TheRPGSite

One of my goals this year is to get better at using the "Prep Situations, not Plot" approach to GMing. I don't seem to have any trouble doing at least some of the prep this way - e.g., creating motivated antagonists with resources, goals and agendas; creating clocks (these bad things will happen in order if nothing stops them). However once I get to the table I have a lot of trouble turning that into a coherent session.

So I have some inciting incident / hook that lets the player's know what's up (some kind of situation they may want to deal with).

NORMALLY I'd prep a bunch of semi-linear scenes that they have to go through to achieve that goal, then run into problems at the table creatively as things go off the rails (they're supposed to).

There *must* be some published game that gives advice/instruction for how to turn the situation based prep into a bunch of things that happen at the table.

Let's assume that the players have bought into whatever the adventure premise (mine usually do so that's not the issue).

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1017727One of my goals this year is to get better at using the "Prep Situations, not Plot" approach to GMing. I don't seem to have any trouble doing at least some of the prep this way - e.g., creating motivated antagonists with resources, goals and agendas; creating clocks (these bad things will happen in order if nothing stops them). However once I get to the table I have a lot of trouble turning that into a coherent session.

So I have some inciting incident / hook that lets the player's know what's up (some kind of situation they may want to deal with).

NORMALLY I'd prep a bunch of semi-linear scenes that they have to go through to achieve that goal, then run into problems at the table creatively as things go off the rails (they're supposed to).

There *must* be some published game that gives advice/instruction for how to turn the situation based prep into a bunch of things that happen at the table.

Let's assume that the players have bought into whatever the adventure premise (mine usually do so that's not the issue).

I have never written any except on my blog years ago, and I have been the main proponent of situational play for many years. I start things off with a kicker - that is the name Ron Edwards gave to this technique, which has been around since the seventies at least! A kicker is a situation that the PCs MUST respond to, something happening that is NOT directed at the PCs, but is a step towards realizing the goals of one of the organizations. The results of this start defining who the PCs are. The competing organizations should begin to recognize the PCs as PLAYERS, and begin feeling them out. Are they potential allies? Enemies? Distractions? What are their motives? Their resources? Who belongs to them? The next phase of the game is the PCs defining who they are and what they stand for, and thus how the others should treat them. The PCs may or may not know what they are walking into, as they may be from OUTSIDE, but they may also have been lying low and observing. The next phase is the PCs making friends and enemies as they wish - alliances and feuds, subversions, buying out, tricking, and in general attempting to eliminate orgs they feel opposed to.
You should be making changes in the attitudes of the other orgs between sessions based on what happens in the previous sessions. Actions have consequences, for good or ill, and it's in between the sessions that you adjust things. Never assume who will be the PCs' friend or enemy - let them make those decisions. They can react naturally to what you present, and you base the other org's reaction to what they see the PCs do. The other orgs will not change their goals to accommodate the PCs, but they can change the actions they take in pursuing their goals. Do that. As time goes on, the PCs will make their own place in the organizational ecology.
The main point is reacting to actions the PCs initiate, and initiating situations set up by the other orgs that the PCs may or must respond to. Action->Reaction.

Quote from: flyingmice;1017739I start things off with a kicker - that is the name Ron Edwards gave to this technique, which has been around since the seventies at least! A kicker is a situation that the PCs MUST respond to, something happening that is NOT directed at the PCs, but is a step towards realizing the goals of one of the organizations. The results of this start defining who the PCs are. The competing organizations should begin to recognize the PCs as PLAYERS, and begin feeling them out. Are they potential allies? Enemies? Distractions? What are their motives? Their resources? Who belongs to them? The next phase of the game is the PCs defining who they are and what they stand for, and thus how the others should treat them. The PCs may or may not know what they are walking into, as they may be from OUTSIDE, but they may also have been lying low and observing. The next phase is the PCs making friends and enemies as they wish - alliances and feuds, subversions, buying out, tricking, and in general attempting to eliminate orgs they feel opposed to.
You should be making changes in the attitudes of the other orgs between sessions based on what happens in the previous sessions. Actions have consequences, for good or ill, and it's in between the sessions that you adjust things. Never assume who will be the PCs' friend or enemy - let them make those decisions. They can react naturally to what you present, and you base the other org's reaction to what they see the PCs do. The other orgs will not change their goals to accommodate the PCs, but they can change the actions they take in pursuing their goals. Do that. As time goes on, the PCs will make their own place in the organizational ecology.

