By default, when I run games, the pattern is
1. Players have an overall objectives;
2. Players tell me what they want to do next towards that objective;
3. We RP a scene where the players do that thing. They usually do it very successfully and nothing unexpected happens;
4. Repeat steps 2-3 until inevitable, wild success.
I don't want to run games like this anymore.
In real life, in fiction, and in my own RP experiences, things are more fun and interesting if they seem "earned" - if it was Hard to achieve the thing you wanted, things didn't go as expected, and maybe you succeed in the end but it was very difficult.
What do all of you do, particularly on the fly, to make things seem challenging, unexpected, and earned?
I know there are mechanical systems that remind the GM to do this: GM Intrusions, optional Pass/Fail in Questworlds, Success at a Cost / GM Moves in PBTA like games but I'm not always using one of those systems.
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1134202By default, when I run games, the pattern is
1. Players have an overall objectives;
2. Players tell me what they want to do next towards that objective;
3. We RP a scene where the players do that thing. They usually do it very successfully and nothing unexpected happens;
4. Repeat steps 2-3 until inevitable, wild success.
I don't want to run games like this anymore.
In real life, in fiction, and in my own RP experiences, things are more fun and interesting if they seem "earned" - if it was Hard to achieve the thing you wanted, things didn't go as expected, and maybe you succeed in the end but it was very difficult.
What do all of you do, particularly on the fly, to make things seem challenging, unexpected, and earned?
I know there are mechanical systems that remind the GM to do this: GM Intrusions, optional Pass/Fail in Questworlds, Success at a Cost / GM Moves in PBTA like games but I'm not always using one of those systems.
What game system are you running?
I usually run Savage Worlds. I'm running Spire right now, which at least has a mechanic where your rolls yield negative consequences. I'm usually not running a D&D type generic fantasy or dungeon adventure.
FYI I don't think it's mechanics that cause my GMing style. I've run lots of different game systems (SW, Vampire LARPs, etc.) and it's only when I accidentally make things difficult that I get a really satisfying play experience.
'Yes... But...'
Pretty much Jim Butcher's mantra for the Dresden files (not that I like the books, tbh). That, 'but' pretty much causes the great tension in all the best writing, and RPGs.
"Yes, you manage to leap across the rooftop, BUT there's a hidden member of the Watch who ambushes you."
'Yes, you manage to open the safe BUT the black alien cube has already been stolen by the Nazis and is now on the way to Berlin." Etc.
Savage worlds, I find that using Gritty damage puts a fairly big Challenge to combat. I would also ask, what sort of setting do you usually play? I asked system, because there are tricks I have used for systems I know. Are you looking to raise the challenge in combat, overall objective completion or reward versus risk. Though I can say from experience with SW, it seems the balance between too easy, and oh shit everyone is dead is tricky.
Quote from: oggsmash;1134209Savage worlds, I find that using Gritty damage puts a fairly big Challenge to combat. I would also ask, what sort of setting do you usually play? I asked system, because there are tricks I have used for systems I know. Are you looking to raise the challenge in combat, overall objective completion or reward versus risk. Though I can say from experience with SW, it seems the balance between too easy, and oh shit everyone is dead is tricky.
Good Questions. It's not usually combat, since that's fairly easy to do (just make more challenging opponents). I
usually pull punches in combat which feels good in the short term but, really, player's feel much more satisfied if they feel that they had to work hard / be smart to achieve their goal. I could stop doing that which would help.
Normally I like to run some combination of social / investigative / horror. I'm running Spire now (which I can't say enough good things about except it's GM Advice chapter, which could use more stuff). I thought that by using Spire I'd achieve my goal, since when you roll in Spire there's a reasonable chance you'll take stress / fallout (something you don't want to happen happens). However, the first session I ran out of it went the way that my games normally go - player's declared what they wanted to do, then sent the best person to do that thing, the best person did that thing in a scene that went exactly the way they expected (and because it was the best person they were rolling in a way that made bad outcomes unlikely).
I agree Gritty Damage is excellent for SW. If I run it again I'll 100% use it.
