the outcome of the story. I only monkey with the difficulty depending how long it takes them to jump into the metaplot. For example, if they jump in during the first inkling that something was wrong, they could have stopped the bad guy from recruiting those giants. If they would have jumped in before that first town was destroyed they could have stopped all of those townspeople from becoming undead and they would have had a good base of operations.

I could go on but I think I illustrated my point. The difficulty of that big bad guy all depends on how much the players stopped him from doing in the first place. It is not my fault if they don't take him down a few pegs before he comes looking for them.

Noon · Unread post by **Noon** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:16 pm

I think a simulacrum leads to the players having no affect on the flow of events. Atleast in the way I'm hearing it - it sounds utterly intended to keep the status quo going. Hinting about it makes no difference, unless it's actually possible to destroy in advance (by which I mean the GM has actually thought of ways that is possible for a PC to do)

Damian Magecraft · Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:39 pm

Noon wrote:I think a simulacrum leads to the players having no affect on the flow of events. Atleast in the way I'm hearing it - it sounds utterly intended to keep the status quo going. Hinting about it makes no difference, unless it's actually possible to destroy in advance (by which I mean the GM has actually thought of ways that is possible for a PC to do)

only if you the GM insist on ignoring rule #3 of the basics of Good Game Mastering.
events do not stagnate.
Just because the players choose to ignore the plot thread does not mean it ceases to be...
That plot will trundle right along with out them (how it plays out from there is up to GM/PC whim even then).
I have had players ignore a time sensitive quest before; and then they got angry because the timer kept on ticking while they were goofing off on a bunch of senseless side quests to earn un-needed cash (hazard of a sand box style game). This is not a vid game that waits patiently for you to decide when the quest gets completed. If the NPC says it has to be done with in 7 days and it will take a minimum of 2 days to get there and a minimum of 3 days to complete and you take 8 days to get around to getting started; you have failed.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:04 pm

Damian Magecraft wrote:
Noon wrote:I think a simulacrum leads to the players having no affect on the flow of events. Atleast in the way I'm hearing it - it sounds utterly intended to keep the status quo going. Hinting about it makes no difference, unless it's actually possible to destroy in advance (by which I mean the GM has actually thought of ways that is possible for a PC to do)
only if you the GM insist on ignoring rule #3 of the basics of Good Game Mastering.
events do not stagnate.
Just because the players choose to ignore the plot thread does not mean it ceases to be...
That plot will trundle right along with out them (how it plays out from there is up to GM/PC whim even then).
I have had players ignore a time sensitive quest before; and then they got angry because the timer kept on ticking while they were goofing off on a bunch of senseless side quests to earn un-needed cash (hazard of a sand box style game). This is not a vid game that waits patiently for you to decide when the quest gets completed. If the NPC says it has to be done with in 7 days and it will take a minimum of 2 days to get there and a minimum of 3 days to complete and you take 8 days to get around to getting started; you have failed.

I agree with rule #3 wholeheartedly. Thank you for the link to your post about those rules by the way. They are true for anyone who wishes to GM a game, or at least they should be.

I also agree about the video game comparison. You don't have to go out "power leveling" before you go take care of adventures. The adventures themselves, at least in my case, are designed to be handled at certain levels. They are also designed to help you reach higher level encounters, even if it just provides you with the better gear you need.

Noon · Unread post by **Noon** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:20 pm

Damian Magecraft wrote:
Noon wrote:I think a simulacrum leads to the players having no affect on the flow of events. Atleast in the way I'm hearing it - it sounds utterly intended to keep the status quo going. Hinting about it makes no difference, unless it's actually possible to destroy in advance (by which I mean the GM has actually thought of ways that is possible for a PC to do)
only if you the GM insist on ignoring rule #3 of the basics of Good Game Mastering.
events do not stagnate.
Just because the players choose to ignore the plot thread does not mean it ceases to be...
That plot will trundle right along with out them (how it plays out from there is up to GM/PC whim even then).
I have had players ignore a time sensitive quest before; and then they got angry because the timer kept on ticking while they were goofing off on a bunch of senseless side quests to earn un-needed cash (hazard of a sand box style game). This is not a vid game that waits patiently for you to decide when the quest gets completed. If the NPC says it has to be done with in 7 days and it will take a minimum of 2 days to get there and a minimum of 3 days to complete and you take 8 days to get around to getting started; you have failed.

I'm not sure if you're talking about the simulacrum issue or talking about something I'm not?

If they've managed to kill the head boss, yeah, things play out as in that boss is dead. I'm not sure your saying this, but saying things just play out if they ignore the plot thread, ie they ignore it because the boss is dead, somehow still plays out with a magical simulacrum. No, that's just cheap and the worst of both worlds, where you you stuff around for 8 days you fail the task, but if the GM's NPC gets killed, oh no, that NPC just comes back and continues. Again, I don't know if your saying this - hope not and I'm just arguing with no one (I hope so!)

Also on another topic, I think if the players enjoy the side quests for cash, then it's not senseless, it's not goofing off, it's rule 5. Best to respect that, even if the world keeps turning.

