|
Vanguard Warden posted:Anyone have any ideas for sensibly realistic puzzle scenarios? Stuff like stepping on the right floor tiles to cross a room or solving a puzzle-box to open a door always raises the question of why someone would go to such elaborate measures for their security system rather than just slapping a locked door or a simple password system in front of things, and you can only use the "designed by a madman" or "challenge to test worthiness" excuses so many times. Prove that you are not a Golem. Step on all tiles with pictures of cats. :P
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 08:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
You can also go with "amusement of the undead inhabitants of the tomb". They're quite sure that they can take any tomb robbers anyway, but they also get really bored being cooped up in the burial chamber with only each other for company. So they built a series of traps and puzzles to stump adventurers, and their spirits phase in to watch them fail and Statler and Waldorf along with the party. Also, a neat twist on the "test of worthiness" is to do one that isn't designed for the PCs -- it just happens that, say, the giants left a back way into their tomb at the end of the gauntlet of trials designed for giant youths who'd come of age. ... oh god, and now I'm imagining the players having to do a puzzle designed for giants by giants: three exits, with crudely drawn animals on them, and scrawled on the wall is "TEST OF WISDUM: WICH ONE OF THEESE IS A DUCK"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:Anyone have any ideas for sensibly realistic puzzle scenarios? Stuff like stepping on the right floor tiles to cross a room or solving a puzzle-box to open a door always raises the question of why someone would go to such elaborate measures for their security system rather than just slapping a locked door or a simple password system in front of things, and you can only use the "designed by a madman" or "challenge to test worthiness" excuses so many times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 09:22
|
|
|
Whybird posted:"TEST OF WISDUM: WICH ONE OF THEESE IS A DUCK" The one where you crouch down to avoid the spinning blades, duh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 10:08
|
|
|
Oh, that's so cute, and the spinning blades are way above all the characters' heads when they're standing up
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
No, some are neck height. Let the players figure out where they would have been for giants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:awwww yiss This is an excellent idea and exactly what will happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Mundane locks can be "knocked" and catburglarly is valid career in D&D so I never had much issue with it. That said, broken machinery where the pieces ar in disarray is fun, or where some of the pieces are missing, even. Irregation of older temples under dried rivers. Sand management. "Was desigined for giants" These all can lead to natural puzzles as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Broken machinery would be my go-to, generally. This door mechanism is missing a cog, but it looks like this other machine has the right piece, you just need to work the levers to get the cog to where it can be removed. Repurposing a trap into a door puzzle might work, too. This giant stone ball rolls down this hallway every five rounds, so if we move these sandbags we could divert it down this hallway and smash down this door.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
A giant ancient water-clock/irrigation system. Imagine a fight on a giant on of these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N43RvxhXTzs or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC-kO1C4F_U Lots of carefully pivoted beams and chambers that are filling with water. e: Oooh, a fight with a few chambers that slowly fill with water in sequence, against crocodiles. Easier in a dry chamber, much harder as it fills. lofi fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jun 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
A puzzle room with no actual solution. Just there to make people think they need to solve it and each possible solution is some form of trap. Fits more thematically with an ancient tomb than an active hide out though. Something purely designed to deal with grave robbers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:why someone would go to such elaborate measures for their security system Halloween Jack explained this to me awhile back. D&D assumes wizards are arrogant assholes ala Vance. So, it follows: If wizards are arrogant assholes, They will accumulate power and hide it so only they can use it rather than ever using it to help humanity. and they will attempt to steal power from other wizards. Therefore, of course, they come up with some bullshit riddle or puzzle room to hide their treasure, because those bastards all think they're just so clever. Edit: Actually there's another early D&D dungeon archetype that has an explanation for riddles and puzzles too, and that is "THE UNDERWORLD". It has that bullshit because it's basically a mythic hellworld, and what's more annoying than having to solve dumb puzzles for all eternity? DalaranJ fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Jun 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
Hidden shrine of tamoachan is a 1e module that is the absolute tits for insane puzzles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
