TheRPGSite

My GMing style can be broken down into several distinct gimmicks.  I think most GMing styles do this to some degree, but I'm going to post mine here.  

I would like some criticism of my style, try to make it constructive.  I would like you all to help me improve my games.  Hopefully, we can all benefit from a thread like this.

So, joewolz's GMing style for campaigns:

Before I game, I make sure I'm gaming with people I trust.  If they are not already friends, I usually have a meal with the person, or go out for coffee or some such, in order to best ascertain what it is they like in a game.  I'll tell them what I expect from characters (not players) and how I will be running my game.  Assuming I choose to invite this person, they can join the rest of the group on the first session.

My first session is always one of setting and character building.  First, we all talk about what the setting will be, and what kind of feel we want from the game.  Then we build characters, usually meshing them together so they have a good reason to be working together.  I don't actually make a character during this time, but try to guide the character creation process and flesh out some NPCs that everyone made together.  We also solidify the date the game will be played on (usually what night of the week) and decide who will bring what next week (chips, pop, etc.)

In my games, I try to make NPCs memorable.  I give them accents; change my speech, position and body language.  Generally, the players know who they are talking to without me having to tell them after the first time.  I try to make each major NPC distinct, and sometimes the players want a minor NPC to be more important, so I'll make them more distinct.

When I describe a location/setting/scene, I try to use all five senses at once, unless I'm going for a certain effect.  For instance, in a horror game, I'm more likely to only describe smell and sound, and let the player's imagination fill in the sight beyond the most basic attributes of the scene.

I like to be on the ball as a GM.  Meaning, I like to keep the game within the boundaries we all set at the First Session.

That's about as general as I can get folks.  I'm more than willing to answer questions/clarify positions.  Make me a better GM folks!

Most of my gaming theories are in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2180).

For your specific case, is there some problem you want to work on?  Or are you just looking for GM advice in general?  Your style looks pretty good - you trust your players, make sure everyone is on the same page, and give vivid descriptions.  How important are conflicts in your game, both between the characters and with the characters and the antagonists/other NPCs?  I've had a lot of success doing that, as well as using dramatic structure.

This thread might have made more sense in either the "Theory" or the "Craft" section, depending on what you were gunning for here.  For now, I'll keep it here, until we figure out which way its going; unless you specifically want me to move it to one of these.

RPGpundit

Wow, dude.  It sounds like you're doing everything right.  The number of times I forget that description doesn't just have to do with vision...I mean, what you posted looks like a checklist for good GMing!

Like Maddman says, what is it you'd like to improve?  What makes you think you need to improve your GMing?  Are you looking to break out of a rut?

Quote from: MaddmanFor your specific case, is there some problem you want to work on? Or are you just looking for GM advice in general? Your style looks pretty good - you trust your players, make sure everyone is on the same page, and give vivid descriptions. How important are conflicts in your game, both between the characters and with the characters and the antagonists/other NPCs? I've had a lot of success doing that, as well as using dramatic structure.

I'm looking for advice in general.  In regard to conflicts, they are really important!  But it's hard to generalize them.  For a current example, in my C&C game right now one PC Quentin (the character's naem) is one of the last of the deposed princes hounds, a secret organization of thugs and assassins.  Think secret police.  There was an issue about 30 years ago in which he and his wife were killed while at home.  Their only daughter was at the grandmother's house when the attack came.  Being a loyal Hound, the Prince ordered Quentin Resurrected, but not his wife as this was too expensive.  His daughter has never forgiven him.  Ten years after that the city fell during a siege and was taken over by a military government from the north.  The city has been twenty years in the grip of amilitary government.  He is now a drunkard who has only recently begun reusing his skills.  

The monkey wrench I've thrown in (he made all the preceding into his character):  The daughter Lucianne, has become a staunch supporter of the foreign regime, rising to the rank of captain in the watch.  In the last session, she revealed to her father that she was engaged to one of the officers in the foreign garrison.  She is also in charge of the spy network that has been watching him and his friends, and is ready to denounce him before the foreign court.  However, what she doesn't know is that Qunetin has recently joined an underground movement of revolutionaries who are ready to institute by coup a local government.  Quentin (and his player) doesn't know that she is one of the first to be sent to the guillotine.

I have three players in my current game.  They all have plots similar to this.  Betrayal, paranoia, and intrigue are three of the things the players wanted...so they get a revolution.

I have also had a lot of sccess in the past with this kind of thing.  Do you have any cool ideas that could improve this?

Quote from: KenHRWow, dude.  It sounds like you're doing everything right.  The number of times I forget that description doesn't just have to do with vision...I mean, what you posted looks like a checklist for good GMing!

Thanks for the kind remarks.  I believe that any craft can be refined through practice, and GMing is a craft.  My ulterior motive with this thread is for a bunch of us to make some real, hands on, advice about GMing.  I'm sure there are some ROCKING GMs here on the board, and I want to be more like them!  

Quote from: KenHRLike Maddman says, what is it you'd like to improve?

Everything.  No one is ever the master of anything, and there are always ways to improve.

Quote from: KenHRWhat makes you think you need to improve your GMing?

See above.  I think there is always room for improvement in any skill.  There is no "best" in a hobby like ours, one can always get better if they want to, which is what I'd like to do.

Quote from: KenHRAre you looking to break out of a rut?

Nope, I'm very happy in my gaming.  I'm hoping we can all help each other become better GMs.  Someone in another thread mentioned, essentially, a brain drain of good GMs over to forge type games.  I think this may be true to an extent, and I want, in my small way, to help curtail it.