After 25 years playing RPGs, and talking about them online since the interbutz was invented, why am I only reading this now?
Do you have a link to your blog entries that talk about this kind of structuring?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1017753After 25 years playing RPGs, and talking about them online since the interbutz was invented, why am I only reading this now?
Do you have a link to your blog entries that talk about this kind of structuring?

Ghaa! I'm going back almost a decade here!

https://iflybynight.blogspot.com/2009/09/situational-gming.html - This is the basics

https://iflybynight.blogspot.com/2010/01/building-setting-part-i-in-built.html - ideas for set ups

https://iflybynight.blogspot.com/2010/07/interrupted-plans.html - using these principles for a one off

Hopefully that would get you started! I thought there would be a lot more, but apparently I was posting more in fora back then!

Thank for http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots

That's a good point - I never really thought about having the factions try to reach out and use the players.

Ah! Justin Alexander! He used to come here, I think. Maybe he ran into some of my Situational rants! :D

He did a nice job covering the basics! All good info! What he calls tools I would mostly call resources.

Simple.  Everybody wants something.  They are going to try to move events in a way that gets them what they want.  When the PCs hit the situation, just figure out the logical step for the NPC to get what they want.

I just have some NPCs in mind at a location whether any PCs ever encounter them or not. I do this with any location. The PCs can decide what to do about them. Any stories will happen on their own during encounters with NPCs.

If players are just there to become princesses and live in pink castles, I can't help them.

"May I siege your Pink Castle with my Bombard of Love?"

Quote from: flyingmice;1017795Ah! Justin Alexander! He used to come here, I think. Maybe he ran into some of my Situational rants! :D

He did a nice job covering the basics! All good info! What he calls tools I would mostly call resources.

Justin still posts here regularly or semi-regularly.

In Mythic Constantinople, they have a ton of factions throughout the city.  For each one, in addition to other information, there are two main descriptors:
1. What they say they want.
2. What they really want.

Needs and motivations are extremely important, as Clash and Gronan have said.  If you know what everyone wants, it becomes much easier to see where conflicts are going to arise and how that faction views the PCs.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1017727One of my goals this year is to get better at using the "Prep Situations, not Plot" approach to GMing. I don't seem to have any trouble doing at least some of the prep this way - e.g., creating motivated antagonists with resources, goals and agendas; creating clocks (these bad things will happen in order if nothing stops them). However once I get to the table I have a lot of trouble turning that into a coherent session.

So I have some inciting incident / hook that lets the player's know what's up (some kind of situation they may want to deal with).

NORMALLY I'd prep a bunch of semi-linear scenes that they have to go through to achieve that goal, then run into problems at the table creatively as things go off the rails (they're supposed to).

There *must* be some published game that gives advice/instruction for how to turn the situation based prep into a bunch of things that happen at the table.

Let's assume that the players have bought into whatever the adventure premise (mine usually do so that's not the issue).

Well this thread looks familiar;-)

You've got  a critical thing wrong about how to run an RPG: you're  presupposing an outcome. "I would make linear scenes, they would go through them to the conclusion I have already envisioned" describes a plot.