Damian Magecraft · Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:19 pm

Noon wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Noon wrote:I think a simulacrum leads to the players having no affect on the flow of events. Atleast in the way I'm hearing it - it sounds utterly intended to keep the status quo going. Hinting about it makes no difference, unless it's actually possible to destroy in advance (by which I mean the GM has actually thought of ways that is possible for a PC to do)
only if you the GM insist on ignoring rule #3 of the basics of Good Game Mastering.
events do not stagnate.
Just because the players choose to ignore the plot thread does not mean it ceases to be...
That plot will trundle right along with out them (how it plays out from there is up to GM/PC whim even then).
I have had players ignore a time sensitive quest before; and then they got angry because the timer kept on ticking while they were goofing off on a bunch of senseless side quests to earn un-needed cash (hazard of a sand box style game). This is not a vid game that waits patiently for you to decide when the quest gets completed. If the NPC says it has to be done with in 7 days and it will take a minimum of 2 days to get there and a minimum of 3 days to complete and you take 8 days to get around to getting started; you have failed.

I'm not sure if you're talking about the simulacrum issue or talking about something I'm not?

If they've managed to kill the head boss, yeah, things play out as in that boss is dead. I'm not sure your saying this, but saying things just play out if they ignore the plot thread, ie they ignore it because the boss is dead, somehow still plays out with a magical simulacrum. No, that's just cheap and the worst of both worlds, where you you stuff around for 8 days you fail the task, but if the GM's NPC gets killed, oh no, that NPC just comes back and continues. Again, I don't know if your saying this - hope not and I'm just arguing with no one (I hope so!)

Also on another topic, I think if the players enjoy the side quests for cash, then it's not senseless, it's not goofing off, it's rule 5. Best to respect that, even if the world keeps turning.

Ok the Simulacrum is a cheap ploy...
But if the GM has done his job right the BBEG is not the one they killed that was just a Lieutenant of the BBEG (even if it was a simulacrum).
But even Palladium has handed us multiple methods of doing the "must salvage campaign" jig in that manner... (as a GM I do not recommend using them very often as the impact of the methods will wear off quickly).
The spells
Doppleganger, Id Self, Clone, and Return from the Grave all come to mind...
each has advantages and drawbacks.
I have used these spells in campaigns before BUT I intentionally designed the campaign around them. Each time my players thought they were finally done with the BBEG only to have him show up yet again (and they got Peeved at him for not staying dead and not at me for pulling the "cheap shot" back from the dead stunt.)

As to the side quests issue:
1: The players accepted a time sensitive quest
2: The players were already flush with enough cash to buy a small keep
3: The players were made aware that the side quests were not time sensitive
4: By choosing to do the Side Quests first the players cost themselves the completion of the primary quest
in that respect the side quests were pointless.

Colt47 · Unread post by **Colt47** » Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:01 am

Damian Magecraft wrote:
Noon wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Noon wrote:I think a simulacrum leads to the players having no affect on the flow of events. Atleast in the way I'm hearing it - it sounds utterly intended to keep the status quo going. Hinting about it makes no difference, unless it's actually possible to destroy in advance (by which I mean the GM has actually thought of ways that is possible for a PC to do)
only if you the GM insist on ignoring rule #3 of the basics of Good Game Mastering.
events do not stagnate.
Just because the players choose to ignore the plot thread does not mean it ceases to be...
That plot will trundle right along with out them (how it plays out from there is up to GM/PC whim even then).
I have had players ignore a time sensitive quest before; and then they got angry because the timer kept on ticking while they were goofing off on a bunch of senseless side quests to earn un-needed cash (hazard of a sand box style game). This is not a vid game that waits patiently for you to decide when the quest gets completed. If the NPC says it has to be done with in 7 days and it will take a minimum of 2 days to get there and a minimum of 3 days to complete and you take 8 days to get around to getting started; you have failed.

I'm not sure if you're talking about the simulacrum issue or talking about something I'm not?

If they've managed to kill the head boss, yeah, things play out as in that boss is dead. I'm not sure your saying this, but saying things just play out if they ignore the plot thread, ie they ignore it because the boss is dead, somehow still plays out with a magical simulacrum. No, that's just cheap and the worst of both worlds, where you you stuff around for 8 days you fail the task, but if the GM's NPC gets killed, oh no, that NPC just comes back and continues. Again, I don't know if your saying this - hope not and I'm just arguing with no one (I hope so!)

Also on another topic, I think if the players enjoy the side quests for cash, then it's not senseless, it's not goofing off, it's rule 5. Best to respect that, even if the world keeps turning.
Ok the Simulacrum is a cheap ploy...
But if the GM has done his job right the BBEG is not the one they killed that was just a Lieutenant of the BBEG (even if it was a simulacrum).
But even Palladium has handed us multiple methods of doing the "must salvage campaign" jig in that manner... (as a GM I do not recommend using them very often as the impact of the methods will wear off quickly).
The spells
Doppleganger, Id Self, Clone, and Return from the Grave all come to mind...
each has advantages and drawbacks.
I have used these spells in campaigns before BUT I intentionally designed the campaign around them. Each time my players thought they were finally done with the BBEG only to have him show up yet again (and they got Peeved at him for not staying dead and not at me for pulling the "cheap shot" back from the dead stunt.)

As to the side quests issue:
1: The players accepted a time sensitive quest
2: The players were already flush with enough cash to buy a small keep
3: The players were made aware that the side quests were not time sensitive
4: By choosing to do the Side Quests first the players cost themselves the completion of the primary quest
in that respect the side quests were pointless.

