Also, having my players get on and have a scene on an actual train filled one of my GM bucket list items.
I had a game of All Flesh Must Be Eaten: Fistful of Zombies (Cowboys version basically) in which the group had to rob a train with zombie cowboys as guards to get the gold so that the Confederation couldn't afford weapons for the Civil War. We lost three characters after one player got to the engine and threw dynamite into the burner and blew it up while the train was on the bridge. It was awesome.
I don't railroad in my games, but I do make heavy use of the Illusion of Choice.
Got a really neat goblin encounter you want to run? It just happens to take place along whatever route the PCs take to the next city.
Have an important NPC or clue that the players have to encounter? That goes somewhere just conspicuous enough to make sure they come across it, and if they don't it'll happen another way.
If I have things that I really want to see played out in-game, they're going to happen. And my players are going to think that their choices led to it, instead of other options. You don't need to lay down tracks when you can just shuffle the stops where you need them.
I think Railroading is highly dependent on the group. One group's "OH MY GOD, you are railroading, you aren't letting us do what we want, you suck!" is another group's "Hey, the GM is giving us a great direction and story to go, let's go have an adventure!" And the same group will react differently depending on different contexts (maybe they just played Skyrim and want more of a roaming adventure than a tightly-written-but-one-road plot). If you don't prep ahead of time and the players aren't forthcoming about how to push forward the plot, then you are just as stuck as if you prepped a TON, but the players don't want to use whatever plot you have prepared. Reading the group during your game will give you a better sign than any prep work or any improvisation that you decide to do. And ask for feedback after each session, so you can see if your "read" was accurate. It doesn't have to be a "fill out this form!" type of thing. Just "Hey, did you like that? Did you guys have fun?"
This being said, most GMs create a few "encounters" that are setting-agnostic, and just transplant those prepped encounters to wherever the PCs decide to go. Depending on your system, you can even get away with not preparing the encounters ahead of time and just assigning appropriate values to NPCs and things. Most of my random encounters in Shadowrun 5E is just slapping a professional rating on an NPC and calling it a day (all rolls pretty much boil down to 2 times or 3 times the professional rating).
It also depends on how well you can bluff and hide the fact that you are winging it. Some players are a stickler for GMs having something prepared (mostly because when some GMs are not prepared, it REALLY shows and it kills the flow of the game). A GM that keeps the game going and flowing well probably will never be called out on winging it.
As far as the 3E systems go, they've been very rigorously playtesting it, and the player response so far is almost universally positive. And the playtesters who have spoken are not the sort of people who would be afraid to say if it's shit, or who would be blinded to system flaws due to love of the IP. Just the fact that they're playtesting before release at all is a pretty huge step, frankly. And unlike certain other well-documented RPG playtests recently, these guys seem all too willing to go back to the drawing board if the testers tell them something's not working.
The obvious downside to that being that we're almost a year past the original fulfillment estimate, but I'd rather have a book that's good and late, than sloppy and fast.
Have you seen the leak? I've looked it over and I like the path they're taking with it. Some of my friends are running a game with the leak and they really like it (outside the missing evocations, MA and sorcery, and a few unbalanced charms). I especially like all the new familiar based charms in ride and survival.
It looks like combat can stretch out a little long, but my crew tends to suffer from serious decision paralysis. Getting through 4e dnd was a chore sometimes.
I'm pretty much inherently opposed to a system that has powers to get more XP. There's some baffling design decisions that will hopefully be smoothed out by the actual release (occurring several days after the end of the world and time itself.)
I don't railroad in my games, but I do make heavy use of the Illusion of Choice.
Got a really neat goblin encounter you want to run? It just happens to take place along whatever route the PCs take to the next city.
Have an important NPC or clue that the players have to encounter? That goes somewhere just conspicuous enough to make sure they come across it, and if they don't it'll happen another way.
If I have things that I really want to see played out in-game, they're going to happen. And my players are going to think that their choices led to it, instead of other options. You don't need to lay down tracks when you can just shuffle the stops where you need them.
As much as you always seem lovely, I can't agree at all.
Sometimes there is an inconsequential choice. Turn left or right, doesn't matter, the hounds will sniff you out anyway.
But I really don't like deliberately using Illusion of Choice. I think we used to have to, because of the limitations of older game designs. But nowadays, I want Meaningful Choice in my games. Or Character-driven choice. For example, recently my PCs, one of whom is an orc hunter, found a ship hanging off some rocks, nearly about to lift off into the sea. After investigating, they discovered the oar-benches were full of orc slaves. I wanted to let them decide whether to kill them in cold blood, to deliberately sink the ship, or help them while somehow avoiding a battle. They pushed the ship off and let them sink. Choice and character development. It would really undermine all that if the orcs got free of their chains somehow as the ship sank, or a different band of orcs suddenly popped into appearance elsewhere. They killed those orcs, it was interesting, it's done.
They have recently decided to hand a powerful treasure over to the Elf Queen. That's going to have consequences (War In The North). That was their choice, and I want it to matter. To matter as much as possible.
I don't like the illusion of choice. I think it's just intelligent, careful railroading. That's OK, but nowhere near as good as player-led games and meaningful choice.
I don't railroad in my games, but I do make heavy use of the Illusion of Choice.