If you want to get good at situations, you need to eschew this kind of thinking. Take the advice of reading through Justin Alexander's brilliant writing on the subject (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots), in case that hadn't  been made sufficiently clear. What you need to make are antagonists with goals and methods for achieving them at cross-purpose to the heroes (or, I should say "protagonists", I've never had a group that wasn't slightly murder-hobo-y)

If your players like the game to come to them, I suggest giving it teeth. Zack S. is working on a game (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2017/03/hunterhunted-in-demon-city.html) that demonstrates how to prep elements of an ongoing scheme by the antagonists that pursues players who don't actively attempt to thwart it. Come to think of it, he's done that at least twice that I recall... (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2017/06/investigation-as-dungeon.html)

My How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-make-fantasy-sandbox.html) series goes into detail about this.

Note that when I talk about Plot is I am using in the sense of "a plan made in secret" not "the main events of a play, novel, movie, or similar work"

Quote from: estar;1017836My How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-make-fantasy-sandbox.html) series goes into detail about this.

Note that when I talk about Plot is I am using in the sense of "a plan made in secret" not "the main events of a play, novel, movie, or similar work"

Dammit estar, now I've got more reading to do!!!

Quote from: Azraele;1017837Dammit estar, now I've got more reading to do!!!

Sorry man :). But I will say if you have the time and follow the steps you will get something that useful for your campaign. I ate my own dogfood on this when writing the Points of Light setting and Blackmarsh.

But any of the steps can be short circuited if you are confident of winging it from whatever in your head. For me often a map with a few notes is enough. Sometime I need to do more especially if I running stuff in a region that I don't use often. For example my Thursday group is about to explore the Sea of Five Winds. I am not as adept with sea adventures so I have to do more prep to keep on top of things.

The same at first with Middle Earth for my Adventures in Middle Earth campaign.

Use Red Tide, or, really, any Sin Nomine generator. Tie together as you see fit.

Quote from: flyingmice;1017771Ghaa! I'm going back almost a decade here!

https://iflybynight.blogspot.com/2009/09/situational-gming.html - This is the basics

https://iflybynight.blogspot.com/2010/01/building-setting-part-i-in-built.html - ideas for set ups

https://iflybynight.blogspot.com/2010/07/interrupted-plans.html - using these principles for a one off

Hopefully that would get you started! I thought there would be a lot more, but apparently I was posting more in fora back then!

Thanks! I'll check them out.
*Edit* That was quick. Good stuff.
I think a huge problem in GMing is that the actual structures and procedures are rarely explained well. (If at all) It's not that I haven't set up adventures as scenarios, but this kind of explanation helps actually lay out the structure and make it easier to do it well.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1017855Thanks! I'll check them out.
*Edit* That was quick. Good stuff.
I think a huge problem in GMing is that the actual structures and procedures are rarely explained well. (If at all) It's not that I haven't set up adventures as scenarios, but this kind of explanation helps actually lay out the structure and make it easier to do it well.

You are very welcome, Ratman! Any time! :D

Quote from: Justin Alexander;1017857Yes. And then I jumped into a time machine and wrote the article.  ;)

Ah well, I knew who you were, at any rate! It's on me not realizing you were still around, as I don't read as much here as I used to! Glad you are still here, Justin! :D

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1017785That's a good point - I never really thought about having the factions try to reach out and use the players.

I've been noodling around ideas about how to run factions specifically in regards to how they interact with the characters. The best I've come up with so far is a kind of reputation system.* The problem is, if there are a bunch of factions, tracking rep for each one, for each player, could get bogged down in bookkeeping.

*Nothing concrete yet. Just the idea that rep is measured in something similar to xp and levels. Doing favors for one faction raises your faction level, and working against a faction lowers it. Perhaps raising xp in one faction will lower it with another, etc.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1017880I've been noodling around ideas about how to run factions specifically in regards to how they interact with the characters. The best I've come up with so far is a kind of reputation system.* The problem is, if there are a bunch of factions, tracking rep for each one, for each player, could get bogged down in bookkeeping.

Why? Look I get where you coming from but the ultimate point is to help you roleplay NPC X interacting with PC Y. Politics, religion, culture, and faction only matter during the session if it shapes an NPC behavior.