@pundit- You're the Admin.  If you feel this is more of a Craft post, feel free to move it.  You may be right, but since I never go into that particular forum, I didn't think to post there.

In an episode of Futurama, bender the robot meets god and they have a talk. During it god tells bender the secret to playing god: it requires a light touch. if you do too much for people they become dependant on you and lose their free will, but if you don't do enough they lose all hope and faith and become depressed or angry.

If you do it just right, people won't be sure if you did anything at all or not.

Same with GMing: You never want the players to know if you flubbed things in their favor or not, they should never be sure if you're straight rolling or fudging.

Joe, I don't know that I can give you any advice in particular, because your description sounds okay to me. What's even more important is that you're searching. Like philosophy, you put your own together from your experience and observation, as well as reading other people's ideas. The way you put it all together might not be a lot like anybody else.

I think that my style is quite conversational, more so than a lot of people I've played with. I've searched most of my roleplaying career for ways to put the game on a more democratic footing. I feel uneasy with exercising fiat, fudging and ignoring rules. Because of all this, I'm part of the 'brain drain', which doesn't really help you.

I've been known to sexually molest my players with a broom handle and shout at them until they break down in tears.

(well not really but I know a couple of members of my group read this forum and I'm going to be running my first game for them in a while).

Quote from: droogI think that my style is quite conversational, more so than a lot of people I've played with. I've searched most of my roleplaying career for ways to put the game on a more democratic footing. I feel uneasy with exercising fiat, fudging and ignoring rules.

Could you explain a little more?

Quote from: droogBecause of all this, I'm part of the 'brain drain', which doesn't really help you.

You'd have to be a good GM to be part of the brain drain.  I'm not saying you aren't, but I'd like to hear a little more about your particular style (or a link to it, like Maddman gave).

Quote from: joewolzCould you explain a little more?

Maybe...which part?

Quote from: joewolzYou'd have to be a good GM to be part of the brain drain.  I'm not saying you aren't, but I'd like to hear a little more about your particular style (or a link to it, like Maddman gave).

I'm not going to claim I'm a 'good GM', because that way lies insanity. I reckon I'm all right.

I don't know how to describe my style any more than I have. I can talk about specific techniques, but a lot of that comes from the Forge, or ancient magazine articles. My actual play posts tend to be either about technical issues, or the people at the table; not about me.

I think it's a highly personal thing – as personal as the way you talk or write.

Quote from: droogMaybe...which part?


I'm not going to claim I'm a 'good GM', because that way lies insanity. I reckon I'm all right.

I don't know how to describe my style any more than I have. I can talk about specific techniques, but a lot of that comes from the Forge, or ancient magazine articles. My actual play posts tend to be either about technical issues, or the people at the table; not about me.

I think it's a highly personal thing – as personal as the way you talk or write.

Well, the "democratic footing" would be a good start, I'd like to hear how that works...is it game dependent?

I've seen bad GMs, but in my experience, most of the posters on fora such as this tend to be the hard core.  I'm fairly certain you're at least a good GM, but I'd like to know more :)

Quote from: joewolzWell, the "democratic footing" would be a good start, I'd like to hear how that works...is it game dependent?

I'm not comfortable as a figure of authority. I used often to throw open rules questions for debate, for example (and sometimes put it to a vote). I've never dictated things like time and place for playing. I'm very laid-back in communicating. I'll sometimes deliberately sit in a slightly peripheral location, rather than at the head of the table. I like to get as much player input as possible. I like to rely on the rules to keep things 'fair'; ie I don't like to use fiat to solve problems (rule of law, you might say). I use the language of requesting, rather than telling. I compromise. I defer.

I'm not a president, I'm – at most – a prime minister.

Does that make sense? Anyway, I've got to go to bed now, so hopefully we can continue this tomorrow.

I'm not sure that I'm an uber-GM type.  I must do something right, as folks always come back to my games.  But I'm not sure what it is exactly that I do right....

I suppose my big thing is to have a dynamic world working in the background.  I rarely plot out a campaign arc that my players must follow, but sketch out several events that will play out once the game begins.  Big stuff: revolutionary plots, political wrangling, mercantile competition, etc.  These events will naturally tend to spawn adventure opportunities.

Frex, in the Trav campaign that I'm still planning - schedules will allow us to start Real Soon Now...I hope - there are at least three major high-level events going on: a major insurgency is starting on a local moon, two trade corporations are gearing up for a trade war that has political/ideological overtones, and a scientific outpost has made some strange observations about a local star.  I can tangle my players in any or all of these plots; they're keen on the space pirate idea, so I could have them smuggling arms to the insurgents...or they could acquire a letter of marque from one of the corps and ply the trade routes in-system...or they could find a scientific expedition adrift in space with a nasty surprise on board...etc.

I try to construct all these plot arcs to appeal to a variety of play styles and interests (military/trade/mystery/espionage/whatever), and leave it to my players to follow one of these threads (or ignore them all).  The course they take will allow me to know where to concentrate my creative effort; the other arcs play out in the background, their progress marked by rumors or news headlines.

A few things come to mind, but I'll toss this suggest out. It's something that I know I've not done as well as I have in the past, but I've been working on. Pacing.  Sometimes refered to as flow.

A rough analogy here is to a movie.  Good pacing is spending time on things that matter, moving quickly through things that are peripheral, and cutting the things that don't matter.

Incidentally this is one of the things I really like about the Burning Wheel rules is how it facilitates this. In a lot of places they have two (or more) different mechanisms available to handle a situation depending on how important it is to the players/GM. So I'll give an example from there, and you can implement it with whatever tools the RPG you are using provides or that you can work into those rules.