Got a really neat goblin encounter you want to run? It just happens to take place along whatever route the PCs take to the next city.
Have an important NPC or clue that the players have to encounter? That goes somewhere just conspicuous enough to make sure they come across it, and if they don't it'll happen another way.
If I have things that I really want to see played out in-game, they're going to happen. And my players are going to think that their choices led to it, instead of other options. You don't need to lay down tracks when you can just shuffle the stops where you need them.
As much as you always seem lovely, I can't agree at all.
Sometimes there is an inconsequential choice. Turn left or right, doesn't matter, the hounds will sniff you out anyway.
But I really don't like deliberately using Illusion of Choice. I think we used to have to, because of the limitations of older game designs. But nowadays, I want Meaningful Choice in my games. Or Character-driven choice. For example, recently my PCs, one of whom is an orc hunter, found a ship hanging off some rocks, nearly about to lift off into the sea. After investigating, they discovered the oar-benches were full of orc slaves. I wanted to let them decide whether to kill them in cold blood, to deliberately sink the ship, or help them while somehow avoiding a battle. They pushed the ship off and let them sink. Choice and character development. It would really undermine all that if the orcs got free of their chains somehow as the ship sank, or a different band of orcs suddenly popped into appearance elsewhere. They killed those orcs, it was interesting, it's done.
They have recently decided to hand a powerful treasure over to the Elf Queen. That's going to have consequences (War In The North). That was their choice, and I want it to matter. To matter as much as possible.
I don't like the illusion of choice. I think it's just intelligent, careful railroading. That's OK, but nowhere near as good as player-led games and meaningful choice.
If you want to think of it as railroading, then it probably needs an addendum; I railroad encounters, not outcomes.
In your example, if the players had chosen a different route or decided not to take the trip that put them out by the sea to discover that boat at all, and I felt that the life-and-death nature of that orc encounter was important to the story or a good opportunity for one or more characters to really flex their roleplaying muscles, then they would still have come across something like it. Not a bizarre inland ship, but maybe a group of orcs trapped in a burning or collapsing building. Or beset by an animal attack. But the choice to aid them or let them die would still be presented, with all the same NPCs and attitudes as much as made sense, if It seemed like a worthwhile use of table time in the first place.
I have no interest in dictating the actions of my players at the table. That would destroy basically all the fun of DMing. But I view it as my job to give them interesting and compelling scenes and situations to interact with, and I only have so much brain space with which to concoct those. If I can build one on the fly based on player action, that's optimal. But otherwise I like to have some in the can to pull out when they feel appropriate or can drive the story.
Oh, the holidays. My table always does a holiday adventure. One year when we were playing Star Wars Saga, we went up against Santa the Hutt to free his Ugnott toy makers. Another year that I was DMing a Pathfinder Evil campaign had the party assaulting a fort guarded by Gnome Gunslingers riding their Dire Turkeys.
Unfortunately, this will be a sad holiday. One of our long time players, the man who got me into this group 8 years ago, in fact, is being transferred by the company he works for to the other side of the US. He'll be leaving the last week of November, stopping to stay with his wife's family for Thanksgiving before finishing the trip.
PSN|AspectVoid
0
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
edited October 2014
Ok, so I was talking about doing a survival horror mission where my players are stuck in a giant carnival with killer robot/cyboslave clowns and other surprises.
Is it bullshit if at one point, I want them to run away from a horde of dudes, so I send like 30 servitors at them, and if they try to fight them, let them die?
Also, a more important question: DM self inserts.
I'm thinking of adding a character to the party, another cop who secretly will be a latent psyker, and playing him as a pseudo-character. He won't be powerful, but he would be a help to the party, maybe he'll lead them to clues that they didn't see, or help them out of a tight spot (Lets say I corner them by a mass of dudes, and because he split from the party, he came back to help by getting them on a rooftop with climbing rope.
This guy is more of a regular NPC, but I wanted to ask about GM self-inserts in general.
I've had a few campaigns where the GM would make characters that would fill places in the party that weren't being filled, like being the driver, a mechanic, or a doctor. Most of the time these would just be regular NPCs that didn't count as part of the party. However, other times, this character would be basically the DM being a player.
Is it a bad idea to do this? How should one conduct themselves with a self insert?
Also, games with lethal gun fights AND melee. How should I treat them?
As you might know, 40k is a universe where assault rifles and rocket launchers are used side by side with chainsaw swords and, well, warhammers.
However, fights in DH are supposed to be like fights in Cyberpunk: Lethal, dangerous, and cover based. Someone can die in one to three hits.
Now, when talking about Sphess Mehrines vs Orks, this isn't a problem. Mehrines have power armor (and energy shields) and Ork skin is tough, so they could do either ranged or melee evenly.
However, when you're just a squishy human, it becomes a little hard to deal with melee (Unless you're a boss, like Gregor Eisenhorn, who still used ranged weapons).
My tech priest player is a mainly melee user.
How should I deal with balancing melee and ranged fights? Let's say this tech priest is charging at a squad of baddies who are firing at the party. Who are they going to fire at? The Judge and the Soldier dude firing at them across a yard, or the metal dude charging at them with a staff?
One of my player suggested allowing the Techpriest have a chance to dodge shots, and to have half the group of enemies pit their attention on him, and the other half on the other players of the party.