Sounds like a vastly different style of game than the ones I'm used to. Most adventures I've played in typically fall into the dungeon exploration and investigation category (whether it is a forest, keep, or underground labyrinth, it all boils down to the same thing in the end). Players could complete objectives in any order they wish for each step in the adventure, which makes sense since they could take any number of different routes through the dungeon area.

Damian Magecraft · Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:20 am

Colt47 wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:As to the side quests issue:
1: The players accepted a time sensitive quest
2: The players were already flush with enough cash to buy a small keep
3: The players were made aware that the side quests were not time sensitive
4: By choosing to do the Side Quests first the players cost themselves the completion of the primary quest
in that respect the side quests were pointless.

Sounds like a vastly different style of game than the ones I'm used to. Most adventures I've played in typically fall into the dungeon exploration and investigation category (whether it is a forest, keep, or underground labyrinth, it all boils down to the same thing in the end). Players could complete objectives in any order they wish for each step in the adventure, which makes sense since they could take any number of different routes through the dungeon area.

I mix in "quests" of varying types to my games...
The Time sensitive ones mean just that...
As GM I will monitor how much time the PCs consume on other projects.
Those kinds of "quests" could be as simple as obtaining an herb that can only be picked under certain conditions.
Or as deceptively complex as getting Little Susie her insulin shot before she dies.
Failing on task one just means they have to wait for conditions to be just right again. (maybe)
Failing at Task two means someone died.

Colt47 · Unread post by **Colt47** » Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:23 am

So it's more like a story driven game with options (AKA visual novel). There isn't a game board per say, but a series of tasks that are to be completed, with a number of optional side quests to improve the players standing. Really, this seems to be one of the divides in the Pen and Paper market with different games.

Damian Magecraft · Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:40 pm

Colt47 wrote:So it's more like a story driven game with options (AKA visual novel). There isn't a game board per say, but a series of tasks that are to be completed, with a number of optional side quests to improve the players standing. Really, this seems to be one of the divides in the Pen and Paper market with different games.

Yeah that division (Story vs Delve) has been around for at least 35 years.
The pendulum swings from one extreme to the other fairly cyclically...
It started as Delve/map/grid based and started to swing towards story driven hitting its high with VtMs Storyteller system.
It has swung back towards Grid/map Based with 3.x but is slowly headed back the other way again.

Colt47 · Unread post by **Colt47** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:53 am

Don't know why I didn't think of calling it a delve before. My current work in progress is basically a delve game based off of japanese ghost stories, so the objectives and challenges tend to be highly investigative. Part of the reason it is taking so long to get done is that I only have about an hour at most a week to work on it thanks to college until the winter break hits. Likewise, there is no such thing as a minor encounter when it comes to ghosts in this particular genre. They basically are walking death curses.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:36 am

You guys bring up an interesting point. How much work goes into your encounters? I know for myself, I usually do stat blocks for "average" enemies of various levels on the computer. I also stat out the major NPC's (good and bad) of the areas that the game takes place. I find have the stats ready to go before the game saves alot of page flipping and dice rolling during the combat (which tends to slow the session down). At most, I might have to look up spells or psionics as they are used but I usually have a good idea what the enemy can do before the combat starts.

For example, if I were to plan a Rifts encounter, it helps to know the weapons any enemies are using before I have to decide on their turn. Same goes for magic, psionics, bionics (especially if it modifies rolls), equipment the players might loot, stats (in case it comes down to melee or fisticuffs) and other minor details it can get confusing to come up with in the middle of combat. You would be surprised how many times I get the question "Are they wearing helmets?" during the course of a combat.

Damian Magecraft · Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:30 pm

Icefalcon wrote:You guys bring up an interesting point. How much work goes into your encounters? I know for myself, I usually do stat blocks for "average" enemies of various levels on the computer. I also stat out the major NPC's (good and bad) of the areas that the game takes place. I find have the stats ready to go before the game saves alot of page flipping and dice rolling during the combat (which tends to slow the session down). At most, I might have to look up spells or psionics as they are used but I usually have a good idea what the enemy can do before the combat starts.

For example, if I were to plan a Rifts encounter, it helps to know the weapons any enemies are using before I have to decide on their turn. Same goes for magic, psionics, bionics (especially if it modifies rolls), equipment the players might loot, stats (in case it comes down to melee or fisticuffs) and other minor details it can get confusing to come up with in the middle of combat. You would be surprised how many times I get the question "Are they wearing helmets?" during the course of a combat.

Depends on the game and the NPC in question:
But there are some general rules I do follow

I have a Hierarchy of Villainous NPCs I use
(I wrote these up for some HU and N&SS games I was running but they can apply to any setting)

Mooks: these are the cannon fodder of the BBEG; consequently they are not expected to last long (1Hit wonders... I dont usually bother with stating them) the BBEG will have 100s to 1000s of these guys
Toughs: these are the lowest level leaders in an organization; They too are not expected to last long (2 or 3 hits and they drop; I note their HP and SDC which are of average quality) 10% of Mooks are Toughs
BBAs (Billy Bad@$$s): These are the highest ranking mooks and toughs. They are still not expected to do much more than slow the heroes down. They will have one or two unusual bonuses noted down. HP and SDC are slightly above normal. (it may take a hero a full melee or two to deal with just one)
Lieutenants: These guys look and act like BBAs. But they are much tougher; They will have full combat stats (PS, PP, PE, SPD, Strike, Parry, Dodge, Damage, HP, SDC), above average HP and SDC, may wear armor.
Capos:These are the Jaws and Odd Jobs of the BBEG: They get full stat treatment.
BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy): full stats, Back story, Motivations, Etc...