I BW combat can either be a fairly detailed set of actions describing individual blows, parries, etc. (one notch more detail than D&D rounds), it can be several seconds to a minute long per action (long distance ranged combat), or the complete combat can be done with a single opposed role (and a second followup roll if the winner of the first roll wants it to push the combat to a life or death decision).

The first is great for those really key in your face battles. In movie parlance this is the classic 10-15 minute fight scene at the end of the movie. Not to say it has to come at the end, or that you only use it sparingly. If you and your players want to get your techincal grognard wargame on this is how you turn that up.

The second still gives you the satisfaction of killing somebody, but it moves faster than the first.

The third is for dispatching mooks. It is also great when a player/PC has split out from the rest of the group. Those times you really have to keep moving fast because your game has become a spectator event at that point. It should be engaging not only to be involved in but also to watch from afar.


Another example is what is called in BW "Let It Ride" for skill checks and the like. What it does is that when you roll your skill check that single roll applies for a much longer period time. I don't know C&C's rules here, they might already have the equivalent, but for example in RAW D&D you do a check every 10' when climbing. In BW you'd do one roll no matter the height you are trying to climb. In fact if you were climbing up one side of a wall and down the other, or climbing a few walls you'd still likely have only one roll.

Same thing for sneaking type rolls. You'd often do one roll to sneak in, do your thing, and sneak out. Once again this is important if you've got only one or two PCs off on a scouting trip or such. All in all it makes it easier to have more split up time, thus indivudualized events, without boring everyone else to tears or having them get up to go for a pizza.

That's "Let it ride", IIRC. Once again, elevating GM tips to mechanics...

D20 let's you move one quarter your speed for each climb roll, but nobody will use that for mountaineering. The frequency of skill check increases the more action happens, so in a combat situation rolls for each part of the movement might apply. BW has quite a lot of rolling in combat, too.

Quote from: SosthenesThat's "Let it ride", IIRC.

Ya, fixed the typo.

QuoteOnce again, elevating GM tips to mechanics...

...as opposed to having to go through the pain of learning mechanics as given suck turds in a lot of situations and then making a house rule to replace rules. :) So, you know, flexible mechanics that provide the room to GMs (and players) to work to start with. :pundit:

QuoteD20 let's you move one quarter your speed for each climb roll, but nobody will use that for mountaineering.

Nobody? You mean people that make up house rules to address the shortcomings in the actual rules, right?  Mountaineering isn't even the problem, it usually happens well before you are climbing a mountain. Pacing isn't even the biggest thing it solves, it's the compounding of probabilities over multiple rolls.

QuoteThe frequency of skill check increases the more action happens, so in a combat situation rolls for each part of the movement might apply. BW has quite a lot of rolling in combat, too.

Depends on which combat option you go with. Which is the entire point.... the point NOT being whether this rule system or that rule system rocks out or not. I was just using it as an example of what you can do to improve pacing.

"Let it ride" is about as flexible as "one check per round". A decent GM should learn about the frequency of checks. When to roll is one of the primary skills one should develop...

Quote from: SosthenesWhen to roll is one of the primary skills one should develop...

THAT is was my point. I was using an example in actual rules.

Quote"Let it ride" is about as flexible as "one check per round". A decent GM should learn about the frequency of checks.

Er, not exactly, no. Because there is still flexibility in the definition of the conditions for retest. So if the backside of the wall turns out to be different than the frontside, but that wasn't evident initially, it can trigger a retest. Or you can continue to Let It Ride..........but I think this is starting to really derail the thread.....we do agree on my actual point I was making.

EDIT: Or maybe it's not so much a derail yet, let me try turn it back some.....  You retest when it matters, when the hassle of rolling the dice is outweighed by the interest in what the dice have to say.  So the reason for rolling the dice isn't nessasarily something with a specific number hung on it. It is a trigger condition more tuned in with what the GM and players see as important in the situation they are playing in.

One of the best GMs that I know uses several interesting techinques:

1) Nothing is "written in stone" until the players write it.  He will give them very generic descriptions.  For instance, an Inn.  One of the players says, "I jump from the 2nd story balcony onto the wagonwheel chandelier and then out through the plate glass window to escape!" This has created several things in the world: A) there is a plate glass window in the front of the Inn, B) there is a wagon wheel chandelier, C) there is a 2nd story balcony.  The GM then makes him make a roll for his ability to do this (it could be one roll for the whole effort, or the effort may be broken down to A) Jump from balcony to chandelier, B) balance on chandelier, C) jump from chandelier through front window, D) rolling with the impact and to avoid damage).  

2) Interpretation vs deciding.  Dice rolls are not so much "final statements" as they are "interpretive elements."  I've seen him use "failed" rolls to further the action as opposed to stopping the action ("you missed").  Much like Han Solo stepping on the twig set off a whole series of events that ultimately culminated in the destruction of the Death Star, rather than a failed Stealth roll and the statement, "You failed" ending the action.

3) Eliminating the pointless.  Middle of the firefight, he says: "You have a choice, stay here, fight and die or make a tactical retreat."  Two of us chose to tactically retreat.  A third chose to stand his ground.  "Let me see your character sheet," he said.  It was handed over, he put it in his book and turned to us and said, "Okay, as you retreat, you hear the dying screams of your former companion, urging even more speed into your tired limbs..."  When the third player protested, the GM said, simply, "You had your choice.  You made it.  It's time for you to create a new character who has more common sense and can realize he's outmatched rather than fight a pointless battle."  (He was nice enough to roll back the clock to let the third player make a different choice, by the way.) :)

Joe, I like your interviewing technique to see what the players want and to work to give them fulfillment of their interests (mixed in with the determination of a good personality fit, as well).  