For example in the Adventures in Middle Earth campaign, one of the party is known as a Hero of the Woodsmen. The book has some mechanics about this but by and large I use it to slant how I roleplay NPCs who are Woodsmen. In general they become more friendly once they figure out who they are talking too. But it just a starting point. Subsequent actions can change their attitude. In addition only Woodsmen at Radaghast's steading of Rhosgobel knew about the title. Over time the news spread over the month until last session when even Woodsmen Outlaws living alone in Mirkwood heard about the character and the exploit that earned him the title.

I just note which cultures are friendly to the PCs, which are not and change the note if the PCs does something that warrants a general change in reputation. If I feel the need too I will roll a d6. 1 the NPC is more historical, 2 to 5 the NPC acts as expected (with variations), 6 the NPC has better than expected reaction.

Quote from: estar;1017886Why?

To give the players an explicit grasp on the concept."This faction likes you, this one doesn't"
And I like to brainstorm ideas. Some work out, some don't. Some spur different ideas that do work.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1017906To give the players an explicit grasp on the concept."This faction likes you, this one doesn't"
And I like to brainstorm ideas. Some work out, some don't. Some spur different ideas that do work.

I recommend keeping it to "This faction likes you", rather than some complicated point-tracking system.
I dunno, my Wilderlands game is full of factions, they often have views of the PCs (and vice versa) but I don't find any value in a metric. If a PC wants to know what the Rangers of the Wode think of him, he could ask a Ranger. A lot of the political gameplay comes out of interaction between NPC factions so I'm usually more tracking stuff like what Lord Bronze of Hara thinks about the Nerathi Black Sun - when he betrayed the Black Sun and pledged allegiance to Hakeem (PC) it was a major turning point.

The Child Eaters, my first RPGPundit Presents adventure scenario (for Lion & Dragon/Dark Albion of course) has gotten some criticism for people in that it's not an adventure with a plot, per se. It's a setup of a whole place, people and groups, with a situation. But the resolution of how that all plays out is left up to the GM and the players.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1018248The Child Eaters, my first RPGPundit Presents adventure scenario (for Lion & Dragon/Dark Albion of course) has gotten some criticism for people in that it's not an adventure with a plot, per se. It's a setup of a whole place, people and groups, with a situation. But the resolution of how that all plays out is left up to the GM and the players.

Why I have only written three adventures, ever, and none for the last decade or so. They aren't adventures as most people know them, and I don't like saying a thing is X when it is most definitely not X but may possibly be the square root of 1.

Quote from: flyingmice;1018259Why I have only written three adventures, ever, and none for the last decade or so. They aren't adventures as most people know them, and I don't like saying a thing is X when it is most definitely not X but may possibly be the square root of 1.

They used to be called modules... If well presented I love an adventure that doesn't have any plot other than maybe some hints as to what the goals of any major NPCs are.

Frank

Quote from: RPGPundit;1018248The Child Eaters, my first RPGPundit Presents adventure scenario (for Lion & Dragon/Dark Albion of course) has gotten some criticism for people in that it's not an adventure with a plot, per se. It's a setup of a whole place, people and groups, with a situation. But the resolution of how that all plays out is left up to the GM and the players.

Now, to me that sounds awesome.  But I'm a bad-tempered flatulent old curmudgeon who has publicly stated that "modules" are the worst thing to ever happen to RPGs.  In other words, not the mass market audience for modules.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1017727One of my goals this year is to get better at using the "Prep Situations, not Plot" approach to GMing. I don't seem to have any trouble doing at least some of the prep this way - e.g., creating motivated antagonists with resources, goals and agendas; creating clocks (these bad things will happen in order if nothing stops them). However once I get to the table I have a lot of trouble turning that into a coherent session.

So I have some inciting incident / hook that lets the player's know what's up (some kind of situation they may want to deal with).