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1134211I usually pull punches in combat which feels good in the short term but, really, player's feel much more satisfied if they feel that they had to work hard / be smart to achieve their goal. I could stop doing that which would help.
Yes, that's a great start. You might discover this one switch is enough to change the timbre of your games. If you find it emotionally difficult to avoid fudging the dice, I suggest rolling in the open -- that ensures you're as bound as your players are by the results.
Are your players incredibly competent? And lucky? Do you roll dice?
This is not a problem I see much!
Edit: Smart, motivated, proactive enemies. Enemies with clashing agendas. Treacherous friends! All good for spanners in works. The traitor especially is great for a TPK...
Once one of them dies/loses a leg, the group is going to appreciate coming out of it whole and successful a lot more. It also will give them more context for if they are kicking asses, or being told a story. I think what you may be doing is helping them along so as to see your story unfold, maybe because you feel that is the thing to do. But from your post I think you are looking to have a tale of great deeds write itself. That means there has to be failure or the real risk of same. Sometimes, we find out this party will not be the great heros, they will be a cautionary tale for great heros to hear about and learn from. I lay down some paths, the players decide where to go, what to do, and the dice fall as they may. I also play the bad guys, especially wild cards, as they should be played. A wizard is not going to fight to the death, or really get into a fight he/she has no way out of. Add in rules for using bennies to re-roll damage (which I think is RAW in the latest version) for the wild card enemies, and fights get a great deal more harrowing.
For tension/challenge have traps or events that will split the party. Make the ones not there leave the room, and have events transpire, rotate the others in and repeat. The people who are not active while you rotate players will spend the time on the porch/kitchen/where ever discussing what they should do and wonder what if going on with their pals. Anyone who ever read the 1st edition DMG knows this is the most deadly dangerous situation there is in RPGs (splitting the party). It does not have to be over used.
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1134202What do all of you do, particularly on the fly, to make things seem challenging, unexpected, and earned?
I do two things.
1) I think of how would a player handle X and play the NPC accordingly in regards to the NPCs motivations and plans. Modifying the specific based on what I established about the NPC's personality.
2) Like in life there is a hierarchy of power and resources and reasons why it got there. As far it as it make for interesting adventures I replicate it. Which winds up creating more interesting situation although it is rarely balanced one way or the other.
The general idea is to imagine what going one as if I was there watching these character doing stuff. This forces me to consider the world around the NPCs and bring some of it to life creating a more diverse and thus interesting situation.
So the usual pattern in my campaign is that when the PCs first start running into "something" is that they run into the run of the mill soldiers/operative/minions and their immediate superiors. They generally have a pretty easy time of it at fire. But as time goes on the leaders become aware of the PC's activities. If the PCs don't plan well likely they will get overwhelmed and dealt with.
However keep in mind this is a simplistic explanation for something that is nuanced. There are several other things I do to make it work. For example no everybody the players meet is somebody with a plan or an enemy. Some are just folks living out their life and react accordingly. I make sure there are opportunities to meet friendlies as well as antagonists. That if the players get a drop on their opposition then I follow through on that and the opposition has a bad day. Likewise if they are idiots, they know I will kill all of their character. But also they know that if there something obvious I will proactively point it and they don't have to play twenty questions to figure out what is going on.
The biggest problem you will face is that if your players are used to getting encounters compared to their PC's experience then they will have a hard time adapting when it is no longer the case. Take for example my Scourge of the Demon Wolf. One way to complete the adventure is to simply try to kill all the wolves in the area. It time consuming but the PCs can find out where the various wolf pack to try to kill them. And with one of them is the Demon Wolf. However the problem if they try to do that they will get one or two packs totalling around 24 wolves. However the Demon Wolf will do one of two things based on what the circumstances of what it finds out. Either it will scatter the remaining wolves into the nearby mountains and leave for a time. Leaving the PCs empty handed. Or it will mass the wolves (around 120 total versus a 4th to 6th level party) and attack. Not just as giant mob but using ambush tactics and other tricks.