Unfortunately, I usually have little opportunity to feel out players before they begin.  This past week, I had someone who is accustomed to playing a Brujah vampire in a very action-packed Vampire LARP join into a thoughtful, careful and surreptious commando-styled Star Wars game...  Yeah.  I should've done some more personality checks ahead of time...  :(

Quote from: Vellorian3) Eliminating the pointless.  Middle of the firefight, he says: "You have a choice, stay here, fight and die or make a tactical retreat."  Two of us chose to tactically retreat.  A third chose to stand his ground.  "Let me see your character sheet," he said.  It was handed over, he put it in his book and turned to us and said, "Okay, as you retreat, you hear the dying screams of your former companion, urging even more speed into your tired limbs..."  When the third player protested, the GM said, simply, "You had your choice.  You made it.  It's time for you to create a new character who has more common sense and can realize he's outmatched rather than fight a pointless battle."  (He was nice enough to roll back the clock to let the third player make a different choice, by the way.) :)

I see some good in there for sure. Eliminating the pointless is like my pacing suggestion above. He was also very upfront about stay and die. However I think he might have missed something, depending a LOT on the situation. What was that third guy's goal?  Was he going Klingon, wanting to die in glorious battle? Would it have been cool to have his character get slashed up to bits and bites? Or was the battle really that hopeless? I'm really, really good at see through odds on the fly and I'd still not trust myself to not let the dice roll even if the odds are slim (and meeting statless uber NPCs just doesn't do it for me). But just make sure to have it happen quick as possible.

It really sounds like the 3rd guy didn't get what he expected, a bit of miscommunication. Which of course makes the rollback all that much better a decision.

Quote2) Interpretation vs deciding.  Dice rolls are not so much "final statements" as they are "interpretive elements."  I've seen him use "failed" rolls to further the action as opposed to stopping the action ("you missed").  Much like Han Solo stepping on the twig set off a whole series of events that ultimately culminated in the destruction of the Death Star, rather than a failed Stealth roll and the statement, "You failed" ending the action.

I'm getting behind that!  A common used rule of thumb is don't build in a single point of failure to an adventure. But you shouldn't confuse a single point of failure with a single point of plot turn. The world turning on a single die roll can still be very cool if both results are cool.

QuoteUnfortunately, I usually have little opportunity to feel out players before they begin.  This past week, I had someone who is accustomed to playing a Brujah vampire in a very action-packed Vampire LARP join into a thoughtful, careful and surreptious commando-styled Star Wars game...  Yeah.  I should've done some more personality checks ahead of time...  :(

Didn't go well, huh? :/  That is one thing that you'll see running through a lot of the suggestions here. The requirement of time and understanding to know your players.

Quote from: VellorianOne of the best GMs that I know uses several interesting techinques:


3) Eliminating the pointless.  Middle of the firefight, he says: "You have a choice, stay here, fight and die or make a tactical retreat."  Two of us chose to tactically retreat.  A third chose to stand his ground.  "Let me see your character sheet," he said.  It was handed over, he put it in his book and turned to us and said, "Okay, as you retreat, you hear the dying screams of your former companion, urging even more speed into your tired limbs..."  When the third player protested, the GM said, simply, "You had your choice.  You made it.  It's time for you to create a new character who has more common sense and can realize he's outmatched rather than fight a pointless battle."  (He was nice enough to roll back the clock to let the third player make a different choice, by the way.)

I would have been grossly upset had I been the third player.  To me that smacks of railroading of the highest order.  Sure, my character will probably die a horrible death, and often has, but it is in the struggle against the impossible that we find our greatest stories of heroism.  Maybe his dice would have been incredibly hot that night, maybe he would have changed his mind after another round or two and made a fighting retreat, maybe some other event would have occured. But simply taking his sheet and 'killing him'? Bullshit of the highest order.

That said, I can understand that asking the other two players to 'sit it out' while he does whatever the fuck it is he was planning to do isn't too fair either, but then they did chose to sit it out, didn't they?:cool:

Quote from: blakkieWhat was that third guy's goal?  Was he going Klingon, wanting to die in glorious battle? Would it have been cool to have his character get slashed up to bits and bites? Or was the battle really that hopeless?

In discussions after the fact, he said the thought "all combats can be won" because that was his experience with other GMs.  They'd just keep the combat going, throw pointless and meaningless (my terms, not his) foes at them, to keep earning experience until the GM ran out of enemies.  The GM I was describing is the kind who gives his NPCs tactics and strategies, not just tossing a bunch of brutes at the PCs.  

Quote from: blakkieDidn't go well, huh? :/  That is one thing that you'll see running through a lot of the suggestions here. The requirement of time and understanding to know your players.

Let's put it this way: the PCs captured someone who was more than willing to talk, more than willing to give information, was giving the information freely and the Brujah-style player went off the deep end, started screaming and yelling and ultimately put a gun to the head of the informant, drew back the hammer and fired a round into the wall beside the informant because he "thought they might be lying, and it was the only way to be sure."  Despite the fact that he had a critical success on his "Detect Lies" roll and had been told - unequivocally - that the informant was not lying.

I honestly think that the player really didn't know of any other way to play, than to be over-the-top, melodramatic and violent.  He had no concept of subtlety.  The intent was to keep the informant as a double agent, the result was someone who fled for his life the moment he was released, never to be heard from by either side.