One of my players is raising ire about our milestone-based levelling. The party gains a level every three sessions and if you miss one you're set back by that milestone. As of right now there isn't a way to catch up, because it was implemented to discourage players from not attending. So far we have had our share of scheduling problems, but they're far enough in advance that we simply don't play. It's the summer months after all, and everyone is going on vacation. One of my players spent memorial day weekend with his girlfriend and was capable of attending, but told us he would opt not to but that we could play anyways as to not kill momentum (previously, we all had taken two weeks off due to mutual scheduling conflicts). After last night's session that came with a level up and he is upset that he is now behind the party. It's hard for me to not want to shrug and point to the very simple "you aren't there, you don't progress" rule that doesn't have any other clauses. However, he rightfully points out that in every other instance he has been on time and engaged. We have another group that is frequently 30 minutes to an hour late, and have a weird dynamic. Likely an issue of us playing over Discord and that group also sharing a mic from one player's home, so you almost have a subgroup of players with their own social dynamic. Anyhow, said player is now complaining that his good behavior versus their sub-par behavior warrants him not losing a milestone because he "volunteered to miss" instead of simply not showing, or giving me a short notice cancellation. I believe he feels singled out because he uses language such as "only targets me" - but the thing is that he's the only one who has missed so far. As I see it, my options are: 1) Too bad, so sad. You weren't there, you didn't get the milestone - that's how the rule was implemented. It's a cold, impassive, impartial rule. 2) Not worth the trouble - give him a pass this time to not cause any waves, but I'll have to explain this to the group. I give this a 70% chance of not causing any future problems 3) Create some cockamamie amendments to the milestone levelling rule based on the group's perception of acceptable attendance that surely won't cause more problems in the future
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
You are encouraging people to attend with character levels. I cannot recommend this. People who miss are then less powerful, which means they (depending on system) can have less impact on the game. It is not fun to be the less powerful guy on the team, especially if that's because you couldn't show up for a legitimate reason. Over time, you discourage, rather than encourage, attendance. Using in-game methods to manage out-of-game behavior is not a path to good GMing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
I tend to manage attendance by having minigames for the missing player where they might make a little money or learn info/gossip while drinking at the bar or whatever the setting dictates. This is done via private chat so that they are encouraged to come the following week to share what they learned, as it may contain a hint about where items might be hidden in a dungeon or warnings of a trap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Zodack posted:One of my players is raising ire about our milestone-based levelling. The party gains a level every three sessions and if you miss one you're set back by that milestone. As of right now there isn't a way to catch up, because it was implemented to discourage players from not attending. Part of the reason to use milestones over EXP is to make it so that's not an issue. By mandating attendance just the same, you're implicitly just using EXP and claiming - badly - that you're not. If people don't want to turn up, using in-game levels as a carrot that's also a stick is a terrible incentive because there's no reason to care initially and it snowballs into making it an actual issue for everyone if they change their mind later. To say nothing of just punishing people for things like childcare or getting sick or whatever. If anything, this method incentives not turning up moreso, because you can't catch up in the future and are always going to be lagging behind with no personal recourse. Unless, like, everyone else ditches a session to stagger their levels until everyone's back in sync which is an absurd requirement. Lotus Aura fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jun 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Yeah using social pressure to get people to actually attend is an important if not-often-spoken of part of playing tabletop rpgs but using in-game mechanics is the wrong tack. Ideally it's not exclusively on the GM to push the less dedicated players into showing up despite other options - your group should help with this. I don't have a *good* solution but maybe cancelling the session or doing a oneshot in another system if there are any absences would be enough to get other players help goad him into blowing off his girlfriend in the future. His desire to be with his girlfriend that weekend was surely higher than your desire for him to game with you but there if there are (n - 2) others who are also bummed out who will make that clear, it might push him over the edge into making the decision you want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
I've run games where chararacters level by player attendance, but at the end of your first session back you level back up to wherever the party is and continue levelling with them. Maybe do that? Ignite Memories fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jun 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