Kadoken on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
If you want them to run away, then just increase the number. Make it 100 or 200. That doesn't mean the players will run away but it does tend to mean that they are likely to try a less risky to them plan of attack.
I'm generally against the GM PC. It can be done well, but it can also be awful even with the best of intentions. It sounds like you want to have him around for fail forward kind of things. They fail an investigate check but still get the info. I'd look at other ways to do that. Maybe multiple regular NPCs. Maybe a bloody half note on a corpse they search after a firefight.
If they need saving then use this chance to set up a foil. Someone who saves them but is the kind of annoying shit that you know they are gonna bump heads against. It's chance to seed plot hooks for later, it's a chance to give them some focus and it prevents them from being mad at you for stealing their thunder. A GM PC would be kinda boring at best. But bringing in an NPC who saves them and then maybe lords it over them, or demands repayment for his assistance gives you opportunities for a signature NPC or something when you need something to fill in. Maybe it turns out he's connected to some very filthy Xenos which means the players are connected to said filthy Xenos at one remove. Or maybe he's a good guy who the players are gonna really want to punch but can't.
Players do not like to die. Players are adverse to running. If you've established that this is a game where they can kill the majority of stuff, they need a reason to think they can't kill (or should avoid) this.
Like rabid or zombie servitors, or warp infected, or something that makes them not want to be in combat with one of the things (let alone 100).
And you need to show them that the rules have changed before springing it on them.
Players do not like to die. Players are adverse to running. If you've established that this is a game where they can kill the majority of stuff, they need a reason to think they can't kill (or should avoid) this.
Like rabid or zombie servitors, or warp infected, or something that makes them not want to be in combat with one of the things (let alone 100).
And you need to show them that the rules have changed before springing it on them.
Set them up with a fight they can win first. But make it painful. Throw enough of the things at them to push them a bit, but let them walk away.
Then, before they're even done catching their breath from that, hit them with at least an order of magnitude more guys.
If you hit them with a swarm cold, they'll probably assume they can do it. If you set them up first, beat on them a little, then overwhelm them, it'll have a better chance of sticking.
Players do not like to die. Players are adverse to running. If you've established that this is a game where they can kill the majority of stuff, they need a reason to think they can't kill (or should avoid) this.
Like rabid or zombie servitors, or warp infected, or something that makes them not want to be in combat with one of the things (let alone 100).
And you need to show them that the rules have changed before springing it on them.
Set them up with a fight they can win first. But make it painful. Throw enough of the things at them to push them a bit, but let them walk away.
Then, before they're even done catching their breath from that, hit them with at least an order of magnitude more guys.
If you hit them with a swarm cold, they'll probably assume they can do it. If you set them up first, beat on them a little, then overwhelm them, it'll have a better chance of sticking.
Players hate running, but a lot of games make running a really bad idea
If you are going to work on the idea that players will surrender you need to make it clear that it will work out better than the desperate fight to escape
You could set it up where running gives an advantage. In a Hunter: The Vigil game I played in, we had tracked this shadow creature to a gas station but found that bullets and swords weren't doing shit damage to it. After getting our asses kicked servery, we knew we had to run but as we were leaving someone got the idea to blow up the gas pumps. It damaged the creature, not enough to kill it but enough that we could run. The advantage has to be a one-trick pony thing, something you might have pointed to as important or is pretty obvious (gas pumps outside a gas station), then make it be enough to get them out of there but not give them the power they need to push back.
I've never ever seen a GMPC be a bonus to play. If the party has a weakness that needs help, help them as a GM. Or exploit it for drama. It just takes too much agency away from the party, and uses up GM brainpower that should be spent elsewhere.
I don't know the system, so I don't know whether the Tech Priest is being silly for trying to melee. If he/she is, then talk to him about either changing classes or tactics.
Otherwise, make your battlegrounds and enemies appropriately for the party. Put lots of full cover, and some melee enemies. Give the enemies obvious reinforcements that will arrive soon so the party has to take them down fast, risking even melee. Make the battles match the PCs.
I figure I could take a bear.
+2
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
I forgot to mention that the cop they're going with (I call him Detective Orwell) is also a coccaine addict. Well, the 40k version of Cocaine. 40k Heroin would be Obscura, so I'll call 40k Coke "Lux". So that will help with the jerk angle.
I basically based him off of Jake Norvell's character from Midnight Heat with Al Pacino in Heat. Al Pacino's character, Hanna, was supposed to be a coke head and that's why Pacino played him a little hammy and strung out (Also because he's Al Pacino).
I'm also probably not going to have him be around the part a lot until maybe the end of the adventure. He'll be introduced at the beginning, he'll split near the start of when things go down, and then come back maybe to save them or help them, and depending on how close they are to the end, either split again til' they're near the final confrontation or stick with them.
This guy isn't going to be a regular member of the party.
You know what, thinking about it, maybe I'll make him an Untouchable. An untouchable in 40k lore is someone who has no presence in the warp. They can cancel out psyker abilities and could be invisible to psykers or even demons, depending on the level of emptiness in the warp. This is why the Culexus assassins, who can't be sensed by psykers and their main targets are psykers, are fucking terrifying to psykers. However, as a trade off, people have a very natural distrust of an untouchable, because in their gut they can feel his "Soulessness".
(to expand on this)Casino adventure idea:
I was going to make this guy a regular cop, but I got the psyker idea for a later adventure I'm planning where a casino has been the secret base of a cult, and people who have been playing at the tables have died a few days after visiting, with a black playing card shaped symbol that looks etched into their flesh as the only clue to their murders. Now, what's happening is that the cult is using a toxin built from some chaos psyker tainted ability used on certain cards (Like the 40k version of a Joker card) to kill Imperial workers/agents/officials who have been coming to the casino.
I liked the psyker idea because normal people can't see psyker energy or even psyker vs psyker fights, like in the first Ravenor book. Psyker powers can however frost things over or give a weird feeling to those around the psyker energy. Then again, who's going to do more than raise an eyebrow at this strange feeling mundane-in-their-eyes card. So the idea of the latent psyker cop was that he could see the black marks on the cards and warn the players
Now maybe what I'll do is have the untouchable cop be at the Casino on his own time, but he'll get the black mark but because it's tied to psyker energy it won't do anything to him.
I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are building this GM insert character to upstage the PCs, even if you don't know it. While it's okay to have recurring characters, they should be more of empty slates that you can apply anything to later, rather than fleshed out with huge backstories. A better approach is to make the description of the character vibrant, but the motives and intentions and backstory of the character as vague as possible. When the PCs start speculating about the character ("He's probably some sort of junkie"), use the craziest idea that they come up with and use that as a starting point. *grin* GM-controlled characters in the party need to be in a role where they can get the hell out of the way (General Hammond in Stargate SG-1, the distant Admiral What's-His/Her-Name-Who-Cares? in Star Trek/Wars) or be comic-relief interludes that don't stick around very long. Any time you add a role (even a role that feels "missing"), you are diminishing opportunities for the PCs to improvise or roleplay.
I hate GMPCs as I've never once seen a GM use one correctly. I had one GM that loved to play a GMPC except it was always overpowered and never attacked. In a 4E game, he was playing a "Level 4" Warforged Fighter except he had every power available from level 1-4. We were playing level 1 characters. Didn't help this guy's idea of being a good GM was to try to kill the party with every encounter. Or the time he's character was secretly a God of Mischief. Fair to say I've never played a game with him since.
Don't play a GMPC, play an NPC, who will help set the players on the path, then die or disappear soon after. Hell, if the NPC is secretly setting the PCs up for something terrible he's doing and they only catch on after the fact, you create a nice main villain and personal reasons for the PCs to be doing what they are doing.
If the GMPC has something cool to do, let the players be aware of this cool thing the GMPC can do. Let them also be aware that the GMPC needs the players' help in order to do that cool thing.
For example, something I came up with off-the-cuff:
You have this awesome old wizard who can cast a fireball and wipe out an entire army of orcs, but the thing is he's old and casting that kind of spell takes a lot out of him. He cannot travel safely to where the orcs are because any use of his magical powers on the way will make it all the more likely that his fireball spell will either A) not work kill him or C) both. It's up to the players to protect this wizard so that the wizard can cast his fireball to destroy the orc army. Also maybe this old wizard is somehow tied into the backstory of a player (assuming there's a magic-user in the group). Furthermore, the old wizard wants the players to help him. He is not trying to upstage the players, he fully recognizes that his success relies on the players.
Not the greatest example, but it should give an idea.
I forgot to mention that the cop they're going with (I call him Detective Orwell) is also a coccaine addict. Well, the 40k version of Cocaine. 40k Heroin would be Obscura, so I'll call 40k Coke "Lux". So that will help with the jerk angle.
I basically based him off of Jake Norvell's character from Midnight Heat with Al Pacino in Heat. Al Pacino's character, Hanna, was supposed to be a coke head and that's why Pacino played him a little hammy and strung out (Also because he's Al Pacino).
I'm also probably not going to have him be around the part a lot until maybe the end of the adventure. He'll be introduced at the beginning, he'll split near the start of when things go down, and then come back maybe to save them or help them, and depending on how close they are to the end, either split again til' they're near the final confrontation or stick with them.
This guy isn't going to be a regular member of the party.
You know what, thinking about it, maybe I'll make him an Untouchable. An untouchable in 40k lore is someone who has no presence in the warp. They can cancel out psyker abilities and could be invisible to psykers or even demons, depending on the level of emptiness in the warp. This is why the Culexus assassins, who can't be sensed by psykers and their main targets are psykers, are fucking terrifying to psykers. However, as a trade off, people have a very natural distrust of an untouchable, because in their gut they can feel his "Soulessness".
(to expand on this)Casino adventure idea:
I was going to make this guy a regular cop, but I got the psyker idea for a later adventure I'm planning where a casino has been the secret base of a cult, and people who have been playing at the tables have died a few days after visiting, with a black playing card shaped symbol that looks etched into their flesh as the only clue to their murders. Now, what's happening is that the cult is using a toxin built from some chaos psyker tainted ability used on certain cards (Like the 40k version of a Joker card) to kill Imperial workers/agents/officials who have been coming to the casino.
I liked the psyker idea because normal people can't see psyker energy or even psyker vs psyker fights, like in the first Ravenor book. Psyker powers can however frost things over or give a weird feeling to those around the psyker energy. Then again, who's going to do more than raise an eyebrow at this strange feeling mundane-in-their-eyes card. So the idea of the latent psyker cop was that he could see the black marks on the cards and warn the players
Now maybe what I'll do is have the untouchable cop be at the Casino on his own time, but he'll get the black mark but because it's tied to psyker energy it won't do anything to him.
This honestly sounds like a really bad idea. It sounds like you want to play, to RP this guy. But as GM you absolutely can't, sorry to say.
One of my the things that has been made really clear to me from recent RPG writing is Be a fan of the PCs.
The GM's role is to make them the stars. That doesn't mean make things easy. Stars need challenges, and sometimes stars lose or even die. But THEY are the stars.
That GMPC is very cool. Total star. Really cool. Shouldn't be in the game.
I am of the opinion that there are only two uses for Awesome McGMPC.
1) His awesomeness happens off screen so that the players only see the results, and then Awesome McGMPC hires the PCs to do future awesome things until they make Awesome McGMPC look like a kitten.
2) Awesome McGMPC saves the day at the beginning of the session, and is then is completely curbstomped by the Biggest Bad at the end of the session to show the Players how far they have to grow to win the game.
The only reason a GM should have a PC is if there's a rotating GMing agreement in place; when they're GMing, their character is otherwise occupied elsewhere and not impacting what is going on in the moment.
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
edited October 2014
Guys, he's not a GMPC. He's not an awesomeguy-mcgillicutty. He's going to a normal NPC with average stats except for this untouchable ability. And the thing about that ability: Untouchables can't cancel out psyker stuff a mile away. They have to be close, an depending on the psyker and the level of the untouchable, the psyker is still going to be able to use spells unless the dude is staring right in the face an inch away, and if the psyker is powerful enough, he can still cast shit at him with lower stats or use a gun. The metal sorceror doesn't sweat his ass. He's got bad ass mooks in the way to deal with him. That's if the party even forces him (He doesn't work with groups and even in the carnivale adventure he chose to run is own way when the horde of killer servitors came after the group and he was assigned to them) comes along, because so far, none of the party knows he's an untouchable.
I may have overdone the explanation of Unts. In the Eisenhorn and Ravenor books, they still can be killed by Daemons or psykers, they just might be weaker or have to use more physical means.
Also, when I explained him as "Al Pacino in Heat", I meant he's going I act strung out, or jittery, or maybe a little hammy. He's not going to be as cool or as skilled as Hanna, he's going to act like him.
He's also not going to be a part of the party. He'll be there to introduce missions, then leave and MAYBE come at one part to help the party. He's still a cop. He's still doing his own thing, his own job. He'd be at the casino because maybe he likes to settle down with an evening of Blackjack, not because he's a supercool guy who gambles and he's inestigating the place like a super-sleuth. He's only surving the black mark because of his ability, and the fact that the spell is psyker based and it's technically weak for him, but strong enough that he's going to feel like shit and the guy the inquisitor works with who controls the police is going to sign on the party on investigation.
There has never ever been a point in the history of gaming where a GMPC has increased the amount of fun that the players have in an RPG.
I made it work for me one time. Sort of.
I had a recurring thing where I'd do-up a fully fleshed-out character sheet and put it on the player's side of the table, and hint that there was some complex backstory I had in mind for them. Then I'd instagib them at the outset of the adventure, saying something like, "Oh dear. That was a lot of damage," before grabbing the character sheeting, wrinkling it up and tossing it away.
It became a good in-joke for veteran players, and few new players it created the illusion of high stakes.
My GM has a PC in Ars Magica for when I run side quests.
One of the other players had to borrow her last session because her main character has been aging badly and is currently bedridden. She then fucked up a roll when looking into a pit, got vertigo, and fell in.
I don't think the GM is going to lend out his character any more.
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
GMPCs are never a good idea and they can often dominate or take away from what the PCs are doing. I use NPCs in my trail of Cthulhu game often (James and Elaine in particular), but I am always conscious of the idea that "These guys should never be dominating or dramatically influencing what is happening, that should be the PCs). I do make them very useful however, because it's usually my characters choice that these people turn up in the first place, but I never insert them into an investigation unless its to help advance the story/plot significantly.
I have this problem where I completely forget about NPCs my players have traveling alongside them with stunning regularity. Especially in the middle of battles where I just up and start skipping their turns without realizing.
Bit of a shame, considering I think I do pretty good NPCs.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
One Roll Engine does the "NPC Blob" thing as well. It works great for both enemies and friends (and frenemies). I've yet to use the Reign company rules, which are a step up in complexity, but simply adding a die to the dicepool for each additional member of the group (and subtracting a die every time the cloud takes "wound") works well mechanically. It's one of the main reasons I like running ORE.
My GM has a PC in Ars Magica for when I run side quests.
One of the other players had to borrow her last session because her main character has been aging badly and is currently bedridden. She then fucked up a roll when looking into a pit, got vertigo, and fell in.
I don't think the GM is going to lend out his character any more.
It's worth having a PC as the GM in Ars Magica because 1) they don't need to really do much, they can just stay in the lab and protect the covenant's lair until 2) someone may want to use the troupe GM option and run an adventure, in which case your PC is right there!
I think it's best to keep NPCs as enemies, information sources, or obviously-weaker-and-less-important allies.
The PCs are the stars. Nobody else should be really effective (in the story and game - obviously Gandalf or Sergeant Rock are stronger, but they shouldn't be actively involved in the game).
Even helping the PCs significantly is a no-no, as far as I'm concerned.
If you want an interesting NPC with special powers in your game, they should be passive, ignorant of the main problem, and unwilling to help. Then the PCs get them to help somehow, so that the agency remains with the PCs. And in all other areas than that one special thing, they should be weaker than the PCs. AND they should exit stage left once used.
For example, there have been many adventures I've started to design where the PCs bravely 'summon the cavalry' against an appalling threat. When I was younger I did that. Now I usually scrap it. One time I had the players RP the cavalry, with bonuses to each unit depending on which PC had decided to lead it. That went OK, but just that one time. I think it's a story type that is fine in novels but not in RPGs.
I have also had players take over (edit: I mean like a cut-scene, where they put their characters aside, I passed them these other very simple character sheets with some backstory, and put them in appalling danger) some good NPCs that were the inadvertent victim of their actions. That was fun, and I expected a 100% death rate, so it was impressive some of the NPCs survived, and they ended up helping the PCs considerably later. And THAT didn't bother the PCs, since they felt those NPCs were really them, not me. If that makes some sense.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
If nothing else, Kodoken should interpret the really overwhelming response here as being hard won experience earned independently many times over the years - certainly not an attack.
Posts
I had a game of All Flesh Must Be Eaten: Fistful of Zombies (Cowboys version basically) in which the group had to rob a train with zombie cowboys as guards to get the gold so that the Confederation couldn't afford weapons for the Civil War. We lost three characters after one player got to the engine and threw dynamite into the burner and blew it up while the train was on the bridge. It was awesome.
Got a really neat goblin encounter you want to run? It just happens to take place along whatever route the PCs take to the next city.
Have an important NPC or clue that the players have to encounter? That goes somewhere just conspicuous enough to make sure they come across it, and if they don't it'll happen another way.
If I have things that I really want to see played out in-game, they're going to happen. And my players are going to think that their choices led to it, instead of other options. You don't need to lay down tracks when you can just shuffle the stops where you need them.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This being said, most GMs create a few "encounters" that are setting-agnostic, and just transplant those prepped encounters to wherever the PCs decide to go. Depending on your system, you can even get away with not preparing the encounters ahead of time and just assigning appropriate values to NPCs and things. Most of my random encounters in Shadowrun 5E is just slapping a professional rating on an NPC and calling it a day (all rolls pretty much boil down to 2 times or 3 times the professional rating).
It also depends on how well you can bluff and hide the fact that you are winging it. Some players are a stickler for GMs having something prepared (mostly because when some GMs are not prepared, it REALLY shows and it kills the flow of the game). A GM that keeps the game going and flowing well probably will never be called out on winging it.
There's a reason the most freeform RPGs are also the most stream-lined in terms of rules.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I'm pretty much inherently opposed to a system that has powers to get more XP. There's some baffling design decisions that will hopefully be smoothed out by the actual release (occurring several days after the end of the world and time itself.)
As much as you always seem lovely, I can't agree at all.
Sometimes there is an inconsequential choice. Turn left or right, doesn't matter, the hounds will sniff you out anyway.
But I really don't like deliberately using Illusion of Choice. I think we used to have to, because of the limitations of older game designs. But nowadays, I want Meaningful Choice in my games. Or Character-driven choice. For example, recently my PCs, one of whom is an orc hunter, found a ship hanging off some rocks, nearly about to lift off into the sea. After investigating, they discovered the oar-benches were full of orc slaves. I wanted to let them decide whether to kill them in cold blood, to deliberately sink the ship, or help them while somehow avoiding a battle. They pushed the ship off and let them sink. Choice and character development. It would really undermine all that if the orcs got free of their chains somehow as the ship sank, or a different band of orcs suddenly popped into appearance elsewhere. They killed those orcs, it was interesting, it's done.
They have recently decided to hand a powerful treasure over to the Elf Queen. That's going to have consequences (War In The North). That was their choice, and I want it to matter. To matter as much as possible.
I don't like the illusion of choice. I think it's just intelligent, careful railroading. That's OK, but nowhere near as good as player-led games and meaningful choice.
Gobble Gobble!
In your example, if the players had chosen a different route or decided not to take the trip that put them out by the sea to discover that boat at all, and I felt that the life-and-death nature of that orc encounter was important to the story or a good opportunity for one or more characters to really flex their roleplaying muscles, then they would still have come across something like it. Not a bizarre inland ship, but maybe a group of orcs trapped in a burning or collapsing building. Or beset by an animal attack. But the choice to aid them or let them die would still be presented, with all the same NPCs and attitudes as much as made sense, if It seemed like a worthwhile use of table time in the first place.
I have no interest in dictating the actions of my players at the table. That would destroy basically all the fun of DMing. But I view it as my job to give them interesting and compelling scenes and situations to interact with, and I only have so much brain space with which to concoct those. If I can build one on the fly based on player action, that's optimal. But otherwise I like to have some in the can to pull out when they feel appropriate or can drive the story.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Unfortunately, this will be a sad holiday. One of our long time players, the man who got me into this group 8 years ago, in fact, is being transferred by the company he works for to the other side of the US. He'll be leaving the last week of November, stopping to stay with his wife's family for Thanksgiving before finishing the trip.
Is it bullshit if at one point, I want them to run away from a horde of dudes, so I send like 30 servitors at them, and if they try to fight them, let them die?
Also, a more important question: DM self inserts.
I'm thinking of adding a character to the party, another cop who secretly will be a latent psyker, and playing him as a pseudo-character. He won't be powerful, but he would be a help to the party, maybe he'll lead them to clues that they didn't see, or help them out of a tight spot (Lets say I corner them by a mass of dudes, and because he split from the party, he came back to help by getting them on a rooftop with climbing rope.
This guy is more of a regular NPC, but I wanted to ask about GM self-inserts in general.
I've had a few campaigns where the GM would make characters that would fill places in the party that weren't being filled, like being the driver, a mechanic, or a doctor. Most of the time these would just be regular NPCs that didn't count as part of the party. However, other times, this character would be basically the DM being a player.
Is it a bad idea to do this? How should one conduct themselves with a self insert?
Also, games with lethal gun fights AND melee. How should I treat them?
As you might know, 40k is a universe where assault rifles and rocket launchers are used side by side with chainsaw swords and, well, warhammers.
However, fights in DH are supposed to be like fights in Cyberpunk: Lethal, dangerous, and cover based. Someone can die in one to three hits.
Now, when talking about Sphess Mehrines vs Orks, this isn't a problem. Mehrines have power armor (and energy shields) and Ork skin is tough, so they could do either ranged or melee evenly.
However, when you're just a squishy human, it becomes a little hard to deal with melee (Unless you're a boss, like Gregor Eisenhorn, who still used ranged weapons).
My tech priest player is a mainly melee user.
How should I deal with balancing melee and ranged fights? Let's say this tech priest is charging at a squad of baddies who are firing at the party. Who are they going to fire at? The Judge and the Soldier dude firing at them across a yard, or the metal dude charging at them with a staff?
One of my player suggested allowing the Techpriest have a chance to dodge shots, and to have half the group of enemies pit their attention on him, and the other half on the other players of the party.
I'm generally against the GM PC. It can be done well, but it can also be awful even with the best of intentions. It sounds like you want to have him around for fail forward kind of things. They fail an investigate check but still get the info. I'd look at other ways to do that. Maybe multiple regular NPCs. Maybe a bloody half note on a corpse they search after a firefight.
If they need saving then use this chance to set up a foil. Someone who saves them but is the kind of annoying shit that you know they are gonna bump heads against. It's chance to seed plot hooks for later, it's a chance to give them some focus and it prevents them from being mad at you for stealing their thunder. A GM PC would be kinda boring at best. But bringing in an NPC who saves them and then maybe lords it over them, or demands repayment for his assistance gives you opportunities for a signature NPC or something when you need something to fill in. Maybe it turns out he's connected to some very filthy Xenos which means the players are connected to said filthy Xenos at one remove. Or maybe he's a good guy who the players are gonna really want to punch but can't.
Like rabid or zombie servitors, or warp infected, or something that makes them not want to be in combat with one of the things (let alone 100).
And you need to show them that the rules have changed before springing it on them.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Then, before they're even done catching their breath from that, hit them with at least an order of magnitude more guys.
If you hit them with a swarm cold, they'll probably assume they can do it. If you set them up first, beat on them a little, then overwhelm them, it'll have a better chance of sticking.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This, this, this.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
If you are going to work on the idea that players will surrender you need to make it clear that it will work out better than the desperate fight to escape
I don't know the system, so I don't know whether the Tech Priest is being silly for trying to melee. If he/she is, then talk to him about either changing classes or tactics.
Otherwise, make your battlegrounds and enemies appropriately for the party. Put lots of full cover, and some melee enemies. Give the enemies obvious reinforcements that will arrive soon so the party has to take them down fast, risking even melee. Make the battles match the PCs.
I basically based him off of Jake Norvell's character from Midnight Heat with Al Pacino in Heat. Al Pacino's character, Hanna, was supposed to be a coke head and that's why Pacino played him a little hammy and strung out (Also because he's Al Pacino).
I'm also probably not going to have him be around the part a lot until maybe the end of the adventure. He'll be introduced at the beginning, he'll split near the start of when things go down, and then come back maybe to save them or help them, and depending on how close they are to the end, either split again til' they're near the final confrontation or stick with them.
This guy isn't going to be a regular member of the party.
You know what, thinking about it, maybe I'll make him an Untouchable. An untouchable in 40k lore is someone who has no presence in the warp. They can cancel out psyker abilities and could be invisible to psykers or even demons, depending on the level of emptiness in the warp. This is why the Culexus assassins, who can't be sensed by psykers and their main targets are psykers, are fucking terrifying to psykers. However, as a trade off, people have a very natural distrust of an untouchable, because in their gut they can feel his "Soulessness".
(to expand on this)Casino adventure idea:
I liked the psyker idea because normal people can't see psyker energy or even psyker vs psyker fights, like in the first Ravenor book. Psyker powers can however frost things over or give a weird feeling to those around the psyker energy. Then again, who's going to do more than raise an eyebrow at this strange feeling mundane-in-their-eyes card. So the idea of the latent psyker cop was that he could see the black marks on the cards and warn the players
Now maybe what I'll do is have the untouchable cop be at the Casino on his own time, but he'll get the black mark but because it's tied to psyker energy it won't do anything to him.
Don't play a GMPC, play an NPC, who will help set the players on the path, then die or disappear soon after. Hell, if the NPC is secretly setting the PCs up for something terrible he's doing and they only catch on after the fact, you create a nice main villain and personal reasons for the PCs to be doing what they are doing.
If the GMPC has something cool to do, let the players be aware of this cool thing the GMPC can do. Let them also be aware that the GMPC needs the players' help in order to do that cool thing.
For example, something I came up with off-the-cuff:
You have this awesome old wizard who can cast a fireball and wipe out an entire army of orcs, but the thing is he's old and casting that kind of spell takes a lot out of him. He cannot travel safely to where the orcs are because any use of his magical powers on the way will make it all the more likely that his fireball spell will either A) not work
Not the greatest example, but it should give an idea.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
This honestly sounds like a really bad idea. It sounds like you want to play, to RP this guy. But as GM you absolutely can't, sorry to say.
One of my the things that has been made really clear to me from recent RPG writing is Be a fan of the PCs.
The GM's role is to make them the stars. That doesn't mean make things easy. Stars need challenges, and sometimes stars lose or even die. But THEY are the stars.
That GMPC is very cool. Total star. Really cool. Shouldn't be in the game.
1) His awesomeness happens off screen so that the players only see the results, and then Awesome McGMPC hires the PCs to do future awesome things until they make Awesome McGMPC look like a kitten.
2) Awesome McGMPC saves the day at the beginning of the session, and is then is completely curbstomped by the Biggest Bad at the end of the session to show the Players how far they have to grow to win the game.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I just roll with it. That system is great to work with and takes such things well.
I may have overdone the explanation of Unts. In the Eisenhorn and Ravenor books, they still can be killed by Daemons or psykers, they just might be weaker or have to use more physical means.
Also, when I explained him as "Al Pacino in Heat", I meant he's going I act strung out, or jittery, or maybe a little hammy. He's not going to be as cool or as skilled as Hanna, he's going to act like him.
He's also not going to be a part of the party. He'll be there to introduce missions, then leave and MAYBE come at one part to help the party. He's still a cop. He's still doing his own thing, his own job. He'd be at the casino because maybe he likes to settle down with an evening of Blackjack, not because he's a supercool guy who gambles and he's inestigating the place like a super-sleuth. He's only surving the black mark because of his ability, and the fact that the spell is psyker based and it's technically weak for him, but strong enough that he's going to feel like shit and the guy the inquisitor works with who controls the police is going to sign on the party on investigation.
He's not going to be a GMPC.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
I made it work for me one time. Sort of.
I had a recurring thing where I'd do-up a fully fleshed-out character sheet and put it on the player's side of the table, and hint that there was some complex backstory I had in mind for them. Then I'd instagib them at the outset of the adventure, saying something like, "Oh dear. That was a lot of damage," before grabbing the character sheeting, wrinkling it up and tossing it away.
It became a good in-joke for veteran players, and few new players it created the illusion of high stakes.
One of the other players had to borrow her last session because her main character has been aging badly and is currently bedridden. She then fucked up a roll when looking into a pit, got vertigo, and fell in.
I don't think the GM is going to lend out his character any more.
Bit of a shame, considering I think I do pretty good NPCs.
Mostly deliberately.
"The mercs we brought with us specifically to make this fight easier?"
"You brought mercs?"
"Argh!"
"Okay, assume they're all dead."
Although when running Fate I just throw all the friendly NPCs into a single NPC blob. And all non-named enemy NPCs in the enemy NPC blob.
I love Fate. Fate Fate Fate.
Forgot about them? No, no they're just hiding.
It's worth having a PC as the GM in Ars Magica because 1) they don't need to really do much, they can just stay in the lab and protect the covenant's lair until 2) someone may want to use the troupe GM option and run an adventure, in which case your PC is right there!
The PCs are the stars. Nobody else should be really effective (in the story and game - obviously Gandalf or Sergeant Rock are stronger, but they shouldn't be actively involved in the game).
Even helping the PCs significantly is a no-no, as far as I'm concerned.
If you want an interesting NPC with special powers in your game, they should be passive, ignorant of the main problem, and unwilling to help. Then the PCs get them to help somehow, so that the agency remains with the PCs. And in all other areas than that one special thing, they should be weaker than the PCs. AND they should exit stage left once used.
For example, there have been many adventures I've started to design where the PCs bravely 'summon the cavalry' against an appalling threat. When I was younger I did that. Now I usually scrap it. One time I had the players RP the cavalry, with bonuses to each unit depending on which PC had decided to lead it. That went OK, but just that one time. I think it's a story type that is fine in novels but not in RPGs.
I have also had players take over (edit: I mean like a cut-scene, where they put their characters aside, I passed them these other very simple character sheets with some backstory, and put them in appalling danger) some good NPCs that were the inadvertent victim of their actions. That was fun, and I expected a 100% death rate, so it was impressive some of the NPCs survived, and they ended up helping the PCs considerably later. And THAT didn't bother the PCs, since they felt those NPCs were really them, not me. If that makes some sense.
Sorry, @Kadoken - please don't feel you're getting attacked.