|
Angrymog posted:This brings me to a thought; is it worth just flat out asking players in a game where their motivation isn't obvious, "This is the situation, why does your character care?" Very much. Many, many games are improved by asking 'why do you care' and 'why are you sticking together' (if they're sticking together).
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
I've had success at the start of a campaign establishing a clear starting scenario for the players before they make their characters and explicitly telling them "your reasons are your own, but your character is invested in this scenario, why?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:Well, in my MitW the resolutions are never improvised. Setting up the monster's weakness is part of the monster design. In the adventure you played it's the kelpie's bridle that's needed to tame or destroy it, otherwise it just goes back to the lake to lick its wounds. What I was referring to there was our attempts to investigate by diving into the lake. quote:This brings me to a thought; is it worth just flat out asking players in a game where their motivation isn't obvious, "This is the situation, why does your character care?" I think this would work only if there hadn't been a ton of previous background created to give the characters hooks. If there has been such background then it comes across as ignoring it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Then you hope that the camaraderie developed while adventuring will cement this connection, although you can't always depend on that. Right, plus it gives you time to start weaving in back stories for more personal motivations. In my case, I started with "you are new members of a prestigious guild, this job is important to you", and then I had the easy fallback of "professionals doing their job" until the larger threats got revealed, backstories became relevant, and the party bonded and before you know it badabing badaboom you got the party giving dramatic speeches about how they + their town are a family and any of them would die for the others and two of them are dating and one officially adopted another
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I think this would work only if there hadn't been a ton of previous background created to give the characters hooks. If there has been such background then it comes across as ignoring it. I don't follow you there. Whether I'm making a character in a known universe or a made up on the fly thing they still need a motivation, all that changes is the scope of the details I can fill in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I think this would work only if there hadn't been a ton of previous background created to give the characters hooks. If there has been such background then it comes across as ignoring it. IMO players should be discouraged from creating characters using an authorial method like a novelist might, with some kind of fully chronicled story that doesn't involve the other PCs. For a few reasons;
There are of course reasons to let players go make their characters independently:
Those are decent reasons and if your gaming situation requires it then oh well, you'll have to cope. But if you can arrange to spend the time, and especially with systems that don't require hours of looking up and reviewing 1000 feats or spells to build a character, I think it's very beneficial to do it together. And if you're doing it together, there's so many opportunities to tie the characters together and for players to have input into each other's decisions. The last D&D game I ran didn't last very long and was a few years ago now. I had an absolute novice to roleplaying, and three long-time D&D players, one of whom was new to 4th edition. I presented a high-level sketch of the setting, and then we built characters together: they picked race/class combos, came up with a few ideas of origin stories, and then I did a sort of structured question-asking process with all of them together. Like, R, tell me something your character doesn't like about K's character, and something he does like about her. T, tell me something your character is keeping secret from N's character. N, tell me why your character owes R's character bigtime. K, tell me why your character trusts N's character with her life. With this dialogue, the group is free to modify whatever the player comes up with, nothing is instantly set in stone. N says "maybe my character is K's brother" and then K says "hmm, let's say adoptive brother, because my character's parents were outcasts who died just after she was born." R says "my character was a sailor, but somehow met T's character" and T says "maybe he washed up after a shipwreck" and then R says "...and he's guilty because he thinks the shipwreck was his fault" and T says "but my character doesn't believe it was his fault and wants to try to help your guy get over his guilt." None of this stuff had special relevance to the plotline of the first adventure I had planned necessarily, but it provides hooks (what really happened when that ship went down? Did K's parents really die, and why?) but at the very least when the game starts, the players all have a strong sense that their characters belong together for more than just immediate expediency. They can have conversations that feel like there's a history to them, they don't have to just all meet in an inn and try to somehow talk about their special unique backstories in a way that doesn't sound incredibly contrived. Plus it's fun as hell, and I think in a situation where maybe one player rapidly finishes their character but another is stuck on spell selection for half an hour, you can lead some brainstorming sessions like this and keep everyone engaged. The approach absolutely still works with mechanics-heavy games, even those like D&D where there's little or no requirement to do it built into the game's rules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Very much. Many, many games are improved by asking 'why do you care' and 'why are you sticking together' (if they're sticking together).