The actual solution here is to say "my bad dude I messed up" and just make everyone equal. If it's a system where levels are critical, then him being behind extremely sucks for him and he may as well quit or suicide his character to bring in an exact clone sibling. If levels are minor, then why are you denying him this? It just seems needlessly petty to solve an OOC issue with an IC penalty when you can just have a Frank conversation about attendance, which doesn't seem necessary because this is a one off situation. If the issue is of not "earning" levels, then I should remind you this is a game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Ugh. Mostly venting but I'm in a "no gaming is better than bad gaming" scenario. One of the other players is trying to solo every obstacle we encounter with his wizard cantrips, ignores the rest of the party, thinks we're going to let his character (vampire) feed on us while we're traveling, and just stole all the gold from the bandits we killed. Other character caught him and  's response was "What are you going to do about it?"Good thing it's only our second session so I can bail early. I'm not interested in level 1 murder hobo PvP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Thanks for all the kind replies that didn't assume things about myself or the group. We're all a group of close friends and it's a system we agreed on at the start of the game - I didn't unilaterally say "this is the way it's gonna be" - and I'm certainly not claiming it's a good system. My understanding was that was how Milestone levelling worked... if you're present for a milestone, you get that milestone. I'm not trying to be a hamfisted GM, didn't mean for that to be my tone. For attendance problems we do cancel the session, and we over the course of several weeks. In this case the player said "No, don't cancel, I'll take the hit so you all can play". I also didn't mean to imply I was leaning towards not giving it to him. I was leaning towards giving it to him, but we have other legitimate problem players and I was concerned a precedent would make future issues tricky. We have had players be late for no reason, or simply not show without telling anyone. That's another issue so I won't go down that path. Ignite Memories posted:I've run games where chararacters level by player attendance, but at the end of your first session back you level back up to wherever the party is and continue levelling with them. Maybe do that? I actually feel like this is a great idea that does carry a soft penalty but doesn't hurt anyone. I'll run this by the guys and see what they think - I appreciate the unique solution. Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I don't have a *good* solution but maybe cancelling the session or doing a oneshot in another system if there are any absences would be enough to get other players help goad him into blowing off his girlfriend in the future. His desire to be with his girlfriend that weekend was surely higher than your desire for him to game with you but there if there are (n - 2) others who are also bummed out who will make that clear, it might push him over the edge into making the decision you want. It wasn't so much a "We're playing tonight, blow off your girlfriend and come" than it was a "We will cancel tonight" to which he said "No, you guys play without me, I'm totally fine with the penalty" and we had some back and forth about it to make sure. It definitely brings to my attention the weirdness of the system, though initially we assumed being one level lower than the party for a single night periodically wouldn't cause many problems
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Why is that a rule though? Is it actually useful because it doesn't sound like it. Like, you guys didn't ask him to blow off his girlfriend but the rule you guys made up does say that he gets punished if he doesn't. I'd just scrape that rule personally and set him to the same level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
That's likely what we're gonna do, because I don't think until now any of us realized how the rule functioned in practice. Bad planning, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
If it helps it sounds good on paper and I've been in groups with that rule. It just falls apart when used.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice on homebrew writing a page or so back. Will detail write out the important events and encounters, just outline the rest to avoid railroading the players.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
dragon_pamcake posted:Ugh. Mostly venting but I'm in a "no gaming is better than bad gaming" scenario. One of the other players is trying to solo every obstacle we encounter with his wizard cantrips, ignores the rest of the party, thinks we're going to let his character (vampire) feed on us while we're traveling, and just stole all the gold from the bandits we killed. Yeah I would have bailed the moment someone mentioned they're playing a vampire right out of the gate at level 1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
I am about to finish a 3-year dnd 3.5 campaign where one of the players has been a vampire the whole time and it actually wasn't a horrible mess 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