NORMALLY I'd prep a bunch of semi-linear scenes that they have to go through to achieve that goal, then run into problems at the table creatively as things go off the rails (they're supposed to).

There *must* be some published game that gives advice/instruction for how to turn the situation based prep into a bunch of things that happen at the table.

Let's assume that the players have bought into whatever the adventure premise (mine usually do so that's not the issue).

Well, you need to give the players opposition, so they act. Then the world reacts to their action (which they might see as a reaction, themselves). I think that's what PbtA games call "the first session".
In fact, the concept of "the first session" is worth reading, if you can find a free PbtA game (or if you own one of those already).
Ron Edwards calls this concept a Kicker and...

Quote from: flyingmice;1017739I have never written any except on my blog years ago, and I have been the main proponent of situational play for many years. I start things off with a kicker - that is the name Ron Edwards gave to this technique, which has been around since the seventies at least! A kicker is a situation that the PCs MUST respond to, something happening that is NOT directed at the PCs, but is a step towards realizing the goals of one of the organizations. The results of this start defining who the PCs are. The competing organizations should begin to recognize the PCs as PLAYERS, and begin feeling them out. Are they potential allies? Enemies? Distractions? What are their motives? Their resources? Who belongs to them? The next phase of the game is the PCs defining who they are and what they stand for, and thus how the others should treat them. The PCs may or may not know what they are walking into, as they may be from OUTSIDE, but they may also have been lying low and observing. The next phase is the PCs making friends and enemies as they wish - alliances and feuds, subversions, buying out, tricking, and in general attempting to eliminate orgs they feel opposed to.
You should be making changes in the attitudes of the other orgs between sessions based on what happens in the previous sessions. Actions have consequences, for good or ill, and it's in between the sessions that you adjust things. Never assume who will be the PCs' friend or enemy - let them make those decisions. They can react naturally to what you present, and you base the other org's reaction to what they see the PCs do. The other orgs will not change their goals to accommodate the PCs, but they can change the actions they take in pursuing their goals. Do that. As time goes on, the PCs will make their own place in the organizational ecology.
The main point is reacting to actions the PCs initiate, and initiating situations set up by the other orgs that the PCs may or must respond to. Action->Reaction.

OK, that's a much better explanation than Ron Edwards' own:D!

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1017785That's a good point - I never really thought about having the factions try to reach out and use the players.

Oh yes, they should, and powerful NPCs count as a faction, too:).
In fact, they should also reach out "under false flag", if possible, and misdirect, and so on. And you should explain to the players that the PCs allying with a faction, or making their own faction, is pretty much a given;).

Quote from: ffilz;1018262They used to be called modules... If well presented I love an adventure that doesn't have any plot other than maybe some hints as to what the goals of any major NPCs are.

Frank

Well aware of that, Frank! I'm slightly older than Gronan though he's been in the hobby longer! Anyway, that "if well presented" is always problematic with me. It's all about personal taste, and my personal taste is always askew. Best I can hope for reaction-wise is something like "Well! That was... interesting...". :D

I think the challenge I tend to have is even when I come up with multiple factions, motivated antagonists, or whatever, I tend to end up improving 1 step adventures. That is, PC's want to stop terrible thing X from happening, and NPC Y really wants to have terrible thing Y happen. Without, in advance, plotting out a whole bunch of steps (scenes), which is what I'm trying to get away from what I end up improving at the table is very unsatisfying. Example:

1. Players - let's go ask this NPC who is really behind this (we have a quick scene where they find out who is behind this);
2. Players, let's go shank the person behind this (combat where they shank the person).