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 06:17
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I will say this, though: if you create characters that are too well tied together, you might end up in trouble if any of the players end up leaving the campaign. Yeah, I've seen that. Do the party have a tearful goodbye? Is someone tragically killed, and wouldn't that be devastating for them? Or do we just ignore all the backstory and have the remainders shrug as someone really important to them decides to just hang around in a nearby village for a few days or maybe a year while the rest continue to adventure? But this is a problem I've seen solved a myriad of ways both in RPGs, and in that other medium where sometimes the player of a character suddenly has other obligations or interests: serial TV shows. You know. Maybe Tasha Yar has to die, because Denise Crosby just isn't into this game any more and needs to go do something else. Or maybe it's more like Gates McFadden just needs a season off, but she'll be back, so Dr. Crusher is on an assignment or whatever. It can be an opportunity for your characters to react to, if you feel like exploring that. Two women having a really miserable time during the first season of Star Trek wasn't a coincidence, but I'm not intentionally referencing that here, it's just an example that comes to mind that I figure most folks here are familiar with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 06:27
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 16:38
|
|
|
I said I'd stop and I really will, I promise, but hyphz did literal improv gold tonight and it was perfect and resplendent and made my day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I've referred to JMS's planning around B5 as kind of like being a GM in the B5 thread, but I think the question is whether that's really something you were signing up for when you made a character with a backstory that ties in very closely with another character's. If it is, that also has to be a session 0 discussion. If not, I think that puts either the player or the GM in an uncomfortable position when that happens. If you tie your character closely to another character, you're both agreeing that either characters' death is A Big Deal to the other character. For example: I had someone move overseas for a couple of years and quit my modern era haunted detective game. They exited between "seasons", so we decided that they died in a traffic accident off-screen and that it wouldn't be a mysterious investigation type deal. Two other characters reacted like you'd expect someone hearing that a sometimes-co-worker from another office died would - they went "oh, that's awful", were sad for a session, and then got on with things and treated the replacement NPC in a professional way. The player whos character worked closely with the departed guy every day for decades played out a season-long arc about being assigned a new partner and trying to make that work while getting over their friends' death. It was good roleplaying, and it gave us all a way to re-adjust our expectations around a hole in the cast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Stop hyping hyphz, you're making me jealous I can't join in! I mean, there's a whole discord, dawg. Somehow it now has like 70+ people and two (very, very giving) mods and we all play cool indie games together. Come and join the party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 01:55
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I said I'd stop and I really will, I promise, but hyphz did literal improv gold tonight and it was perfect and resplendent and made my day. Now you're making me blush. We were being attacked by a werewolf and I spend a hold from the Savvyhead move "Bonefeel" to declare that I had concidentally decided to bring a gun loaded with silver bullets to a dinner party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Now you're making me blush. And it was awesome. You literally did this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggFKLxAQBbc to a werewolf. It was loving amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:And it was awesome. It's an interesting example, too, since it sets off one of the most common doubts I have in GMing: whether or not I can do this anytime we're in a fight. I'm not intending to in your game, but plenty of players I know - not just my main group - would want to or would at least ask for a call on what frequency is allowed. And intending not to could become problematic if, say, a werewolf was about to kill another PC..
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 12:01
|
|
|
Consider these experiences a broadening of your toolbox and a touchstone to mentally refer to when confronted or pressed on matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 12:39
|
|
|
hyphz posted:It's an interesting example, too, since it sets off one of the most common doubts I have in GMing: whether or not I can do this anytime we're in a fight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 12:43
|
|
|
Splicer posted:You roll it at the start of the session yeah? So as often as you have the hold, presumably. It's like asking when a wizard is allowed cast fireball. They can cast it when they have fireball prepared. Yes. The player can do it whenever they have the hold to spend. No MC judgement call required, nothing in the rules to imply that there should be some kind of MC-imposed limit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 13:20
|
|
|
And that you've had bullets for a werewolf once just adds new context to the hypothetical second werewolf encounter. If you don't have silver bullets then that's fun story ("I'm not helping because I'm not made of goddamned sterling silver!") and if you do that's a different fun story ("I am not obsessed with werewolves! ...they're also good for vampires, witches, and cosplaying as the Lone Ranger.")