Malpais Legate posted:Yeah I would have bailed the moment someone mentioned they're playing a vampire right out of the gate at level 1. An unironic vampire, anyway. I'm suddenly imagining playing The Count in a D&D game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Fuuuuck sign me up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Zodack posted:That's likely what we're gonna do, because I don't think until now any of us realized how the rule functioned in practice. Bad planning, I guess? This is the right approach. Look at it like this - say I'm playing in your game and one week I get sick or whatever and so next game I'm a level behind. Other characters are doing Cool poo poo that I can't match. So I'm having less fun. The next game, I have the sniffles. Do I tough it out, or do I say "eh, gently caress it, I'm not having as much fun as everyone else anyways, I may as well bag out?" Unfortunately you run the risk with this kind of rule of setting up a self-reinforcing spiral; have less fun, so feel less motivation to show up, so have less fun, so feel less motivation to show up, et cetera. Instead of a negative reinforcement system that punishes people for not showing, I recommend a positive reinforcement system based around the idea that showing up gets you some kind of bennie or reward. Free Bonus Inspiration usable during the next session, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Zodack posted:One of my players is raising ire about our milestone-based levelling. The party gains a level every three sessions and if you miss one you're set back by that milestone. As of right now there isn't a way to catch up, because it was implemented to discourage players from not attending. Out of curiosity, what are you going to do when a PC dies? How do people generally handle that with milestone levelling?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
average party level which should be the same usually. Story reason is "BECAUSE"
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
The last session of my Star Wars Age of Rebellion campaign went extremely poorly. After the session we set aside time to discuss the players' issues and it turns out that I've been loving up repeatedly and seriously (though apparently the session before last hit the sweet spot and the ones before that weren't bad). Indeed, one of them apparently had been unsure they wanted to continue. To keep things manageable I'll summarise their complaints: 1. A lack of agency. The players were raring to go investigate the behaviour a pair of ships which they'd found about in the session before last, and I ended up completely blue-balling them by having it resolved off-screen between sessions by their superior (dumbly I assumed that trying to figure out how often they were visiting a certain planet would be dull for them). They also don't feel like they've got the freedom to do what they want - the sense I get is that they (rightly) feel like they're in a straitjacket. A player mentioned they felt like they were being led by the nose. They also said they wondered during the current session if anything they did, killed, or saved in the location would matter at all. 2. The plot still hasn't come in 4 sessions in. Mistakenly I thought drip-feeding info would be the way to keep them interested (as well as easing them into the adventure) but instead they're feeling very frustrated because they have no drat idea what they're meant to be doing. 3. Some players feel like they're unable to contribute with the current spate of activities; despite being infiltrator/commando types I've put much too emphasis on the "commando" side of the equation. The uncertain player I mentioned above felt like they made the wrong character for the campaign, which is particularly damning. 4. It doesn't feel like Star Wars right now. As one player put it, they want galactic stakes, weird planets, funky alien life, the Force, and all the other stuff that makes Star Wars Star Wars. 5. Fights have been too easy. The players have repeatedly been allowed to surprise enemies (who are frequently outnumbered) and basically beat them to death with a bunch of dice. The one major exception appears to have been the session before last. 6. Mishandling rolls. I've made players roll for things too often. As it was put to me, "when we run into an obstacle that isn't combat it's 'roll skill at it until it goes away'". They also added that for social encounters it's still too skill roll focused when the entire point of the system is that the die influence the outcome rather than determine it. A different player said that a lot of the rolls feel like pointless busywork. I've been given a chance to fix things in 2 weeks' time. I understand that a new GM is going to mess up occasionally, but I'm worried that I won't be able to deliver. It also feels like the task - unveiling the plot in exciting fashion, delivering enough hooks/locations, freedom, and furnishing each hook with enough stuff for everyone if they arrive before the session's natural stop point - is rather daunting. As I think I've brought up before, I'm not the most mentally agile or creative guy, and so far the group haven't really given me much in the way of pointers aside from "open things up, give an immediately actionable reveal, and give everyone something to do". I'm also worried that I've picked up bad GMing habits from video games and elsewhere. You might notice I haven't really gone into much detail in terms of actual in-game events; this is because the problems strike me as structural/GMing style ones for the most part (and ones I really should've foreseen since I had read about these sorts of errors before). They've said that they've had fun in spite of these issues but I suspect they were trying to soften the blow since they're friends of mine. So in short - how do I make it up to my players and rescue the campaign from sucking tremendous, hairy balls?  Right now my plan is to reveal the plot/stakes and get them out of the current location ASAP, open things wide, and try to make sure they're in the driver's seat.I'm really sorry for the wall of text, the more I reread our chat logs the more I found wrong that needed addressing. Soup Inspector fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Jun 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