As you can see, this improved 2 step adventure is super unsatisfying, but it's pretty much what happens when my players go off the rails to do their own thing. Which is great, I want them to do that, and I'd love to do 90% less prep, but when I improv with them what gets improv'd is VERY unsatisfying (at least in terms of number of steps to their goal and how challenging those steps are)

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1018312I think the challenge I tend to have is even when I come up with multiple factions, motivated antagonists, or whatever, I tend to end up improving 1 step adventures. That is, PC's want to stop terrible thing X from happening, and NPC Y really wants to have terrible thing Y happen. Without, in advance, plotting out a whole bunch of steps (scenes), which is what I'm trying to get away from what I end up improving at the table is very unsatisfying. Example:

1. Players - let's go ask this NPC who is really behind this (we have a quick scene where they find out who is behind this);
2. Players, let's go shank the person behind this (combat where they shank the person).

As you can see, this improved 2 step adventure is super unsatisfying, but it's pretty much what happens when my players go off the rails to do their own thing. Which is great, I want them to do that, and I'd love to do 90% less prep, but when I improv with them what gets improv'd is VERY unsatisfying (at least in terms of number of steps to their goal and how challenging those steps are)

Why is shanking the person behind it one step?

What system and campaign are you running?

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1018312I think the challenge I tend to have is even when I come up with multiple factions, motivated antagonists, or whatever, I tend to end up improving 1 step adventures. That is, PC's want to stop terrible thing X from happening, and NPC Y really wants to have terrible thing Y happen. Without, in advance, plotting out a whole bunch of steps (scenes), which is what I'm trying to get away from what I end up improving at the table is very unsatisfying. Example:

1. Players - let's go ask this NPC who is really behind this (we have a quick scene where they find out who is behind this);
2. Players, let's go shank the person behind this (combat where they shank the person).

As you can see, this improved 2 step adventure is super unsatisfying, but it's pretty much what happens when my players go off the rails to do their own thing. Which is great, I want them to do that, and I'd love to do 90% less prep, but when I improv with them what gets improv'd is VERY unsatisfying (at least in terms of number of steps to their goal and how challenging those steps are)

Wouldn't it be more interesting if the NPC lied to them, and they shanked an innocent person? There's a game that writes itself...

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1018312I think the challenge I tend to have is even when I come up with multiple factions, motivated antagonists, or whatever, I tend to end up improving 1 step adventures. That is, PC's want to stop terrible thing X from happening, and NPC Y really wants to have terrible thing Y happen. Without, in advance, plotting out a whole bunch of steps (scenes), which is what I'm trying to get away from what I end up improving at the table is very unsatisfying. Example:

1. Players - let's go ask this NPC who is really behind this (we have a quick scene where they find out who is behind this);
2. Players, let's go shank the person behind this (combat where they shank the person).

The thing you need to put more work into is not your "stories" or "plots" or "adventures."

The thing you need to put more work into is your NPCs!  Is NPC Y a complete, total, and utter imbecile?  No?  Then what has he/she/it/they/xu/fnord done by way of precautions to protect themselves?

Once you answer THAT question... the adventures, they run themselves!

Quote from: Azraele;1018320Wouldn't it be more interesting if the NPC lied to them, and they shanked an innocent person? There's a game that writes itself...

First, this, but only if the NPC was really lying, and they haven't guessed right:).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1018336The thing you need to put more work into is not your "stories" or "plots" or "adventures."

The thing you need to put more work into is your NPCs!  Is NPC Y a complete, total, and utter imbecile?  No?  Then what has he/she/it/they/xu/fnord done by way of precautions to protect themselves?

Once you answer THAT question... the adventures, they run themselves!

And second, this!
I mean, do your NPCs so suck at misdirecting people? If so, how did they survive long enough to get the influence to make Terrible Thing X possible;)?

Let me give you my favourite example.
The PCs in a wuxia campaign I ran are summoned (literally) by the Celestial Bureaucracy. They arrive via spell.
On the way out, a corrupt Celestial Official (most certainly possible) gives them the "additional task" of visiting a hermit on a mountain with a bad fame.
They did, and didn't question what the hermit asked them to do. End result, they freed a powerful demon. Because an NPC asked them to:D!
It was a fun thing how much they had to work to deal with it.