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 13:25
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:The player can do it whenever they have the hold to spend. No MC judgement call required, nothing in the rules to imply that there should be some kind of MC-imposed limit. True. However, my read of the Bonefeel move is that it's for surprising narrative twists, not to be used routinely as a tactical maneuver to declare a PC to be behind the enemy in order to get the Sucker Someone move.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
hyphz posted:True. However, my read of the Bonefeel move is that it's for surprising narrative twists, not to be used routinely as a tactical maneuver to declare a PC to be behind the enemy in order to get the Sucker Someone move. Fabian saving the day is a suprising narrative twist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:Fabian saving the day is a suprising narrative twist. Once. Not if it becomes a standard tactical move, it wouldn't be. I don't intend to try, but I'm not quite sure what I'd do if I was GMing and someone did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Once. Not if it becomes a standard tactical move, it wouldn't be. I don't intend to try, but I'm not quite sure what I'd do if I was GMing and someone did. Well, the MC can spend it as well. I feel that this is a non-problem. And sometimes wierd mechanical tricks become the character's thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
I feel that you're overthinking it. It has become established that Fabian preps for unexpected dangers. If tomorrow he has a stake to take care of a vampire or an explosive to bring down a supporting column, what's the harm? Heck, if we face another werewolf and he has another silver bullet, it might not have quite the impact that we assigned to it the first time, but it seems sensible that he could pull off the same trick again, no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
You can't use Bonefeel more than once per session, and I've always understood "can spend your hold to have you already be there, with the proper tools and knowledge, with or without any clear explanation why," to mean that you turn up unexpectedly, not that you can teleport. As an MC, if we'd already established that Keeler has the Savvyhead at gunpoint, and the Savvyhead tried to use Bonefeel to be behind Keeler with a gun to her instead, I'd call bullshit. On the other hand, if she had some other character at gunpoint, and the Savvyhead wasn't even in the scene, I would be stoked to have them use Bonefeel to walk up behind Keeler with a gun and play the hero.
Zorak of Michigan fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jun 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:You can't use Bonefeel more than once per session, and I've always understood "can spend your hold to have you already be there, with the proper tools and knowledge, with or without any clear explanation why," to mean that you turn up unexpectedly, not that you can teleport. As an MC, if we'd already established that Keeler has the Savvyhead at gunpoint, at the Savvyhead tried to use Bonefeel to be behind Keeler with a gun to her instead, I'd call bullshit. On the other hand, if she had some other character at gunpoint, and the Savvyhead wasn't even in the scene, I would be stoked to have them use Bonefeel to walk up behind Keeler with a gun and play the hero.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:On the other hand, if she had some other character at gunpoint, and the Savvyhead wasn't even in the scene, I would be stoked to have them use Bonefeel to walk up behind Keeler with a gun and play the hero. That's pretty much exactly how it happened. Balthasar (battlebabe, my character, also remind me to make a character with a shorter name next time) is being mauled by a werewolf; Tevye, the angel, throws a barrel lid at it to distract it (Be the bait move); werewolf changes targets and goes charging towards Tevye who braces with a knife and starts praying. Fabian, our savvyhead steps up and blows the werewolf's brains out at more or less pointblank range. (spent his hold from Bonefeel) Angrymog fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jun 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:That's pretty much exactly how it happened. Balthasar (battlebabe, my character, also remind me to make a character with a shorter name next time) is being mauled by a werewolf; Tevye, the angel, throws a barrel lid at it to distract it (Be the bait move); werewolf changes targets and goes charging towards Tevye who braces with a knife and starts praying. Fabian, our savvyhead steps up and blows the werewolf's brains out at more or less pointblank range. (spent his hold from Bonefeel) He was already established to be in the scene, so I guess all Bonefeel really did was give him the perfect tool for the job rather than having him "teleport" anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Once. Not if it becomes a standard tactical move, it wouldn't be. I don't intend to try, but I'm not quite sure what I'd do if I was GMing and someone did. Sounds like the problem is solved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