For non villain NPC (the everyday folks) I run the concept of averages...
Until needed in the foreground the "extras" are assumed to be perfectly average.
That is until the players interact with them and personalities start to come to the fore.

The Trick is to do a little pre-prep and then just wing it from there.
If the players toss you a curve do not panic; at least do not let them see you panic; work with it.
One Player I have loves to ask the NPC extras their names (he once caught a GM flat footed that way and thinks it funny to watch a GM hunt for names) when they ask for the bar wenches name make one up... Pull it out of the last book you read, use the first name of your favorite actress/actor, etc...
just keep moving forward; no matter what they throw at you do not stop the story just make a choice and go on...
Do this and the Players will hail you as one of the best GMs they have ever met.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:39 pm

I learned long ago how to pull names out of thin air when dealing with throw-away NPC's. Sometimes those NPC's become a major recurring character (favorite bar maid, informative hobo, bartender, smithy, shop owner, random guy always on the 3:15 crosstown bus or whatever else the players attach to) which requires me writing up any pertinent information on that person (which sometimes means stats but mostly background and personality). Occasionally, one of these NPC's develops into something major (such as the 3:15 bus guy turning out to be a CIA plant to contact the characters) an requires an more in depth treatment.

However, when it comes to enemies, I find that it is necessary to go a little more detailed on the stat blocks (but not so much the background and personality) because of the nature of some PC powers. For example, in D&D, I have to have the full stat blocks because the characters like to use stat altering spells. In Rifts, I have had players try to hold an enemy under the water until he drowned (which required PS for the wrestling match and PE for how long he could hold his breath). Even for generic enemies, I tend to stat them out and reuse them from game to game. One of the reasons I do so is that trying to remember (especially after not playing in a few weeks) what the goons of one BBEG were using the last game session is kind of difficult because other systems have been run in between those two game sessions. My group tends to leap frog around week to week as to what system we are playing. Also, some of my games have long breaks between sessions (the most infrequent is with my brother-in-law, which is about once a month and in fall and spring we skip three months between sessions) that make it necessary to keep track of these things. It might not be necessary for every GM to have that much information for their NPC's (especially if they use them only once) but it helps put my mind at ease that if I need that information it is on hand.

Noon · Unread post by **Noon** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:00 pm

Damian Magecraft wrote:I have used these spells in campaigns before BUT I intentionally designed the campaign around them. Each time my players thought they were finally done with the BBEG only to have him show up yet again (and they got Peeved at him for not staying dead and not at me for pulling the "cheap shot" back from the dead stunt.)

Yeah, but the saving grace your refering to is that the players don't recognise you're making the campaign unalterable by these campaign salvage techniques you refer to.

And heck, no doubt it's the only way you know of to consistantly get a story, so it seems necessary as well, I'd guess.

As to the side quests issue:
1: The players accepted a time sensitive quest
2: The players were already flush with enough cash to buy a small keep
3: The players were made aware that the side quests were not time sensitive
4: By choosing to do the Side Quests first the players cost themselves the completion of the primary quest
in that respect the side quests were pointless.

You just don't use language like this unless you want to badger them into the path of your choosing. If they have a choice between A and B and you call B pointless, it's a species of railroading - instead of having 50 gargoyles show up in front of B to stop them going off track, you show your players how pointless you think B is. Often times the dissing of an option is far more powerful than 50 gargoyles.

eliakon · Unread post by **eliakon** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:41 am

Noon wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:I have used these spells in campaigns before BUT I intentionally designed the campaign around them. Each time my players thought they were finally done with the BBEG only to have him show up yet again (and they got Peeved at him for not staying dead and not at me for pulling the "cheap shot" back from the dead stunt.)

Yeah, but the saving grace your refering to is that the players don't recognise you're making the campaign unalterable by these campaign salvage techniques you refer to.

And heck, no doubt it's the only way you know of to consistantly get a story, so it seems necessary as well, I'd guess.

As to the side quests issue:
1: The players accepted a time sensitive quest
2: The players were already flush with enough cash to buy a small keep
3: The players were made aware that the side quests were not time sensitive
4: By choosing to do the Side Quests first the players cost themselves the completion of the primary quest
in that respect the side quests were pointless.

You just don't use language like this unless you want to badger them into the path of your choosing. If they have a choice between A and B and you call B pointless, it's a species of railroading - instead of having 50 gargoyles show up in front of B to stop them going off track, you show your players how pointless you think B is. Often times the dissing of an option is far more powerful than 50 gargoyles.