And not just misdirecting.  When I set up a bad guy lair, I make notes of procedures and tactics, what spells the spellcasters usually have and when they use them, etc.

Yes, the plan of battle is always the first casualty, but it's a hell of a lot better than not having a plan of battle.

Again, this is something that is obvious to all of you, but wasn't to me, and at the table doesn't occur to me.

It *seems* like there are some generic classes of "reasons why you don't immediately achieve your goal"

1. information incorrect (e.g., lied to)
2. need to find information to proceed to goal (e.g., don't know where big bad is)
3. someone or something is actively stopping you from completing your current step
4. someone or something is messing with you for a reason unrelated to your goal
5. you need to do something else to complete step (e.g., NPC will tell you X but only if you do Y, to get out of the city you need to steal a car)
6. something structurally is stopping you from implementing your tactic to complete your goal (e.g., NPC has magical "can't be surprised" ring so the 'lets just surprise him' plan won't work without modifications)

Is this kind of what we're talking about? Because from playing with better GMs than I I think this is the kind of thing they were doing.

If this is the kind of thing we're talking about, is there a list of things like this (I just made the above up based on this discussion) that I could get out of some published RPG book and print out and leave in front of me during the game?

Not that I know of.

But again, DEVELOP YOUR NPCs.  Mister Boggis is head of the Thieves' Guild.  What is the structure of the Guild?  What are Mister Boggis' skills?  What precautions does he take about his own safety?  Where does he sleep?  Does he never leave the Guild hall?  Does he travel with bodyguards?  What is the layout of the Thieves' Guild hall?  What guards/patrols do they have?

Answer all those questions beforehand, and you won't HAVE to keep a list in front of you.

All of this is what you are looking for. The NPCs in the factions you are using are the key. Set them up at the beginning! Know their assets - their skills, strengths, and M.O.

• Assume competency. They wouldn't get where they are without it.
• The leader is the best LEADER, not necessarily the best fighter. Leaders delegate to the best suited operatives available. I know video games teach us that the boss ALWAYS is the biggest combat threat, but really that is seldom the case
• Leaders have tricks and contingency plans
• Leaders don't casually meet up with other factions, and NEVER alone. That is a role for grunts and flunkies.
• Set up several levels of more generic operators - grunts are warriors (many) trained to work together, flunkies are skill people (less) and specialists, lieutenants are individuals (few) - basically Leaders in training, and of course trusted bodyguards, the best and smartest fighters.
• Home base is most likely designed for defense - traps, tricks, fields of fire, and control of access
• There is NEVER only one way out

If you are able to destroy a faction by shivving some punk in an alley, it wasn't much of a faction in the first place.

Well, first of all, no person would put themselves in a vulnerable situation with a bunch of potential murderhobos. They'd probably have meetings be several steps removed -- happening indirectly, through messengers, with lots of guards present, etc.

My previous post was predicated on the game being a typical anarchic points-of-light type setting. If you are casually shivving people in alleys in civilized lands, both the faction and the government should respond. Generally police take a dim view of people getting shivved in their alleys. :D

Mmmm, depends on setting.  Medieval towns didn't have a "police" per se.  The citizen discovering the corpse would raise the hue and cry.

And odds are they'd simply hang the first foreigner they found outside after curfew and call it done.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1018556Again, this is something that is obvious to all of you, but wasn't to me, and at the table doesn't occur to me.

It *seems* like there are some generic classes of "reasons why you don't immediately achieve your goal"

1. information incorrect (e.g., lied to)
2. need to find information to proceed to goal (e.g., don't know where big bad is)
3. someone or something is actively stopping you from completing your current step
4. someone or something is messing with you for a reason unrelated to your goal
5. you need to do something else to complete step (e.g., NPC will tell you X but only if you do Y, to get out of the city you need to steal a car)
6. something structurally is stopping you from implementing your tactic to complete your goal (e.g., NPC has magical "can't be surprised" ring so the 'lets just surprise him' plan won't work without modifications)

Is this kind of what we're talking about? Because from playing with better GMs than I I think this is the kind of thing they were doing.