Also, and I can't say this enough, it was loving awesome! Keep in mind you've been rolling Bonefeel the whole game and this was the first time it ever succeeded. I've been joking for at least a month about how it was your roll to give me hold to be a jerk. So obviously you can't actually spam it ; it's at absolute most a once a session thing, and even then you can't guarantee you can do it during a session because it's based around probability and you guys have a complicated relationship with how randomness works. And then leaving that aside, if you could actually do it all the time, it'd be all kinds of amazing and I'd clap constantly and laugh. That's really god drat cool, and even if the rules didn't say I had to be, I'm a giant fan of the players. (You guys all rock, by the way.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Essentially it's that an NPC has a really powerful item that they use to stun/control a dragon. The problem is that (as I learned when running Star Wars..) any item that an NPC has in a typical RPG has to be designed to be taken off that NPC's corpse and used by the PCs. So the actual stats for the item are relatively weak, and the most likely outcome is that the NPC will try to use the item, the dragon will make their save, and the NPC will have a sheepish look on their face before taking a blast of fire breath to the face. Even if the dragon rolls a 1, they get to stun the dragon for at most 10 minutes before they get tired.. Okay, I've read this thread from the very beginning (it's been a fascinating journey) and I'm ready to make my first forums post in who knows how long because I feel like the answer here is obvious, but I want to make sure It's not just a stupid thing that I do when I DM. Why does the NPC/Dragon have to roll for it? Can't the item work better for the NPC than for the PCs? They're not going to know how the item works until after the confrontation with the big bad and I don't think most players are likely to say "hey wait a minute, did he roll his check for this?" And the answer to that can be anything from "He's been using this item for a long time and so it worked more easily for him than it will for you" to "Yeah, the dragon totally failed his save don't worry about it", or something else supported by the fiction. There's a reason the DM screen exists, and part of that is that sometimes to create a good challenge or dramatic moment, things will need to work differently for non-players than for PCs. (Also I just want to say that this thread has been great and has helped me better articulate/understand my own DMing philosophies, so thank you to all the knowledgeable folks that have posted in it)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2020 07:16
|
|
|
I haven't read the AP in question, but in the ones I have read there are definitely instances where an item/spell/location/whatever will work better for an NPC for whatever reason, and is usually called out in text.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2020 07:29
|
|
|
senrath posted:I haven't read the AP in question, but in the ones I have read there are definitely instances where an item/spell/location/whatever will work better for an NPC for whatever reason, and is usually called out in text. That's the trick - on this occasion it doesn't, but there's too many ways for everything to go south or turn out rubbish if it doesn't work. It's tough wanting to "play to find out what happens" but at the same time acutely aware that things could go absolutely wrong. And yes, my players and many players I know would ask if an NPC made a check to use an item, if things were going badly. After all, if the adventure doesn't actually say that the NPC has no chance to fail using the item, then maybe that chance of failure is key to the balancing the author did on the encounter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
hyphz posted:And yes, my players and many players I know would ask if an NPC made a check to use an item, if things were going badly. After all, if the adventure doesn't actually say that the NPC has no chance to fail using the item, then maybe that chance of failure is key to the balancing the author did on the encounter. Given the number of variables in most systems, it's impossible to balance an adventure that finely. Not "difficult" but "completely impossible." Especially on a pass/fail that has a huge difference in outcomes, like "does the dragon make its saving throw and we have to fight it" vs. "it fails its saving throw and we don't have to fight it." This is one of the reasons the game has a GM at all. As I've said before in this thread: a key responsibility of the GM is to adjust the game content to suit the needs of their particular group of players. That absolutely includes adjusting the mechanics at play behind the scenes. You can't outsource that responsibility unless you play a GM-less game. I can understand as a GM preferring a module because it reduces your prep time, and not wanting to therefore have to review every single thing that is laid out in that module for balance. That's partly what modules are for. But you still can't completely abdicate your role as the GM to make adjustments, or you are going to repeatedly run into these sorts of issues (the game ends on an anticlimax as the party gets wiped, or as the party trivially beats what the author thought would be a tough challenge) which arise both from the flaws that are inherent in pre-prepared material, and from the literally infinite possibility-space of the party's makeup and actions as determined by the players. Here's the thing, hyphz: "play to find out what happens" is still not a prohibition against GM fiat, as folks keep telling you. You must fully internalize this facet of tabletop roleplaying games that utilize a GM: the GM is allowed to use their judgement to change the situation the players are facing or are about to face, and that doing so isn't a violation of the player/GM bargain at all. It is, in fact, one of the reasons the game has a GM in the first place. If having the dragon make its save against the mcguffin and then eat the antagonist and fly away while the players stand there helpless to do anything would be stupid and anticlimactic, then don't have that happen. Irrespective of what the rules or game mechanics say, you can, as a GM, simply decide that despite the normal mechanism that applies to PCs regarding wands and saving throws or whatever, in order for this scene to present an interesting situation, the dragon can't make its save: therefore, it doesn't. If a player challenges you on this for some loving reason, you can tell that player in all honesty "I did what I judged was necessary to make the scene fun for you guys, because that's my job as a GM." Anyone who prioritizes blind obedience to the author of the adventure or to the game's mechanics, over the priority of having a good time at the table, has got their priorities backward and you can safely disregard their opinion on this matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2020 19:41
|
|