I had one party started to try this and by the 2nd night they returned to the village and quit because two out of the six were nearly dead (Swords & Wizardry/OD&D). Back when I ran this using GURPS the party then also retreated back to village after trying to stay out while performing their investigation as one of the party got mauled by pack tactics.
If you send me a PM I would be willing to comp a copy of the PDF for Scourge of the Demon Wolf as an illustration of how I think and organize this stuff.
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1134202What do all of you do, particularly on the fly, to make things seem challenging, unexpected, and earned?
I know there are mechanical systems that remind the GM to do this: GM Intrusions, optional Pass/Fail in Questworlds, Success at a Cost / GM Moves in PBTA like games but I'm not always using one of those systems.
1a: play should not
seem to be challenging. It should either
be challenging, or not.
If every time my character leaps across a chasm they allways succeed no matter what the odds. Then there is no challenge. Its just a backdrop as there is no chance of failure. Or failure was just arbitrarily decided. Thats storygaming. Or in some cases not even role playing - its just storytelling.
That said. It is a valid playstyle as long as everyones on board and knows that the Wizard is behind the curtain.
2+1b: With this sort of playstyle one thing to do is let the dice fall where they may. Let the unexpected happen. Let failures happen. But there should allways be some means to either continue on or work around the setback. Or even follow the setback now.
The character leaps over the chasm. This needs a stat check to succeed as they are exceeding the normal distance that can be leaped. What happens on failure?
A: they miss. Depending on the distance or degree of failure can then either
B1: Have them make a stat check to grab onto the ledge.
B2: They start plummeting and possibly can make another stat check before impact.
B3: Impact and take damage, possibly lethal damage depending on distance and what they hit. Death may be the only outcome at that point unless theres something down there to miigate this.
C: Now they can climb up and out. Or look around down there and see what they find. Or are dead.
D: if Dead this is possibly not the end. Someone can climb down and retrieve the body and haul it back somewhere to be raised. Or if they have the ability or item. Raise them right there.
only failing all this and a few more things would you be at
E: the character is dead. Roll new character.
Or the character is picking a lock and fails. They could try again if their tools did not break. And if the tools break they can try bashing down the door. And if they cant bash down the door they can try finding some other way in. Or make another way in.
Or the character is in a car chase and looses the target. They could try guessing the route based on what they know, possibly using any shortcuts to make up lost time. Or use this to their advantage to see if the spooked target rabbits to someplace important they know of. Or look for clues elsewhere. And so on.
Focus on your villains. Make them badass and play them to the hilt.
And villains don't fight fair. Revel in their evil.
A game world consists of a combination of events the PCs cause, and events that are caused by circumstances of other things happening in the world, that the PCs have to react to. It sounds like you're only doing the first thing.
Quote from: The Exploited.;1134208'Yes... But...'
Pretty much Jim Butcher's mantra for the Dresden files (not that I like the books, tbh). That, 'but' pretty much causes the great tension in all the best writing, and RPGs.
"Yes, you manage to leap across the rooftop, BUT there's a hidden member of the Watch who ambushes you."
This. Make them pay for what they want. Sometimes a complication they can't control is harsher than health loss or the risk of death. A dear NPC lost/hurt/kidnapped, a hideout blown, a rival faction getting stronger, a valued possession damaged or corrupted, being forced to do something against one's principles.
Also: don't pull punches. Play the world straight and let the dice fall where they may. I'm also a soft GM and have to police myself to not let them have things easy. Being harsh first and then adjusting if needed is usually better than being soft first and doing the reverse.
Good luck. :)
Quote from: Itachi;1135776This. Make them pay for what they want. Sometimes a complication they can't control is harsher than health loss or the risk of death. A dear NPC lost/hurt/kidnapped, a hideout blown, a rival faction getting stronger, a valued possession damaged or corrupted, being forced to do something against one's principles.
Also: don't pull punches. Play the world straight and let the dice fall where they may. I'm also a soft GM and have to police myself to not let them have things easy. Being harsh first and then adjusting if needed is usually better than being soft first and doing the reverse.