Let me try this one.
the PCs arent being railroaded. They dont HAVE to take the time sensitive quest. IF they do, then they take on all of it. They could chose to go do something else. HOWEVER if they do choose to do the whatever and the time passes, the results will apply. If the Bad Guy activates his doomsday machine next month on the solstice, and the players choose to go on a trip to Jamaca.....well the world is going to be destoyed, or some one else will stop him and be the new hero darling, or something. Its not all about the GM enforcing on the players, the players also freely choose to enforce on the GM by saying "we will do X" this means that they can do what they will.
As for the survival. It depends on what the agreement between the GM and the Players is. I have run games where its understood that somethings will be handwaved to 'make the story' and others where its all 'brutally real' each will have different basic premises, and ways to run them. Its not railroading if the players bought the tickets in advance.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:38 am

eliakon wrote: Its not railroading if the players bought the tickets in advance.

This is exactly the point. If the players have agreed to a certain campaign style, they are in for everything it entails. If they wanted a beer and pretzels game, they should have said so in advance (and I wouldn't run it).

Noon · Unread post by **Noon** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:24 am

eliakon wrote:Let me try this one.
the PCs arent being railroaded. They dont HAVE to take the time sensitive quest. IF they do, then they take on all of it. They could chose to go do something else. HOWEVER if they do choose to do the whatever and the time passes, the results will apply.

Uh, no? If the GM just suddenly declares there's a time limit happening, that's not the players choosing to do the whatever. That's just a GM declaring a time limit on something.

Clearly the players in Damien's example are not choosing to do this particular whatever. I'm not sure your example actually applies?

Its not railroading if the players bought the tickets in advance.

Oh, it is railroading. It's that the players have bought into the railroad.

Railroading isn't the problem - it's when the GM pretends you have choice, but it's actually a railroad. That's an old fashioned lie.

When the GM says 'Hae, I'm running a railroad! Wanna play' and people go 'Yaeh!', that's just good old fashioned consent.

Now be honest and ask if they've actually bought in - have you said you'll run a railroad and they've gone 'Yaeh!' - if so, that's alteast one indication they'be bought in.

Icefalcon wrote:
eliakon wrote: Its not railroading if the players bought the tickets in advance.

This is exactly the point. If the players have agreed to a certain campaign style, they are in for everything it entails.

If they have agreed to 'you're in for everything the GM thinks a certain campaign style entails', then they are in for everything it entails.

Otherwise no, saying 'this is my campaign style' doesn't mean players nodding to that means 'I accept everything you think that entails, Mr GM'. Seriously, it describes a style, not 'you will stick to what I think that entails'.

If they are really so up for everything the campaign style entails, then you could say they are saying they will stick to what the campaign entails - if you can't say that, it shows you don't even believe they think that.

And if you say it and they say no, then it also shows the fact of the matter.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:45 pm

Noon, the big problem with every point you are trying to make is that the players should know how their GM handles a game after enough time together. If they did not like the GM's style (whether it is what you would call it railroading or not), they could always get off their lazy butts and try running themselves. I have found that most players can't or won't run a game if their GM decides to give up the "god-chair". For example, in my own group (which consists of 11 others and myself), we have one guy who runs Star Trek but won't run anything else, we have one guy who will run D&D, Pathfinder, Rogue Trader (and other Warhammer based RPG's) and nothing else, my wife who runs D&D, Pathfinder, MERP (Middle-Earth Roleplaying), Big Eyes Small Mouth and is interested in one other system at the moment, and two other guys who are talking about running Pathfinder. All other games played by my group (which I have introduced them to Rifts, Dead Reign, N&SS, Nightbane, Pathfinder, D&D, Cyberpunk, Star Trek, Star Wars, White Wolf's systems, and am trying to get them to try a few of the other 54 systems I own) are run by me. The other six players are not interested in running anything at all.

As for the claim that what we have explained is still railroading, that is not true. My players always have a choice to follow what I have planned out or going off and doing anything they want in my world. That is why I put so much work into the world. I would like to have something for them to do no matter where they go in the world I have created. I don't like to force them to do anything. But I also do not like to be caught with nothing for them to do either. If the players decide not to engage in the story that I have written, it is not anyone's fault.

However, if I had big sweeping world changing events planned and they did not take them on, it will change the face of the world without them. The world does not stop turning just because a dozen people are not there to make sure it spins. To use Rifts as an example, the events of the Siege on Tolkeen are not going to stop because the characters didn't show up there because they decided they were going to go out to the East Coast to hunt some dinosaurs. The best I can do with a story arc is go off of what the characters have decided to do. To continue the above example, since they have decided to go hunt dinosaurs in South Carolina, I might plan to have them run into the True Atlanteans that are using the area as a staging ground for resistance against Atlantis. Maybe these Atlanteans have decided that they would like the players help in finding some Techno-Wizards who are willing to create weapons for their resistance movement. Let's assume that the players decide not to get involved and decide to go into the Magic Zone soon after their dino hunt. That does not mean that the Atlanteans are going to stop looking for TW weapons. It does not mean that things are going to stop moving forward because the players would not engage in the story I have planned. It it definitely does not mean I am going to stop trying to get them interested in other story arcs I plan out.

On the other hand, if I have come up with a certain style campaign (say for arguments sake that it is a Coalition military game) then that does not mean they can run off doing whatever they feel like. It means that they are allowed to do whatever they want as long as they take care of the missions that they are assigned by their superiors. If they do not like the game, it will die out and nobody will want to play it. It has happened before. I do not let it bother me and I move on to something else.