If they're worried about plot/Star Wars feel you should probably just tell them what you had planned (in broad strokes) to make sure that it's even something they're on board for. If not, try to get their input on what kind of plots they're more interested in seeing. For skill rolls, try to not have specific solutions to a problem in mind when you present it. Let them come up with a plan and then decide what kind of roll would be appropriate. As an example, instead of: "Your path is blocked by a fallen log, roll strength to move it," just say "Your path is blocked by a fallen log," and wait to see what they do. (They're going to want to set it on fire. This is normal) Sticking to just giving prompts can help out a lot if you're not confident in your creativity since it let's you take a more reactive roll. It'll also help them feel like they're more in control, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
They may wish to carry the log to use later or to bludgeon a threat. This is to be expected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
In broad strokes, what is your plot? Why do you think it needed to be drip fed instead of revealed right away?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
They will try to seduce the log. It may not be normal, but it’s definitely to be expected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
I'd like to think you've brought your concerns to the right place. There's lots of folks here who will give you solid advice. So let's break things down one by one, shall we? Agency: in order to give the players a sense of agency, they have to feel like the actions taken by their characters have consequences (good or bad - or ideally, both). What this means is that as the GM, you have to not be too wedded to whatever is going on in your setting, or to what your NPCs are doing. Furthermore, the changes enabled by the PCs must be visible to them. They need to see that since they've toppled the Hutts, a bloody gang war has started. Since they've killed the Imperial Viceroy, the local forces are disorganized and the Rebellion is gaining steam - until the Inquisitor shows up. So try to show them the consequences of their actions by changing what is happening in the setting. Plot: Hoo, boy, this is a rabbit hole. Having played a lot of story-games now, I am a firm believer in the idea that it's not the (sole) responsibility of the GM to dole out plot. And you especially don't want to do it in dribs and drabs. Instead, I think the best way to get the PCs engaged is to present them with situations that are a) immediate, and b) impossible to ignore. Don't dangle plot hooks in front of them and wait for the players to bite. That way lies frustration and madness for pretty much everyone involved. Rather, throw some chum in the water, give the line a swift jerk, latch some fucker through the eye with a treble hook, and pull for all you're worth. Ideally, you will be aided in this by your players giving you lots of ammunition to use in their various character backgrounds. Exploit it. Ruthlessly. Tie it into whatever stuff is going on in your setting. It turns out that the underworld boss helping out the Imperial Viceroy is someone that one of the PCs knows well - and owes a significant debt. How do they balance their indebtedness with their desire to gently caress with the Imperium? Will they work at cross-purposes with the rest of the party to try to protect the crimelord during the takedown of the Viceroy (and in doing so, maybe discharge their obligation to said crimelord)? Or will they double down and end up deeper in debt once the smoke clears? Contribution: Figure out what everyone is good at. Try to structure at least one set-piece encounter element that appeals to their strengths. In general, it is good practice to structure the threats to the PCs in such a way that "Blast 'em!" isn't always the best or even most immediately obvious solution. Part of the way to do this is to make sure that actions have consequences, and that those consequences are communicated to the PCs up front. Like, yeah, you can kill this patrol of Scout Troopers, no sweat. But you know for a fact that last time somebody did that, the local stormtrooper garrison rolled in and murdered an entire village in retribution. It's cool for you to tell the players things their characters would know, even if it hasn't happened to them directly, and this is a great way to make consequences clear. And when violence (i.e. the "commando" part of things) isn't an easy option, you'll start seeing some of your other PCs shine. Star Wars: this one is both hard and easy. It's easy because we've all seen the movies and we know what it could and should look like. The Imperium is humanocentric, but the sense that is clear in most of the films is that its reach is pretty tenuous, especially on the periphery. The galaxy is a big place, and the Imperial forces can't be everywhere at once, so they operate through intermediaries, pawns, and useful agents. These people can and should be non-human, in order to help capture some of that weird, alien Star Wars feel. And it's hard because "galactic stakes" is a little bit tougher to pull off without essentially redoing the movies. If you want to do something like this, make sure you communicate to the players just what is at stake and what effects their actions have. This goes back to point about Agency. If they feel like their contributions have an effect, the scale of that effect might become less of an issue. And as the characters gain traction, you can explicitly increase the stakes (before it was just this settlement, now we're talking about the planet, and in the next arc the fate