Quote from: SpikeI would have been grossly upset had I been the third player.  To me that smacks of railroading of the highest order.

I have a different perspective.  For that firefight to have continued would have been the player railroading the other players and GM.

QuoteSure, my character will probably die a horrible death, and often has, but it is in the struggle against the impossible that we find our greatest stories of heroism.

That struggle is best told in a story, not with two hours of dicing to flesh out the mechanics of every single point of the struggle.  "You struggled in battle, but were ultimately defeated by overwhelming odds" is plenty enough.

QuoteMaybe his dice would have been incredibly hot that night, maybe he would have changed his mind after another round or two and made a fighting retreat, maybe some other event would have occured. But simply taking his sheet and 'killing him'? Bullshit of the highest order.

As you were not there, you have no real foothold to call it "bullshit," other than your own preconception of the events based upon a couple of brief lines to make a specific point from which you have tangented.

No, his rolls would not have made a difference, any more than shooting a pop-gun at a tank would have stopped it.  

QuoteThat said, I can understand that asking the other two players to 'sit it out' while he does whatever the fuck it is he was planning to do isn't too fair either, but then they did chose to sit it out, didn't they?:cool:

You and I are of two opposite mindsets.  For me, combat is only there to heighten the tension of the story.  It should be as brief as possible to resolve the conflict so the story can continue.  It seems to me (based largely on your response to this, but also from other posts of yours) that combat is of much more importance to you, perhaps even being a significant point of the gaming experience.

You and I would never fair well in a party together.  My character would kill yours in his sleep and pin it on any other combat-mongers in the group so they didn't get us needlessly killed to feed their need for the adrenaline rush.  

(You should watch Navy Seals and pay close attention to Charlie Sheen's character.)

Quote from: VellorianIn discussions after the fact, he said the thought "all combats can be won" because that was his experience with other GMs.

Bolded, FTW!

But yeah, not being used to running into over-your-head potential combat opponents can lead to problems like that. Very common effect when someone that's spent most of their gaming in dungeons ends up in a city heavy adventure.  With the freedom comes danger since dungeons are usually (but not always) level tuned. I'd still be inclined to let the dice roll and have it play out a bit. If he really was that outclassed and it was going to be quick. Just to avoid having the player feel like he was riding the steel rails, but YMMV. *shrug*

QuoteI have a different perspective. For that firefight to have continued would have been the player railroading the other players and GM.

Ya, that flipside definately is a valid concern too. It can be hard line to navigate, between letting a player drag the game around and dragging the player around.

You getting to know the players. The players getting to know you and each other. And a common understanding of setting and rules. A commonality I see in both those stories (and the later story is painfully funny because of boner moves I've seen and occationally perpetrated in SR :o ).

Quote from: VellorianYou and I are of two opposite mindsets.  For me, combat is only there to heighten the tension of the story.  It should be as brief as possible to resolve the conflict so the story can continue.  It seems to me (based largely on your response to this, but also from other posts of yours) that combat is of much more importance to you, perhaps even being a significant point of the gaming experience.

I was able to gather that from the tone of you post all together.  I have had GM's that spoke as you do. Often this lead to frustrated parties lost in the woods and starving to death because we could never get to town to reprovision ourselves, or stuck living a provincial life, unable to progress because we weren't 'allowed' to go to a major city.  While I am not suggesting your games are equally frustrating to your players it should be noted that different players have different wants at the table. Trying to get everyone to agree to 'no combat' or some such is extremely limiting and slightly pointless.

As for your later comment about murdering my character in his sleep to prevent my 'getting your party killed' or some such...

Wow. Aside from the huge numbers of assumption you make about my characters, the sheer arrogance of that decision just cost you a shitload of respect in my book. I've been on the receiving end of in party murder a few times for a variety of reasons*, I've also watched parties I was GM'ing pull shit like that and it NEVER makes for a good game for anyone involved.  


* my most favorite death has to be from the vampire player who's character had delusions of being Gambit from the X-men with shades of Highlander thrown in. I belive his actual excuse was that he and another player were planning to 'go over to teh Sabbat' and they thought I was too much a loyal lapdog of the prince. This was in the first (and only for me) game session so...  As I recall I was beheaded from behind without making a single roll... My second favorite was the time I was killed the day I missed a game by a bomb in the toilet because the players thought I was the mysterious assassin gunning for them...?  These events caused me to quit gaming for a few years eventually.

Quote from: VellorianNo, his rolls would not have made a difference, any more than shooting a pop-gun at a tank would have stopped it.

I do have a question about this, why was he there? What was his purpose?

I only ask because sometimes this flags a problem NPC.  My rule of thumb, any NPCs that are cooler or more kickass than the PCs should be in the background. PCs that constantly are coming up against or even just running into such people are often in a campaign suffering from the GM World Tour syndrome. It's a variation on the railroad where the PCs can go where they want, but they are so insignificant in the scheme of things that their actions are at best secondary and at worst meaningless.

Even in a world like Shadowrun where the tone and theme is the little guy ground down by the big, bad world this is important to keep in mind. Especially in dystopian type world like Shadowrun where the dirty, cheap, and unsutble way to drive that home is to switch into World Tour mode and then claim it is 'gritty'.  Yes the 6th world is a big, bad dangerous place. Yes you are the little guy (usually) and there are always bigger fish than you swimming around. But when the bigger fish come out of the background and take over the game, well that just sucks (IMO) because now I'm reading a story and not playing a game.