On the third hand, I have had players that will intentionally try to break a campaign just because they think it is fun. Those type of players will do everything in their power to derail the whole game (not just the GM but the players as well) and then will laugh about it when they succeed. Those type of players do not last long in my games because I will ask them to leave my home (because that is where ALL the games are run) and not to come back.

Railroading is never fun, which is why I try to never engage in it. I will admit that when I was a starting GM, I engaged in it more often then I should have but it not a tactic that I have not had to use in more than 12 years. Most of the players I have are willing to engage in the storyline and those that are not are at least willing to follow along with the others. If my players were not enjoying my games, they would not beg me to run as much as they do. So no, I do not believe I am railroading them just because I have written out a whole storyline for them to follow.

Colt47 · Unread post by **Colt47** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:57 pm

I think a lot of people are afraid to take the stage as a GM since they are worried people will judge them harshly (and players can be pretty harsh judges). As long as the person planning to GM lets people know ahead of time that he is still a bit new to the role I'm pretty sure the players will be a bit more on the forgiving end. Heck, as much as I talk about gaming and GMing, I've only been a GM maybe five times tops.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:44 am

I have been known to help out new GM's with their games. Of course, it does not help me get to play since I have to help the new GM with lots of stuff to walk them through their first game and it results in me knowing too much of the story.

Noon · Unread post by **Noon** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:08 am

On the third hand, I have had players that will intentionally try to break a campaign just because they think it is fun. Those type of players will do everything in their power to derail the whole game (not just the GM but the players as well) and then will laugh about it when they succeed.

How do they suceed at derailing* the whole game? Do they manage to convince everyone to do nothing or something?

Anyway, as I said

If they have agreed to 'you're in for everything the GM thinks a certain campaign style entails', then they are in for everything it entails.

I meant it. No need to protesteth so much, if that is the case.

* might want to consider another word other than derail, when were discussing railroading.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:05 pm

Well let's see. I had a player that in one game decided to use all of his science skills to build a few dozen nuclear bombs and then obliterated all coalition cities by having mages teleport the bombs into the cities nuclear power stations.

In D&D, I have had a player sit around with his character and make 200 magic sponges (they soak up like 100's of gallons of water and when you squeeze them they only have a few drops loosed and then can be used again) so that he could drain an entire lake that was composed of negative energy and supplied a whole ecosystem.

No matter what game I run, a player will find a way to find an item that they sneak past me (or combination of items that I never thought to use together) and then the player will proceed to completely destroy every idea the GM and the other players have and then be happy that he "won" the game and "beat everyone". These type of players have not quite learned that the game requires a bit of cooperation between both the players and the GM to build the story and make a good game. If the players want "win" the game, they should go back to video games.

Noon · Unread post by **Noon** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:47 am

In other words winning takes you off the rails. Winning derails things.

Personally I don't think it's their fault. You could tell them in advance of play 'you have to work with the GM to create 'the' story'.

I think any sense that someone is wrong for doing something you didn't tell them not to do simply hits rediculous proportions very quickly.

And I think the sponge example sounds like a good session to me - as long as the players don't mind a bit of made up stuff and collecting some treasure after to fill in the time till the end of the session, it sounds like fun to me!

The nukes - I dunno how they both get nukes, but shouldn't have nukes. I wouldn't let them have something, unless I'm prepared for it to be used in some way I didn't see coming. Fusion blocks, on the other hand...

Damian Magecraft · Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:52 am

Noon wrote:In other words winning takes you off the rails. Winning derails things.

Personally I don't think it's their fault. You could tell them in advance of play 'you have to work with the GM to create 'the' story'.

I think any sense that someone is wrong for doing something you didn't tell them not to do simply hits rediculous proportions very quickly.

And I think the sponge example sounds like a good session to me - as long as the players don't mind a bit of made up stuff and collecting some treasure after to fill in the time till the end of the session, it sounds like fun to me!

The nukes - I dunno how they both get nukes, but shouldn't have nukes. I wouldn't let them have something, unless I'm prepared for it to be used in some way I didn't see coming. Fusion blocks, on the other hand...

Table Top RPGs are not Video Games... the only way to "win" at one is to ensure everyone (not just yourself) has fun.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:41 am

Noon wrote:In other words winning takes you off the rails. Winning derails things.

There is no such thing as "winning" in RPG's. Board games have winners. Card games have winners. Wargames have winners. Those types of games are set up for "winners" and "losers". RPG's are set up to be stories.

Noon wrote:Personally I don't think it's their fault. You could tell them in advance of play 'you have to work with the GM to create 'the' story'.

RPG's are designed to be stories. I shouldn't have to tell players that it is the goal to tell a collective one.

Noon wrote:I think any sense that someone is wrong for doing something you didn't tell them not to do simply hits rediculous proportions very quickly.

I tell all my players that breaking the game to much to make it feasible to continue will result in me not running for them. Simple as that.

Noon wrote:And I think the sponge example sounds like a good session to me - as long as the players don't mind a bit of made up stuff and collecting some treasure after to fill in the time till the end of the session, it sounds like fun to me!

It might be a good idea, until it kills all of the society that relied on that lake for their livelihood. A supposed good character was told that an entire society depended on that lake. He decided to drain it anyway because it offended him. You think I should have rewarded him for that? Not a chance.