If this is the kind of thing we're talking about, is there a list of things like this (I just made the above up based on this discussion) that I could get out of some published RPG book and print out and leave in front of me during the game?

I can't think of a  list more concise and informative than the one you just made. Congratulations! You're a pioneer XD

For further developing your lil cheatsheet there, I recommend the following things:

1. A mental exercise: what prevents you from doing things you want in real life? Stiff competition? Lack of proper resources? Laws and those who enforce them? Digging into this will give you more reasonable options for opposition faced by characters, and give you a good handle  on the why/when/how that it manifests

2. Research: watch some action movies (bond  movies are fantastic for this) and take notes on what stands between the hero and the final showdown. Minions, mini-bosses, defenses, jurisdiction, anything that a  screen writer throws up between a protagonist and dishing out a righteous ass-kicking is fertile dirt to mine for more general ideas.

If you combine this list with some healthy, well-prepared bad guy organizations (again, the Alexandrian is a goldmine for how to do this) you're set.

That's all good advice. I'm very good at GMing stuff in the moment - I can narrate stuff, play NPCs, describe scenes, etc. in a very engaging way. I'm even pretty good at coming up with cool scenario premises. The challenge for me is coming up with this stuff.

My players in our Deadlands Noir game came up with a kind of neat solution to a problem, so I just let them implement it and succeed. They just thwarted the NPC's / Factions as they had planned. Things ended kind of abruptly, and after the initial glow of "we're awesome," it was kind of unsatisfying.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1018631That's all good advice. I'm very good at GMing stuff in the moment - I can narrate stuff, play NPCs, describe scenes, etc. in a very engaging way. I'm even pretty good at coming up with cool scenario premises. The challenge for me is coming up with this stuff.

My players in our Deadlands Noir game came up with a kind of neat solution to a problem, so I just let them implement it and succeed. They just thwarted the NPC's / Factions as they had planned. Things ended kind of abruptly, and after the initial glow of "we're awesome," it was kind of unsatisfying.

One of the reasons that I love the Adventurer Conqueror King system is that it details the high-level play of running things like criminal organizations, kingdoms, etc. So that when, for example, the players take out faction, it creates a playable power vacuum that they then have to deal with, generating the grist for future sessions.

Maybe put some thought into the negative consequences of such organizations being suddenly destroyed? Power vacuums, vengeful underlings, splinter factions, even something like a newspaper in the faction's employ running a negative spin on the heroes as "dangerous vigilantes" all seem like contenders for such a list. Just be cautious not to over-punish success!

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1018631That's all good advice. I'm very good at GMing stuff in the moment - I can narrate stuff, play NPCs, describe scenes, etc. in a very engaging way. I'm even pretty good at coming up with cool scenario premises. The challenge for me is coming up with this stuff.

My players in our Deadlands Noir game came up with a kind of neat solution to a problem, so I just let them implement it and succeed. They just thwarted the NPC's / Factions as they had planned. Things ended kind of abruptly, and after the initial glow of "we're awesome," it was kind of unsatisfying.

Probably in large part because it was too simple. As a GM, you should never let an action be without consequences. Even if their plan was perfect in every way, no plan survives contact with the enemy, and when - not it - it goes off the rails, they will have to improvise and do their best without. Even if they ultimately succeed - and if the idea was really good enough they should unless they mess up the execution totally - there will always be unforseen consequences. Maybe this faction served as a check on another, and without it, the other rapidly gains power. Maybe the survivors vow vengeance on the PCS. Maybe the PCs just replaced King Log with King Stork. There are a lot of ways things could go.

For the record, my new Adventure scenario, The Secret Order of the Red Lady (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/230839/RPGPundit-Presents-14-The-Secret-Order-of-the-Red-Lady), is also set up in a sandbox style.