Quote from: SpikeI was able to gather that from the tone of you post all together.  I have had GM's that spoke as you do. Often this lead to frustrated parties lost in the woods and starving to death because we could never get to town to reprovision ourselves, or stuck living a provincial life, unable to progress because we weren't 'allowed' to go to a major city.  While I am not suggesting your games are equally frustrating to your players it should be noted that different players have different wants at the table. Trying to get everyone to agree to 'no combat' or some such is extremely limiting and slightly pointless.

Just in the interest of fostering the conversation, allow me to continue along this train of thought...

It seems that you have equated the concept of "combat = excitement" and "non-combat = boring."  

I would have a major problem with indecisive groups who spent their time in the woods and never "did" anything.  As a GM, I'd motivate them.  I'd move them quickly (even if I had to say, "Fastforward two weeks...").  

My favorite game is one that involves no combat at all, but constant action.  The players are always on their toes, always on the run or chasing something.  They are in a state of constant adrenaline, but they don't have to "clear leather" or draw weapons to maintain that state of action.

Also, based on what you said, it seems that you're a bit stuck in the mindset of killing something to gain experience.  This is a mindset that I abhor.  Setting and achieving goals gains experience.  A PC should gain as much (if not more!) experience learning how to drive away the massive Krayt dragon as he could from killing the beast.  Killing it just makes for a smelly carcass.  Learning how to drive it away is a skill that could be taught to communities so they don't need a local hero to constantly kill the damn things!

QuoteAs for your later comment about murdering my character in his sleep to prevent my 'getting your party killed' or some such...

Wow. Aside from the huge numbers of assumption you make about my characters, the sheer arrogance of that decision just cost you a shitload of respect in my book.

1) I have been known to kill quite a number of combat mongers who tended to drag our group into needless combat.  If we were playing together, what great wonderous abilities do you think you'd offer to preclude me from increasing the share of wealth while reducing the risk factor?

2) Somehow you have this preconception that your respect is of value to me.  I'm not sure where you arrived at this conclusion, but please disregard it.  For one thing, my character is a completely different persona than my self.  

3) I'm not sure what assumptions you think I've made, since you've confirmed all that I've stated...

QuoteI've been on the receiving end of in party murder a few times for a variety of reasons*, I've also watched parties I was GM'ing pull shit like that and it NEVER makes for a good game for anyone involved.

I have only once been on the receiving end of party murder.  Mull that one over.  

If it's happened to you "a few times," have you considered that perhaps your risky, annoying and murdurous ways may have caused your fellow party members to realize your character is a liability?  

The only time my PC has ever been killed (or attempted to be killed) by another player was the time that we neglectfully nominated the psychotic (unknown to us) criminal mastermind (unknown to us) as the "watch" for the night.  He murdered everyone in the party while we were sleeping to keep all the treasure and fame for himself.  

...and the whole group laughed and joked about it for years afterwards!  :D

Quote from: blakkieI do have a question about this, why was he there? What was his purpose?

I only ask because sometimes this flags a problem NPC.  

The PCs had flubbed up.  Badly.  We had set off silent alarms.  The full weight of the corporate security was focused upon us.  Armored vehicles.  Combat assault troops.  Snipers.  

We had flak vests and pistols.

In the best of situations, we could have fired 3 x 4 x 15 bullets (we each had 4 clips).  If 50% of them hit (wildly high numbers for a firefight), they would have just flattened against armor.  

The GM was really trying to save us by providing an "out" and presuming our PCs would be smart enough to realize it.

Quote from: VellorianThe PCs had flubbed up.  Badly.  We had set off silent alarms. ........The GM was really trying to save us by providing an "out" and presuming our PCs would be smart enough to realize it.

Ok, that's making a lot more sense.

Quote from: VellorianJust in the interest of fostering the conversation, allow me to continue along this train of thought...

It seems that you have equated the concept of "combat = excitement" and "non-combat = boring."  

I would have a major problem with indecisive groups who spent their time in the woods and never "did" anything.  As a GM, I'd motivate them.  I'd move them quickly (even if I had to say, "Fastforward two weeks...").  

My favorite game is one that involves no combat at all, but constant action.  The players are always on their toes, always on the run or chasing something.  They are in a state of constant adrenaline, but they don't have to "clear leather" or draw weapons to maintain that state of action.

Also, based on what you said, it seems that you're a bit stuck in the mindset of killing something to gain experience.  This is a mindset that I abhor.  Setting and achieving goals gains experience.  A PC should gain as much (if not more!) experience learning how to drive away the massive Krayt dragon as he could from killing the beast.  Killing it just makes for a smelly carcass.  Learning how to drive it away is a skill that could be taught to communities so they don't need a local hero to constantly kill the damn things!



1) I have been known to kill quite a number of combat mongers who tended to drag our group into needless combat.  If we were playing together, what great wonderous abilities do you think you'd offer to preclude me from increasing the share of wealth while reducing the risk factor?

2) Somehow you have this preconception that your respect is of value to me.  I'm not sure where you arrived at this conclusion, but please disregard it.  For one thing, my character is a completely different persona than my self.  

3) I'm not sure what assumptions you think I've made, since you've confirmed all that I've stated...



I have only once been on the receiving end of party murder.  Mull that one over.  

If it's happened to you "a few times," have you considered that perhaps your risky, annoying and murdurous ways may have caused your fellow party members to realize your character is a liability?  

The only time my PC has ever been killed (or attempted to be killed) by another player was the time that we neglectfully nominated the psychotic (unknown to us) criminal mastermind (unknown to us) as the "watch" for the night.  He murdered everyone in the party while we were sleeping to keep all the treasure and fame for himself.  