Noon wrote:The nukes - I dunno how they both get nukes, but shouldn't have nukes. I wouldn't let them have something, unless I'm prepared for it to be used in some way I didn't see coming. Fusion blocks, on the other hand...

You do realize they have all the material he needed, he had from the beginning? The vehicles ran on nuclear engines. You don't think it is possible to extract the uranium from that to make nuclear weapons? By the time he had all of the separate parts, it was to late. He extracted the uranium before and used it to power a generator, that I was OK with. But then he extracted more (which I thought he was going to use for other generators), then he added it to an explosive device he had already made (it was just waiting for the uranium) and shipped it off with some mages he had already contracted to smuggle stuff into Coalition cities. Yes, it was a well thought out plan. Yes, I probably could have done something about it if I had stopped the game and taken a break to get my bearings. Yes, I encourage my players to come up with good solutions to problems. But, no, I do not encourage to destroy the game by using such tactics. For one, they were playing Coalition soldiers. For two, he had been doing things like this the entire game. Each one was more disruptive to the story than the last. For three, he was only doing it to intentionally screw up the game (by his own admission). Needless to say, after that, he was not invited back to game at my table ever again.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:42 am

Damian Magecraft wrote:
Noon wrote:In other words winning takes you off the rails. Winning derails things.

Personally I don't think it's their fault. You could tell them in advance of play 'you have to work with the GM to create 'the' story'.

I think any sense that someone is wrong for doing something you didn't tell them not to do simply hits rediculous proportions very quickly.

And I think the sponge example sounds like a good session to me - as long as the players don't mind a bit of made up stuff and collecting some treasure after to fill in the time till the end of the session, it sounds like fun to me!

The nukes - I dunno how they both get nukes, but shouldn't have nukes. I wouldn't let them have something, unless I'm prepared for it to be used in some way I didn't see coming. Fusion blocks, on the other hand...
Table Top RPGs are not Video Games... the only way to "win" at one is to ensure everyone (not just yourself) has fun.

Exactly my point.

KillWatch · Unread post by **KillWatch** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:51 pm

1) develop the play area; be it a town a kingdom or an entire world. Know the major NPCs and have back up names for random NPCs.
2) Know your NPCs. What do they want, what do they know, what are their motivations and what are they willing to do to get it?
3) Know the PCs: know their history, know what you can use, know what you can test and play with, know what their skills are so that you can throw things in that can be suited to them
5) Have an event: Know what is happening, who is involved, what they know and what they can do. Then let it hit the fan and let the chips fall where they may.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:46 am

KillWatch wrote:1) develop the play area; be it a town a kingdom or an entire world. Know the major NPCs and have back up names for random NPCs.

That is something I always do.

KillWatch wrote:2) Know your NPCs. What do they want, what do they know, what are their motivations and what are they willing to do to get it?

Always something I have planned.

KillWatch wrote:3) Know the PCs: know their history, know what you can use, know what you can test and play with, know what their skills are so that you can throw things in that can be suited to them

This is something I definitely try to do. It is not always possible to keep track of what the players are capable of doing with their characters. Yes, I could even have their character history and a full copy of their sheet in front of me. My computer screen may be showing me exactly every item the players have in their possession. What all of that does not do is prepare me for unexpected randomness from the players mind.

KillWatch wrote:5) Have an event: Know what is happening, who is involved, what they know and what they can do. Then let it hit the fan and let the chips fall where they may.

I usually have all of that information (sometimes loosely planned, sometime scripted down to evil guy monologues) and then some. However, I don't always let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes, the players are like my examples above, who like to ruin the game for everyone else. I, as GM has to make sure everyone involved in the game (including myself) has fun.

KillWatch · Unread post by **KillWatch** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:09 pm

if you know what all the npcs know and what is going on then you are prepared for whatever the PCs do. Don't plan for what they may or may not do. Know what will if this string is pulled or this person is killed or this person sees them or this item is stolen. Don't plan around the players, unless you are focusing on one aspect of their history.

An assassin is in town; he she it them are killing every full moon. They are killing people nobles and soldiers who had a hand in a certain skirmish.
Who cares? Who are the targets? Do they have family? What possible red herrings can their be? Jealous lovers/political adversaries/etc, The players have to ask the right questions, talk to the right people, figure out how they would know each other. Other than that just know the consequences of PC actions, and be fair. Don't say that they are automatically seen breaking into a house just cuz, roll it. Let them go and do anywhere they want. Let them fail or succeed on their own merits. Put the game in their hands and don't worry so much about how to get them to point A, because players don't care about what you have planned. They will go to x then C then back to x just because they think they missed something. But again know the wolrd and NPCs. Perhaps when they went back to X one of those people involved have stopped in for a visit and are gossipping about what is going on. The players can then interact with them. If they rub them the wrong way they get no further clues, but they know these two have some connection and can research that. They could get in good and get hired as security. They could kill them both and get tossed into a real dungeon. Or they could escape the guard and it goes from finding out what was going on with these assassination to being suspected as the assassins and dodging the law and becoming wanted. Go with the flow. Know what is going on and be willing to abandon whatever you had on your paper.

