One-Line Advice for new GURPS GMs

[D10]

Some of the most memorable moments in RPG happen when the PCs do stuff that isnt anticipated by the GM, therefore, its good policy to design the problems in the campaign to allow room for it to happen.

When designing a plot, i think its best to consider what would happen absent PC intervention over time, and only then to consider the implications of their interest in the task. More often than not, PCs surprise you in the value/approach they give to the situation.

NPCs with reputations should be mentioned by other NPCs in relevant situations, its good to know who the most famous "X Y and Z" are, even if they will never appear in the campaign, and if and when they do, it is that much cooler to finally know that guy.

[lachimba]

Run an encounter first not an adventure.

E.g. Bar with potential for anything great, you can use combat, social rules, pretty much anything under the sun and you don't have to worry if something goes horribly wrong because of a single roll.

[robkelk]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

Have a plot (begining middle and end) before you start. Avoid an all out sandbox.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Conversely,

If you have a story to tell, write a book.

Respect player character agency. Your players are co-creators of the story that emerges from playing; let their characters shape that story, even if it's not the one you expected.

Putting these two together:

Know where you want the story to go, but don't be worried about how you get there. And be ready to change "where" if the other players come up with something fun.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by robkelk

Putting these two together:

Know where you want the story to go, but don't be worried about how you get there. And be ready to change "where" if the other players come up with something fun.

Yep. My "adventures"consist of a handful of checkpoints, paths between which are completely up to the players. I don't strictly time-order the checkpoints, and many of them are optional and can be circumvented altogether. My focus is on making the journey along the path fun through solid ad-lib GMing; the checkpoints exist solely to give goal-oriented players (who aren't my favorite kind . . . I prefer lovers of the picaresque) a target to aim for, and receive comparatively little of my brainpower.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by robkelk

Putting these two together:

Know where you want the story to go, but don't be worried about how you get there. And be ready to change "where" if the other players come up with something fun.

If you are a simulationist/sandbox GM, I don't recommend "knowing where you want the story to go," rather I recommend: Creating a sandbox with momentum and competing interests full of NPCs with plans and agenda, and knowing where *the NPCs* want the story to go.

I find sandboxes work best if the GM isn't invested in where the story goes, but the NPCs are. The GM then spends their time working out the interactions between the NPCs plans and the PCs plans.

[Propjock]

For first time play use pre-generated characters.

This way you're able to bring exactly what you're capable of dealing with to the game and no more. The practice of making those characters will also tell you something about the game and give players examples of what the GM finds acceptable in their world.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by trooper6

If you are a simulationist/sandbox GM, I don't recommend "knowing where you want the story to go," rather I recommend: Creating a sandbox with momentum and competing interests full of NPCs with plans and agenda, and knowing where *the NPCs* want the story to go.

"Knowing where you want the adventure to go" is kind of ambiguous. When I ran Whispers, I certainly had no initial thought of "I'm going to have Gianni's daughter become a significant figure as she moves toward adolescence," or even of "I'm going to have Aki solve the mystery of her father's death." But on the other hand, when I presented them with a situation—a private club whose members were being whitemailed, or a woman whose husband had borrowed her body, gone out for a walk, and not come back—I certainly expected them to investigate the situations and find out what was going on! And when Blake sat on Atene's request for help for four or five sessions, I took steps to prod the players into action. That seems in a sense to be "knowing where I wanted the situation to go." It wasn't a goalless pure sandbox situation.

In nearly all the campaigns I run, I start off either with a large problem that implicitly defines a goal for the PCs to pursue, or with a mission statement that defines the kind of episodic problems the PCs have to address. Both imply more structure than pure sandbox. Neither is anywhere near to a railroad.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by whswhs

And when Blake sat on Atene's request for help for four or five sessions, I took steps to prod the players into action. That seems in a sense to be "knowing where I wanted the situation to go." It wasn't a goalless pure sandbox situation.

In nearly all the campaigns I run, I start off either with a large problem that implicitly defines a goal for the PCs to pursue, or with a mission statement that defines the kind of episodic problems the PCs have to address. Both imply more structure than pure sandbox. Neither is anywhere near to a railroad.

I think there are distinctions to be made. When Blake didn't move on Atene's request, you didn't railroad the players or get mad that things didn't go they way you wanted them to do...you followed through on the simulation.

I think it is important to set the simulation up with a strong frame that has momentum...which can involve the PCs all being on a team with a mission statement or setting up large problems that have momentum...but I think there is a difference once the simulation starts between being invested in a particular outcome and being an arbiter of events. I think a big error people often make when creating sandboxes...is to have no sense of momentum in the sandbox. It is Chicago, 1964, make a character...go! That isn't going to end well. But I also think you can have a sandbox/simulation with initial momentum: It is Chicago 1964 and you all will be playing local FBI agents, it is going to be a cold war X-Files sort of game. Everybody signs on to that and then you start. As GM you know that there are two big conspiracies afoot and perhaps some other plots. But...I always find it works best for me if I am not personally invested in how those conspiracies turn out. Maybe the PCs foil the conspiracy...maybe they join one...maybe they avoid those conspiracies and work on some other x-files related thread of their own making. I don't know what is going to happen and finding out, being on the journey becomes part of my fun.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by trooper6

I think a big error people often make when creating sandboxes...is to have no sense of momentum in the sandbox. It is Chicago, 1964, make a character...go! That isn't going to end well. But I also think you can have a sandbox/simulation with initial momentum: It is Chicago 1964 and you all will be playing local FBI agents, it is going to be a cold war X-Files sort of game. Everybody signs on to that and then you start. As GM you know that there are two big conspiracies afoot and perhaps some other plots. But...I always find it works best for me if I am not personally invested in how those conspiracies turn out. Maybe the PCs foil the conspiracy...maybe they join one...maybe they avoid those conspiracies and work on some other x-files related thread of their own making. I don't know what is going to happen and finding out, being on the journey becomes part of my fun.

All of that is true. But when I see "sandbox," it sometimes seems to mean a completely flat, level playing field, with no places that are in any way favored over any other places, and no reason for the players to converge on a shared focus.

The trouble is that few games are either pure sandbox or pure railroad. But some people will assume either that if you call for a little more GM control you are advocating total railroad or that if you call for a little less GM control you are advocating total sandbox. And since for me the question is of finding the sweet spot in the range in between those two—which isn't necessarily the same in every campaign or for every player group—I prefer to forestall that. I don't think you would go to either of those places, but there are other people who might see your mention of sandbox/simulationism and take it that way, either because they want that (I think Peter Knutsen inclines that way) or because they abhor it (and then it's necessary to make it clear to them that in advocating freedom from railroading you're not going to the other limit).

As far as I can tell your style and mine are entirely compatible in practice.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by whswhs

As far as I can tell your style and mine are entirely compatible in practice.

I agree. I think of our styles as being very similar.