...and the whole group laughed and joked about it for years afterwards!  :D

Again with the assumptions.   I haven't enjoyed a game that used 'kills for xp' for years. I will play D&D, because it's easier to find players for D&D, I also favor more lethal combat systems for play, as they make you think about your combat or risk death and dismemberment from every fight.   Regardless.

I don't give a rats ass if you care about my respect.  My respect for you is more personal to me than you. I could have clarified that earlier, and should have. All it means is that I'm less likely to waste my time responding you your posts unless you ask for me specifically in some fashion. No loss to you, I'm sure.

As for your characters being murdered less often, I have to suggest that I have a much more nomadic lifestyle than you do, thus I have played with a wider range of assholes than you have.  Given that the two samples of being murdered I mentioned both happened after the first game session, and my tendency to be a more quite 'utility player' for a few games (sit back and watch and figure out my character) leads me to suspect that I was just playing with assholes more than 'I'm some sort of crazy psycho who will butcher us all'.  


I merely comment that your 'idolized GM' has habits that don't ring high on my list of 'good GM habits'. NPC's with perfect knowledge of the party, fiat character deaths, single point of failure games.  Giving the NPC's perfect knowledge isn't playing tactical by any means, its using out of character knowledge.

Quote from: SpikeI merely comment that your 'idolized GM' has habits that don't ring high on my list of 'good GM habits'.

A) NPC's with perfect knowledge of the party,

B) fiat character deaths,

C) single point of failure games.  

D) Giving the NPC's perfect knowledge isn't playing tactical by any means, its using out of character knowledge.

A) Not mentioned by me, assumed by you.

B) Your definition of the event because every last bullet was not rolled.  No different than if a Whist player puts down all his cards and says "all the rest are mine."  It's not a "fiat," it's a mathematical certainty, why play it out?

C) I gave examples against this style of play.  

D) Not even mentioned.

I do have one major question for you, and this pertains to the two discussions we've been having today:

Do you actually read the answers the questions you ask?  or do you simply assume the answers you want and continue the conversation as if those are the answers you received?

I would strongly suggest taking a few courses in "listening" and "discerning" because you've not displayed very much skill in either of these areas.

Quote from: VellorianJust in the interest of fostering the conversation, allow me to continue along this train of thought...

It seems that you have equated the concept of "combat = excitement" and "non-combat = boring."  

I would have a major problem with indecisive groups who spent their time in the woods and never "did" anything.  As a GM, I'd motivate them.  I'd move them quickly (even if I had to say, "Fastforward two weeks...").  

My favorite game is one that involves no combat at all, but constant action.  The players are always on their toes, always on the run or chasing something.  They are in a state of constant adrenaline, but they don't have to "clear leather" or draw weapons to maintain that state of action.

Really, what you're saying is that Conflict is what you want?  Based on the perceptions you've posted about what makes a good game for you, there are a whole lot of Forge games that describe your style to a T.

I am in agreement with you on conflict.  Combat and conflict are two different things.  Stories thrive on conflict.  Hell, we haven't had a combat in my game in the last two sessions, but the conflict is very rich.  There's a whole lot of stuff going on that doesn't require weaponry of the steel variety...influence seems to be my PCs' weapon of choice.

I don't have a problem with this given that the characters knew they were over their heads. It sounds like there was plenty of warning. I also don't feel the need to play out (making the rolls)something that is a certainly. To me this is RPing 101. Generally as a GM I would either describe how the character went down in a heroic fight or even sometimes allow the player to describe it.

The full weight of corporate security was focused on a group of infiltrators, corporate security including snipers with, I can only assume clear lines of fire to the character (a given assumption), Armored combat vehicles, full on heavily armed and armored swat teams whose gear seems to have been designed to overmatch what the PC's brung to the fray... appearing magically in place to force the PC's to either leave or die all based on the failure of a (assumed again) single roll to avoid tripping a silent alarm (such as detecting it)...


Now, leaving aside the improbability of corporate security actually having all that shit to drop on a given party of PC's at the drop of a hat, as you and I could both name at least one or two games that have that as a standard assumption of the setting, let us review where I take exception to your defense of the situation.


One: knowing hostiles are present does not equate knowing WHERE the hostiles are in a given area.  

two: combat armored vehicles of any sort, and heavily laden paramilitary types are notoriously unstealthy.  This means that the party should have had some indication that bad shit was coming and been able to take steps, such as preparing counterambushes or what have you to even the odds. Divide and conquer and so forth. Thus the NPC's both had perfect knowledge of the PC's location and activities and were able to get, rather mysteriously, into place to put them in the proverbial box with no way out.  

Now, you haven't really described the situation in a way that disproves any of these assumptions, which is fine since you have made a few assumptions about me and my playstyle.

What you SAID was that the GM presented a superior force to you, told you that if you didn't run you were going to die, then took away the character sheet of the one guy that chose to stay in the fight.  You did not mention if the guy in question was ever asked if he had anything resembling a plan, you did not set up how the party walked into this firefight, leading me to suspect that like many GM's the fight simply started with 'Corporate security arrives, roll initative' or some such.


Or do you want me to break out the history books and point out all the times that your whist player would have laid down his cards and said 'I won' under some mathmatical 'proof' of superior positions and promptly lost?  

Or would you rather I simply insulted your ability to read my posts?

Quote from: McrowI don't have a problem with this given that the characters knew they were over their heads. It sounds like there was plenty of warning. I also don't feel the need to play out (making the rolls)something that is a certainly.

I think the problem was that there wasn't universal acknowledgement of the certainty. Without that I'm loath to set aside the dice. Because hey, maybe I missed something. But then I don't subscribe to the infailability of a GM, especially in the heat of the moment, because the GM is still human.