Good luck. :)
That's always been the biggest load of bullshit imaginable. The idea that "consequences" that allow the player to go on are harsher than death is silly. It's absolutely no coincidence that the people who always throw this one out are narrative roleplayers.
In RPGs you roleplay a character. If you're not playing a tournament scenario, there is no endgame, no win state unless you retire the character. The point is Roleplaying that character. Consequences let you continue to play that character with MORE DRAMA! A lost loved one, Oh the Humanity! Characters fucked up, looking for revenge, spurred on by tragedy and bearing scars...those are the roles people love to play, because they're full of emotion.
But, the narrative roleplayers would have us believe that fucking up that character, giving them those scars, giving them that emotion is worse than not ever being able to play the character because they're dead. The whole reason they WANT consequences is that drama, they want those scars, they want that emotion.
The very idea that death is better is ludicrous on its face. Always has been, always will be.
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1134202What do all of you do, particularly on the fly, to make things seem challenging, unexpected, and earned?
Random charts.
Seriously. I just roll everything up. It might be easy, it might be hard, they might get no loot, they might get a lot. Whatever the dice say.
When I just judge or decide what should turn up, it's always pretty mediocre. When I roll everything up, the dice surprise me - and then the players do. Gygax put all those charts in the DMG for a reason.
i think i understand what you are saying and it may be an outgrowth of the system you use and how it sets up flow-of-play. I use D6 system, which is largely derived from the old star wars game, and even though I don't think the Space/Fantasy/Adventure books actually mention it, I use the flow laid out in the star wars game that birthed these 3 books.
Adventures are episodes which are broken down into scenes; scenes are typically comprised of encounters, which can devolve into rounds.
A scene can be doomed from the start as an overall failure for the PC side, with the option of minor victories that mitigate what would be greater losses. Think of the battle of Hoth, the empire is going to win unless the GM is down with altering the timeline, so the question becomes how much of the rebel personel and equipment can the players get to saftey before vader enters echo base. A scene can actually be devoid of an encounter beyond some decisions made and non-combat skills rolled. Command skill rolls to quickly get people aboard transports, a decision to load or abandon the power converters in favor of cramming in more infantry etc.
A scene in D6 often involves some in-character roleplay, banter with npcs, general course of action decision making and perhaps some non-combat rolls. A scene can describe the alley they are bartering in with shady merchants for spare parts and maybe include a roll to swindle steal or intimidate. Scenes are often broken down into encounters as well like i just described, but do not collapse into combat rounds unless things go poorly.
A scene can be as simple as the bbeg's army rolling up weak defenders and burning the village, with players getting to make a few decisions about what their characters can do in that and maybe some skill checks. Or a scene might be made of a series of encounters that present problems (how to get past security fence, how to disable security systems, how to transport valuable commodity) that can "go poorly" and devolves into combat rounds (you tripped the fence alarm with your crappy roll, guards in 3...2...1...).
If you use this sort of flow structure you can give players pre-determined hard times tough choices and mandated bloody noses, with the question of how hard or bloody being up to their decision making and dice rolls.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1135779That's always been the biggest load of bullshit imaginable. The idea that "consequences" that allow the player to go on are harsher than death is silly. It's absolutely no coincidence that the people who always throw this one out are narrative roleplayers.
In RPGs you roleplay a character. If you're not playing a tournament scenario, there is no endgame, no win state unless you retire the character. The point is Roleplaying that character. Consequences let you continue to play that character with MORE DRAMA! A lost loved one, Oh the Humanity! Characters fucked up, looking for revenge, spurred on by tragedy and bearing scars...those are the roles people love to play, because they're full of emotion.
But, the narrative roleplayers would have us believe that fucking up that character, giving them those scars, giving them that emotion is worse than not ever being able to play the character because they're dead. The whole reason they WANT consequences is that drama, they want those scars, they want that emotion.
The very idea that death is better is ludicrous on its face. Always has been, always will be.
I probably would not play my character if he has been crippled. I would rather just ship him off to Ye Olde Tavern to retire and roll up a fresh new character.
I have a hundred different characters that I could be playing instead.