of the sector hangs in the balance). Difficulty: Frankly, this is something that can be tough in any game. Being able to calibrate your opposition such that it challenges the PCs without being either a cake-walk or a TPK can be tough. Fortunately, FFG Star Wars is a "fail forward" system, so even if the PCs completely flub, you can use all of those fails and disadvantages to change the story situation rather than just doling out damage (which is how most traditional RPGs do it). One thing that might help is to occasionally separate them. It's generally easier to calibrate opposition to a single PC or two rather than a big group, because you don't have to worry about weird skill synergies as much. Another thing that helps is again to have encounter objectives that involve stuff other than "Blast 'em!" Like, yeah, there are Stormtroopers to fight, but while you're doing that someone has to be hacking into the system to cripple the shield generator such that the bombers can get through. And once that's done, holy poo poo, we need to leave fast because the bombers have gotten through! At that point, the Stormtroopers aren't the primary threat, they're an environmental hazard (much like the zombies in "The Walking Dead"). There's an art to constructing a situation that feels desperate, but a good way to do it is to make it clear that given enough time, the opposition will outgun you, and that you'd better have accomplished your goals and bugged out before that happens. Mishandled Rolls: You don't need to (and shouldn't) roll for everything. The only time dice should hit the table is when the consequences of success or failure are interesting, meaning that they'll have an effect on the story. PCs are in port and need to fix the hyperdrive? Done. They either do it themselves or pay someone to do it. Either way, it happens on nothing more than their say-so. PCs are being pursued by TIE fighters and need to fix their sabotaged hyperdrive to escape? Yeah, I think a roll might be called for here. So don't do social rolls to haggle over every little thing, and for gently caress sake DO NOT have a situation where you need to roll X number of successes to get past an obstacle. Make one roll, and interpret "what happens next" based on the result of that single throw of the dice. Either "you succeed, but..." or "you fail, and..." One of the things that Apocalypse World does really well and that I wish more games explicitly included is the idea of consequence in dice rolls such that "I try it again" is pretty much never the right response to failure. A lock-picking roll isn't made to see whether you can pick the lock - you're the hero in the story, of course you could pick that lock under normal circumstances. No, the roll is made to see whether you can pick that lock before some unforeseen circumstance throws a wrench in your plan. It's whether you can get through that door before one of the Hutt's bounty-hunter mercenaries happens upon you and says, "Something I can help you with there, friend?" When posed with that complication, it is obvious to everyone involved that "I try to pick the lock again" is just not a reasonable response. Finally, I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again. You'll probably be better off if you don't structure your game around "plots" but rather around "scenes." Focus on those times when the characters are doing cool poo poo and taking big risks. Elide all of the crap where they're not. A few sentences of exposition and a time-skip can do wonders to keep the pace of a session cranking and delivering good drama, conflict, and character development. Don't just do "the thing that comes next chronologically." Ask yourself whether the thing that comes next is worth building a scene around. Will there be any conflict (physical, mental, social, etc)? Will there be a big surprise or revelation? Will it lead to the kind of character development that changes the PCs thoughts/feelings/opinions going forward? If the answer to these questions is "no," then for gods' sakes skip it. "You report to your Alliance contact that the Imperials have found out that the operators of the big ore mines on Phellesis-3 have been skimming and giving their take to the Rebels, and are now planning a reprisal raid. Next thing you know, you've been given orders to blow up an Imperial ammo depot on the innermost moon of Khrygia to destroy the crust-buster munitions said reprisal raid might use." Skip the reporting, skip the planning, skip the re-equipping and re-arming. Assume the PCs have done all of these things, and give them the benefit of the doubt if something comes up later and they say, "I had time to prepare for this." Bypass all that crap and jump straight into the action: "You're making your assault drop on the "poorly defended" ammo depot on Khrygia when a previously un-charted flack tower takes out the starboard stabilizer of your shuttle, turning your assault drop into an assault crash. You're about to augur in, what do you do?" Hopefully some of these suggestions resonate and help. GMing isn't a cake-walk, but like anything else, the more you do it the easier it gets. Ilor fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jun 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
escalator dropdown posted:They will try to seduce the log. It may not be normal, but it’s definitely to be expected. When they do this, that'll be the time they roll a critical success. Just go with it. What does your session prep look like? How into the weeds with details do you map out? Given what you have said, I'd be willing to wager you are approaching your prep in a counter productive fashion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 23:46
|
|