QuoteTo me this is RPing 101. Generally as a GM I would either describe how the character went down in a heroic fight or even sometimes allow the player to describe it.

The later I think is the optimal**, but involves a specific skill from the player and tends to require the player and GM to be in sync to an even greater extent. Frankly I'm not really ready for that myself, and I'm not sure how much other people I play with are ready for it. Because it's a new freedom, and it takes a while to get your head around new freedoms.

Of course somewhere along the line you have to piss or get off the pot.  My aim is to have at least 2 players in my SR campaign taking and running with the ball an average of once/session. Not sure yet which two are going to step up to do it, but I'm already laying what I think passes as groundwork for being able to deal with the freedom. I'm also being very self-conscious of when an opportunity comes up and I fail to extend the freedom to the players to see if they'll grab it.

Stay tuned to see if it works out or just fizzles and makes an uneventful crash like a North Korea test missle.....

** EDIT: If the player is willing to of course, some players may never in their life be willing to even try. But I'm not convinced that is anything close to a majority of players or even a significant minority. I've seen the supershy player really step up out of their shell and do things that I didn't initially ever expect from them.

Nebuleon has corporate armed services in it. If that is the type of setting they play in then that makes total sense.  

The problem I have is when GM never puts a the characters in a situation that is above them. This leads to the players never worrying whether or not they should fight or run, because they know they can take anything the GM thows at them. Why? Cuz the GM wouldn't really put our characters in a dangerous situation, would he?

Quote from: McrowNebuleon has corporate armed services in it. If that is the type of setting they play in then that makes total sense.

That probably was the biggest piece of the context missing. I kind of pieced it together from his comments that this is one of those super finicky "one serious misstep and it all goes south" settings. They certainly aren't for everyone, but if you are in them the expectations are usually harsher.

Quote from: blakkieThat probably was the biggest piece of the context missing. I kind of pieced it together from his comments that this is one of those super finicky "one serious misstep and it all goes south" settings. They certainly aren't for everyone, but if you are in them the expectations are usually harsher.

Oh, I didn't mean that was the game he was playing, just that is an example of have corporate armed forces.

And no nebuleon isn't a "one serious misstep and it all goes south" type of setting.

Quote from: blakkieThat probably was the biggest piece of the context missing. I kind of pieced it together from his comments that this is one of those super finicky "one serious misstep and it all goes south" settings. They certainly aren't for everyone, but if you are in them the expectations are usually harsher.

Shadowrun and Cyberpunk both support that sort of play, as does Battlelords of the 23rd century (though in battlelords, the PC's might as well dance naked if all they have is flak and pistol...), and a few others. Regardless, moving such forces into play is not like having a wandering monster show up, and the GM needs to take that into account.  

To me it sounded more like the GM expected them to run away and come up with a plan B senario the moment they screwed up. Thus my response to V...

Quote from: SpikeTo me it sounded more like the GM expected them to run away and come up with a plan B senario the moment they screwed up. Thus my response to V...

to me, again, I think it is a good thing to have an encounter every now and then they are not suppose to fight. Otherwise they have no reason to think they could die. If there is no chance of death, it makes the game a bit boring to me.  But thats just me.

It's interesting how many assumptions are being made here. "They appeared out of nowhere." "Players had no warning and chance to set ambushes." "Moving the forces wasn't taken into account."

All we have to go on is that the PCs were in a position where combat equalled death. Making assumptions about how that situation arrived and then berating the GM for them doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

True enough, James...

on the other hand, the 'other guy' also makes a huge number of assumptions about me. Enough to suggest that murdering me in my sleep is perfectly acceptable to him.

So, I don't feel too bad about assuming a damn thing.

Unless you are your character, there's a slight problem with that statement of what he said.

Quote from: James McMurrayUnless you are your character, there's a slight problem with that statement of what he said.

What, I'm not a character? I really MUST talk to my PR department about this...

Not what I said, but you seem to be pretty good at the "not what I said" game today. :)

Quote from: joewolzThat's about as general as I can get folks.  I'm more than willing to answer questions/clarify positions.  Make me a better GM folks!

There is some interesting advice here:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=21315#post21315

For me it's all about the atmosphere I'm trying to establish. If my players get and like what I'm trying to establish, they contribute towards it through their characters.The players must have an investment in the setting. They must feel that what they do has an impact on their enviroment. Most of my time as a GM is spent trying to realize this goal.

Another aspect that I feel at times some GMs overlook is the need to encourage the pcs to interact with each other more. We get caught up in trying to create more believable npcs and forget that a source of great drama and conflict is within the player characters themselves and how they interact with each other.

Regards,
David R

My style,
 
I only play with friends, or friends of friends.
 
I don't care what kind of campaign THEY want to play. I let people know my idea for the campaign I will be running and invite people over.
 
At the first session or before (if I have the time) I let people know my character creation limits. Sometimes this is just a power level (no godlike characters, make methusalahs, Celestial Exalts only,), although sometimes it's a concept or two (slaves on the run, high school kids, the Prince and his advisors,) when their charcters are finished I work with them to iron out any kinks in their stats or concept.
 
I try to give them all the freedom I can, short of killing my campaign ideas.
As far as the game goes, I just come up with the situations. I try to avoid railroading people in to plotline. I love dice, because then even I don't know what's really going to happen.
 
Problem players (usually a friend of a friend, sometimes not). I'll tell them what our problem is, and give suggestions on what to do about it. Really big problem players I don't invite back.