Quote from: Shasarak;1135786I probably would not play my character if he has been crippled. I would rather just ship him off to Ye Olde Tavern to retire and roll up a fresh new character.
I have a hundred different characters that I could be playing instead.
Yeah, but permanent disability isn't what we're talking about here, that's a bit of a strawman.
Look at what Itachi pointed to...
- A dear NPC lost/hurt/kidnapped
- a hideout blown
- a rival faction getting stronger
- a valued possession damaged or corrupted
- being forced to do something against one's principles.
These are things harsher than death? Gimme a friggin' break. Itachi's chompin' at the bit to take his character down these roads. The only caveat is, it must be a road he chooses. That's why nearly all the succeed-but consequences of PbtA games are player-chosen. They're not consequences at all. Failure would be an actual consequence. Let's call it what it really is...Success with the chance for you to choose what dramatic opportunity you get to roleplay your character through next.
CRKrueger is right. Harsher is not the right word. interesting is. Consequences the players can't control (or "Yes.. but" as The Exploited put) can make the game interesting, specially so when the group is smart/powerful enough or likes to play safe, and stays in control most of the time, as it takes the control out of them.
Some games have the concept built-in the resolution, as the OP notes, but it's easy to make it work in other games too: just make the rolls more difficult/set higher target numbers, and if the PCs fail, let them succeed anyway if it was a narrow miss but with a complication. Also, you can just throw a bargain their way from time to time "A narrow miss, what a shame... you know what, you may succeed if you leave behind those rations/healing potions/helmet".
It is all about complex boolean instructions: "Yes/no, but/and, with/except/between..."
If it is just a day trip where you punch your ticket and get your souvenir, well yes, that is unsatisfying. The question then is knowing your audience and reading them on how they like to struggle before they win -- and whether they care about playing out the denouement ramifications or just want the happy ending off into the sunset. People come in varieties; listen about a few of their favorite media and lightly emulate some of them. Some like serials more than movies, some like melodramas as series, others sitcom picaresques, some like vignettes... all helps shape how long to ride the tension, to tease out the antici...pation. ;)
Shoot 'em up action guy wants guns a'blazin' combat ride, heist/survivalist wants explore & social prep scenes before a mop up guns a'blazin', drama queen wants feelings in hallways and a cathartic mortal wound while guns a'blazin', and so on. :)
Opaopajr just nailed it, IMO!
Quote from: CRKrueger;1135811The only caveat is, it must be a road he chooses. That's why nearly all the succeed-but consequences of PbtA games are player-chosen.
In PbtA this is shared among GM and players. Usually player chooses when it's a player move, and GM chooses when it's a GM move. Even then, there are exceptions (Act under Fire is a player one and the GM sets the complications). Anyway, it's very easy to change it and let the GM pick everything in case the group prefers that way.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1135811Yeah, but permanent disability isn't what we're talking about here, that's a bit of a strawman.
Look at what Itachi pointed to...
- A dear NPC lost/hurt/kidnapped
- a hideout blown
- a rival faction getting stronger
- a valued possession damaged or corrupted
- being forced to do something against one's principles.
These are things harsher than death? Gimme a friggin' break.
uhh... Newsflash... Its been known a long long time that hitting the players characters STUFF can and will have a big impact. Especially if the players through the characters worked hard to get that stuff. There were articles on this way back in Dragon even on various ways to do this. These things can be harsher than losing the character itself.Same with NPCs and locations.
But.
This only works on players who put more value on their characters stuff than the character. Its going to have little or no impact on a player who swaps gear and discards stuff without a second thought. Or who treat NPCs or places as just transient things.
Personally Im somewhere in between. I tend to have my characters hang onto certain items even when better might be had simply because this was my fist magic item or the getting of the thing was so memorable. Other stuff I swap out as needed. Though usually I prefer to look for ways of just improving what I have if can. I've also gone to alot of trouble to save NPCs that had become part of the group.
Quote from: Omega;1135829uhh... Newsflash... Its been known a long long time that hitting the players characters STUFF can and will have a big impact. Especially if the players through the characters worked hard to get that stuff. There were articles on this way back in Dragon even on various ways to do this. These things can be harsher than losing the character itself.Same with NPCs and locations.