My adventure sheets are basically what happened last game, where they are now, what will be happening because of what happened last time or despite what happened last time. I don't anticipate what the players are going to do. It will only serve to stall and delay you when you have a set plan and they don't play along.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:19 pm

This is not my first rodeo ride. I have been running games in many systems for over 20 years. The one thing that will always happen is that a player will find some way to throw a monkey wrench in your game (whether from a mechanics standpoint or just something clever that throws you off balance). Those that say it has never, not even once, happened to them, have not run enough or have not run for enough varied people.

As for the way you are telling me I should run my games, I am not a seat of the pants kind of GM. I like to have things thought out ahead of time. It saves a lot of time flipping through books or notes trying to figure what is going on around the players. If I have to roll with the flow off the cuff, I can do so but I don't like running the whole game that way.

Illendaver · Unread post by **Illendaver** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:26 pm

Damian Magecraft wrote:I have a Hierarchy of Villainous NPCs I use
(I wrote these up for some HU and N&SS games I was running but they can apply to any setting)

Mooks: these are the cannon fodder of the BBEG; consequently they are not expected to last long (1Hit wonders... I dont usually bother with stating them) the BBEG will have 100s to 1000s of these guys
Toughs: these are the lowest level leaders in an organization; They too are not expected to last long (2 or 3 hits and they drop; I note their HP and SDC which are of average quality) 10% of Mooks are Toughs
BBAs (Billy Bad@$$s): These are the highest ranking mooks and toughs. They are still not expected to do much more than slow the heroes down. They will have one or two unusual bonuses noted down. HP and SDC are slightly above normal. (it may take a hero a full melee or two to deal with just one)
Lieutenants: These guys look and act like BBAs. But they are much tougher; They will have full combat stats (PS, PP, PE, SPD, Strike, Parry, Dodge, Damage, HP, SDC), above average HP and SDC, may wear armor.
Capos:These are the Jaws and Odd Jobs of the BBEG: They get full stat treatment.
BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy): full stats, Back story, Motivations, Etc...

For non villain NPC (the everyday folks) I run the concept of averages...
Until needed in the foreground the "extras" are assumed to be perfectly average.
That is until the players interact with them and personalities start to come to the fore.

The Trick is to do a little pre-prep and then just wing it from there.
If the players toss you a curve do not panic; at least do not let them see you panic; work with it.
One Player I have loves to ask the NPC extras their names (he once caught a GM flat footed that way and thinks it funny to watch a GM hunt for names) when they ask for the bar wenches name make one up... Pull it out of the last book you read, use the first name of your favorite actress/actor, etc...
just keep moving forward; no matter what they throw at you do not stop the story just make a choice and go on...
Do this and the Players will hail you as one of the best GMs they have ever met.

Thanks for the breakdown of villains, this is really helpful Damian. I have been having some trouble balancing out the fights. Generally I have too many tough enemies in my Rifts fights. I know exactly what you are talking about with the names bit, everybody seems to have to have a name in my game. Therefore, my answer was everybody who I didn't think was too important that was a guy was named Billy, all the women were named Susan. What amused me was eventually the players started to meta-game and decided that everybody named Billy wasn't important anymore till I made a viciously mean bad guy named Billy. After that adventure I drew up a list of 30 names and I just roll for it.

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:11 pm

I feel you on the names thing. I think it took me about 5 years to run out of names off the top of my head. So I started using random name generators while I run if I need a random name. There are two I use. One is one a roleplaying GM tool site and the other is some random name generator I found that also does fantasy (elf, dwarf and such) names.

Damian Magecraft · Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:31 pm

Icefalcon wrote:I feel you on the names thing. I think it took me about 5 years to run out of names off the top of my head. So I started using random name generators while I run if I need a random name. There are two I use. One is one a roleplaying GM tool site and the other is some random name generator I found that also does fantasy (elf, dwarf and such) names.

25 years and still havent run out of names for my background chars...
Now important ones... that is another story (it usually takes me a couple of days to come up with Just the Right name for them).

Icefalcon · Unread post by **Icefalcon** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:32 pm

Damian Magecraft wrote:
Icefalcon wrote:I feel you on the names thing. I think it took me about 5 years to run out of names off the top of my head. So I started using random name generators while I run if I need a random name. There are two I use. One is one a roleplaying GM tool site and the other is some random name generator I found that also does fantasy (elf, dwarf and such) names.
25 years and still havent run out of names for my background chars...
Now important ones... that is another story (it usually takes me a couple of days to come up with Just the Right name for them).

I know how that ones goes. And it just bothers you to the point where it consumes all of your free thoughts for that whole time.

DhAkael · Unread post by **DhAkael** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:29 pm

Icefalcon wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Icefalcon wrote:I feel you on the names thing. I think it took me about 5 years to run out of names off the top of my head. So I started using random name generators while I run if I need a random name. There are two I use. One is one a roleplaying GM tool site and the other is some random name generator I found that also does fantasy (elf, dwarf and such) names.
25 years and still havent run out of names for my background chars...
Now important ones... that is another story (it usually takes me a couple of days to come up with Just the Right name for them).

I know how that ones goes. And it just bothers you to the point where it consumes all of your free thoughts for that whole time.

Like that ONE mosquitto that gets trapped in your room / tent at night during summer... just whining at the edgde of perception. :demon: