Ravens N' Pennies - GURPS Content Posts

[Christopher R. Rice]

Assembly Required: Development Step Six - Campaign Goals

So how to wrap up exactly what you want to do in your campaign - set some goals. Stick to those goals. Go from there. It really is that easy. This will be the last of the Assembly Requires posts until I can decide if it's popular enough to continue (which it seems to be) - if you like it and want to see more plus share it, +1 it, and so on.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Gamemaster's Guidepost: Player Psychology

What makes players tick? How do you get them to have fun? Well...you get into their head. You find out what they want (even if they don't want to tell you) and then you force feed it to them until they can do the RPG truffle shuffle of characterization. That's right, in today's Guidepost I talk about getting your players to have fun and how to do it like a sneaky ninja pirate GM.

[Dwarf99]

Overall, that was a pretty good article. I couldn't help but read. Mostly the last two paragraphs were great. I did have a few minor nitpicks

Railroading Without any Rails
<snip>If you want someone to do what you want the first thing you do is give them no choices, then you ask them what they want to do all the while suggesting what you don't want them to do and what you do want them to do.

In all my time GMing, I never really did that. I propose a situation, let them decide what to do about it, and it turned out that what they decided led them the direction I wanted them to go. For example: I had a two separate groups put in a situation where ogres with chain guns shot down a pickpocket in cold blood. One decided to ask around why that was possible and people just look the other way, and it ended up being a game about who greased the wheels of politics. The others confronted the ogres from an ambush position where they were able to leap onto the ogres before they knew the party was there. They found the ogres had a tatoo of a signet. Both groups ended up on a long winding path to the BBEG, and they both 'did it right'.

The Sandbox is a Lie (Like the Cake)
That's right. I said it. I'm going to let some of you pick your jaws up off the ground before I continue. We good? Excellent. Sandbox play works in only two ways: 1) videogames and 2) with very active, very story-driven players. That's it. I used to be a fan of "Let the players decide" but I was also running brand new campaigns every two weeks or so. It doesn't work.

It did for me. Actually that same BBEG was not killed permanently (until 2012), and every time I ran that game it would either be a technological progression, or regression, depending on the general mood of the party. I even hopped worlds with that one once, which really worked because one of my players had a OC that would hop worlds and never be the same between worlds because of the physics defining each world. So yeah, there were times when I ran the same campaign at a different TL, but the actual spirit of the game never changed, and various groups were always satisfied with the experience. Heck, I used to run 50+ hours of gaming weekends. There was a 30 hour segment in one where the party decided to crack BBEG jokes while taking pot shots at commanders in his army, in the style of yo' momma or other famous tropes and it was because that was what the players collectively decided to do.

Players need to have some sort of guidance from the GM - they just need it.

I'll note that this is true, but the guidance can come after a decision point too. Players decide whether they want to jump into the action, or step back and think, and I'm equally prepared to respond either way in most circumstances. I've only ever been blindsided twice, and each time it was because they decided to kill an NPC because of its race, or because they were greedy and there was a reward.

Especially with the latest generation who are used to computer and videogames where they are given a list of finite choices (which weirdly is still Sandbox play even though the choices are limited). Avoid this style of play if you can, players (no matter what they tell you) always want some form of choice set before them.

Sometimes having an understanding player helps. I have a consistent player in my games that in his own weird way inspires discussion between the other players how to go about the next situation, and all this happens without any influence from me. One of his more comical responses to a situation was "Ok, is our default stance murder or talking?" in reference to a situation where they heard a car coming down the road. The only actual plans I had for the car were "respond with hostility if possible". They ended up shooting out a tire which caused the car to ram a tree and kill the occupants (really good rolls on that one, and I wasn't bothered, because I didn't have any prior investment in the car).

Anywho, the long and short of it is that each group is somewhat different. I don't really think the player is consciously aware that he's doing what he's doing, on a level more than just him being silly, but it works for our games. Having players that get into their characters on that kind of level does make gaming easier. Perhaps having a situation involving a character that can act on that impulse (i.e. a character driven response paradigm) is almost necessary for sandbox?

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

Overall, that was a pretty good article. I couldn't help but read. Mostly the last two paragraphs were great. I did have a few minor nitpicks

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

In all my time GMing, I never really did that. I propose a situation, let them decide what to do about it, and it turned out that what they decided led them the direction I wanted them to go. For example: I had a two separate groups put in a situation where ogres with chain guns shot down a pickpocket in cold blood. One decided to ask around why that was possible and people just look the other way, and it ended up being a game about who greased the wheels of politics. The others confronted the ogres from an ambush position where they were able to leap onto the ogres before they knew the party was there. They found the ogres had a tatoo of a signet. Both groups ended up on a long winding path to the BBEG, and they both 'did it right'.

Interesting. While I'm not trying to say I've had more expeirence than you (I don't know your situation) - I have had over 300 players play under me for extended periods of time (I don't count them in my ledgers unless they've played at least four game sessions or one month) and ran almost as many campaigns in the last 20 (going on 21) years. I've ran a game with as little as one player and games as big as 24. I've ran damn near every type of RPG out there. From the old Indian Jones RPG to Amber to World of Darkness to whatever you can think of. And I can tell you from those thousands of hours that having a guiding overall plan is almost required if you intend to run it for more than a few weeks.

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

It did for me. Actually that same BBEG was not killed permanently (until 2012), and every time I ran that game it would either be a technological progression, or regression, depending on the general mood of the party. I even hopped worlds with that one once, which really worked because one of my players had a OC that would hop worlds and never be the same between worlds because of the physics defining each world. So yeah, there were times when I ran the same campaign at a different TL, but the actual spirit of the game never changed, and various groups were always satisfied with the experience. Heck, I used to run 50+ hours of gaming weekends. There was a 30 hour segment in one where the party decided to crack BBEG jokes while taking pot shots at commanders in his army, in the style of yo' momma or other famous tropes and it was because that was what the players collectively decided to do.

I've done that. I had a Ravenloft game about a darklord who couldn't sleep (and thus dream) so all of his subjects had nightmares or insomnia and the land was haunted by the things from people's dreams last just over 84 hours. I ruled that if you went to sleep, so did you character. Eventually, there was only four people left when the dark lord was defeated (which he always craved because he didn't die and got the closest to sleep he could when "dead"). Again, in my experience (which is what my blog is about if I may bluntly say so) the sandbox doesn't work. It never has. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but every GM I personally know doesn't use that approach because players never take the bait.

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

I'll note that this is true, but the guidance can come after a decision point too. Players decide whether they want to jump into the action, or step back and think, and I'm equally prepared to respond either way in most circumstances. I've only ever been blindsided twice, and each time it was because they decided to kill an NPC because of its race, or because they were greedy and there was a reward.

That was obvious (which was why I didn't mention it). :-)

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

Sometimes having an understanding player helps. I have a consistent player in my games that in his own weird way inspires discussion between the other players how to go about the next situation, and all this happens without any influence from me. One of his more comical responses to a situation was "Ok, is our default stance murder or talking?" in reference to a situation where they heard a car coming down the road. The only actual plans I had for the car were "respond with hostility if possible". They ended up shooting out a tire which caused the car to ram a tree and kill the occupants (really good rolls on that one, and I wasn't bothered, because I didn't have any prior investment in the car).

LOL! I had a player like that once upon a moon. Those guys are the glue of any group of large players.

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

Anywho, the long and short of it is that each group is somewhat different. I don't really think the player is consciously aware that he's doing what he's doing, on a level more than just him being silly, but it works for our games. Having players that get into their characters on that kind of level does make gaming easier. Perhaps having a situation involving a character that can act on that impulse (i.e. a character driven response paradigm) is almost necessary for sandbox?

Yes. I agree. But again, in my experience this is what's worked best and what hasn't. In the end players are obstinate things no matter how much they'll work with the GM and you really do need to do your level best as a GM to entice them with shiny baubles - even if the baubles are things they don't know that they want.

[Dwarf99]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Thank you.

Interesting. While I'm not trying to say I've had more expeirence than you (I don't know your situation) - I have had over 300 players play under me for extended periods of time (I don't count them in my ledgers unless they've played at least four game sessions or one month) and ran almost as many campaigns in the last 20 (going on 21) years.

Fair enough, I've only had about half that

And I can tell you from those thousands of hours that having a guiding overall plan is almost required if you intend to run it for more than a few weeks.

I'm fine with that statement as long as the word 'guiding' is omitted. I have a start point, and end point and all the points in between have pretty much been based on what players keyed in on with no particular preference from me. I have only had a few games that didn't pass the 6 month mark. Most of them were unrelated to the level of guidance. I was accused of railroading once when I did present multiple options, in a manner that was more guiding.

In one instance, the players were pointed to a town that was 'rumored to hate dwarves' because they were told the BBEG might be there, 'but he always has his personal legion on hand'. So they were asked what they wanted to do about the dwarves in the party 'oh we'll just go in, they won't do anything obvious, otherwise you'd think we would see dwarves on those gallows. We'll do a little recon.'

So I tell them how there's an arena serviced by a small smithy, an apothecary, and an adjacent tavern, but otherwise not many landmarks that the players would find noteworthy (there weren't any rogueish types so the apothecary went unnoticed). So in typical Adventuring Logic fashion, they went to the tavern. The elf behind the bar greeted them in a passively racist way, kind of like a certain merchant in Dragon Age. One of the dwarves orders up a drink. He starts to feel very angry (it was enchanted to inflict the Berserk disadvantage, and to inflict Self Destruct if his enraged state was lethal for any of his victims).

So they decide to go to the arena in the hopes that his madness can be worked out there. I don't rightly recall who told him he'd been so cursed, but he was informed right before entering the arena. He said he wanted to go anyway. So they do all the paperwork off screen and end standing in the sand pit, looking right at the BBEG and his 1000 man elite 'legion'. So the dwarf then decides to take it personally that I gave him that curse even though I'd made clear dwarves are hated there. (By the way, if you haven't figured out, they're my favorite race)

So I had to make it obvious to him "you don't have to kill anyone, you merely have to attack them if you fail your roll which you won't get penalized for bad RP because it's a temporary situation. Your party member does not have to stand there and watch you die, and they don't have to fight against stupid odds either. Combined, they can drag you down and out if necessary. The gates have not closed behind you. You are not in any way 'trapped'"

But I was accused of railroading because I was 'forcing him to run away or die'

Once the situation was fully explained to him though, he admits (to my agreement) that fault for the situation was pretty much mutual.

That was obvious (which was why I didn't mention it). :-)

Sometimes it isn't based on how things are framed. Sorry about seeming presumptuous on the issue if I have done so. I'm not sure really.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

Fair enough, I've only had about half that

Still respectable! :-)

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

I'm fine with that statement as long as the word 'guiding' is omitted. I have a start point, and end point and all the points in between have pretty much been based on what players keyed in on with no particular preference from me. I have only had a few games that didn't pass the 6 month mark. Most of them were unrelated to the level of guidance. I was accused of railroading once when I did present multiple options, in a manner that was more guiding.

Again, my blog, my experience. I'm not going to exclude my opinion for anyone. You can't have a "wrong" opinion. I understand where you are coming from mind you, but that has not been my experience nor has it been the experience of any GM I'm personally acquainted with. My brother tried to sandbox a Shadowrun campaign and it fell apart within hours and he's very good at running that particular RPG.

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

But I was accused of railroading because I was 'forcing him to run away or die'

Once the situation was fully explained to him though, he admits (to my agreement) that fault for the situation was pretty much mutual.

The thing about railroading is that if you give your players the tickets for a comfy train car they aren't allowed to complain later. That is - tell them what you expect going in and all should be fine. Now that is a point I could have put better. Railroading gets a bad rap because it seems like the GM is trying to force you (the player) into doing something you don't want to. That's not fair to the GM because if the player was paying attention he would have been told straight up "I'm running this sort of story." Anything that's not riffing even slightly off that is a whole other problem: a disruptive player.

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

Sometimes it isn't based on how things are framed. Sorry about seeming presumptuous on the issue if I have done so. I'm not sure really.

Not a'tall - it's your opinion and as I stated...you can't have a wrong one.

[Dwarf99]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

I'm not going to exclude my opinion for anyone. You can't have a "wrong" opinion. I understand where you are coming from mind you, but that has not been my experience nor has it been the experience of any GM I'm personally acquainted with.

Haha, I think perhaps I've explained something badly, what I meant was that I've had different experiences and your statements were framed in a way that seemed more 'this is how things work' rather than 'this is what I've seen', which I thought was a weird way to put things. Maybe more of a style or even a tone nitpick than anything.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

Haha, I think perhaps I've explained something badly, what I meant was that I've had different experiences and your statements were framed in a way that seemed more 'this is how things work' rather than 'this is what I've seen', which I thought was a weird way to put things.

Hmm. Well, that's splitting the hairs finely, but in my time as a GM...that is how things work. I'll add a notation that says exactly that.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Guys,

Today is my 32nd birthday so I'm going to be taking a break from blogging for the rest of the week. But don't worry! I got plenty of good stuff coming up - some of you have lit the fires of inspiration and you'll see posts you either asked for or commented about some time in the future. Thanks for following along.


With Regards,

Christopher R. Rice

[The_Ryujin]

Happy birthday man, go forth and chillax. You've earned it.