But.
This only works on players who put more value on their characters stuff than the character. Its going to have little or no impact on a player who swaps gear and discards stuff without a second thought. Or who treat NPCs or places as just transient things.
Personally Im somewhere in between. I tend to have my characters hang onto certain items even when better might be had simply because this was my fist magic item or the getting of the thing was so memorable. Other stuff I swap out as needed. Though usually I prefer to look for ways of just improving what I have if can. I've also gone to alot of trouble to save NPCs that had become part of the group.
Makes sense. For a player who just shops whatever seems functional from a list, with little attachment involved, this won't work. But a player who creates a family sword with some story behind will feel the pain when it's stolen.
I think it works better for games where the PCs are
grounded somehow and not just drifting vagabonds. In Beyond the Wall for eg. PCs have relatives, a community, history together. Same for Pendragon, Apocalypse World. Even in Shadowrun the group may share a safehouse in a neighbourhood with a history and liked NPCs. This is the ideal setup for it.
It could work for drifting vagabonds too, only its harder. Quick idea: pick one gear the player shopped, just one, and ask: "Draw it". When he does it, say "Nice, now NAME it". There, instant attachment.
Now you can stole it. :D
I suggest as a minor trick to ramp up tension that you watch what the players do that is pushing the edge of the rules and/or the tone of the game. If you've got strong preferences about a particular thing, then you need to convey those as the GM and enforce what you convey. For example, if you have paladins and expect the paladin to act like a paladin, then everyone needs to know roughly where you draw the line. Nothing out of the ordinary about that.
Where this pays off as a tension technique is when you don't have strong preferences. The tone the players set with their characters is the tone of the overall world when dealing with them. The classic example of course is the party that never takes prisoners and gets a rep, probably gets slaughtered as soon as they are captured by someone who sees no other useful outcome.
One of my stock answers when the players have a dispute among themselves about whether a technique is kosher or not: "Do you want your characters to live in a world where that is the way to handle it?" More often than not, the players don't agree with each other. Instant tension that they then keep up themselves. All I have to do is let it happen. Even if they do agree, they now have a collective worry--no matter which way they decide. It may not look like this answers your original question. But what it does is cause the players to think about restraining themselves as part of playing their characters. This makes succeeding feel more difficult, and when they do succeed despite this "handicap" they feel as if they have achieved something. (This technique also works for minor rules arguments, though that's neither here nor there on this topic.)
Perma killed a PC today.
Certainly made the survivors take notice!
Running The Halls of Tizun Thane and the party decided to ignore the warnings and fight a Night Thing. One PC decided to chase a Night Thing into the woods where it made short work of her.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1135811Yeah, but permanent disability isn't what we're talking about here, that's a bit of a strawman.
How is having your character crippled "a bit of a strawman"?
You were the one claiming that there is nothing worse then having your character killed, and when I give you one thing suddenly that is a strawman.
Meh.
There is one thing worse than having your character killed, and that's your not being able to actively participate in the game session. That's why players hate it so much if their character is imprisoned or crippled. But you can do that with character death, too - you get one character per campaign, once your character dies, you're no longer playing in this campaign. A bit like an actor in a tv series. Works best for short campaigns, of course.
Thats something missing from later versions of D&D. Near death and death death recovery times. Especially AD&D where going to 0 or negative HP and being revived left the character barely able to walk and unable to fight.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1135918There is one thing worse than having your character killed, and that's your not being able to actively participate in the game session. That's why players hate it so much if their character is imprisoned or crippled. But you can do that with character death, too - you get one character per campaign, once your character dies, you're no longer playing in this campaign. A bit like an actor in a tv series. Works best for short campaigns, of course.
My humble 2 cents: A cripple is good when it keeps the game interesting in some way, be it by imposing some manageable handicap, or by opening new story avenues. So a crippled warrior who becomes invalid for life is obviously bad, but a warrior who loses his arm for his arch-enemy and after a long time of training comes back as the famed "one-armed wolf", or Sekiro, is cool and interesting. :)