[PnP] General GM discussion

[Enric]

So Rabbit, how did you feel like our game the other night went? It's funny that you brought up how much time is spent on setting watches, as that was something I was thinking about right at the same time. The whole idea of playing through travel time and setting guards and whatnot is kind of a curious thing - I wonder if there's another way to create that sense of suspense or uncertainty with less of a time investment.

Anyway, I had a great time. Discovering the body of Alex's cousin and trying to puzzle out what happened in the cabin has an unsettling tone that's quite distinct from the other adventures we've played through, and I'm enjoying the temporary change in locale.

[Enric]

I've been reading Vincent Baker's Dogs in the Vineyard - which is terrific, by the way - and it led me to Baker's weblog, where I've started to work through his Roleplaying Theory, Hardcore. It's excellent, thought-provoking stuff - if you have a little free time, take a look.

[Rabbit]

I have not had a chance to read this all the way through, but figured if I would share. And if people want to comment on the ideas perhaps they could do that, too.

Its a "Writing Your First Adventure" article from wizard. Part 1 of 6:
www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ab/20060728a

[michael]

I really enjoyed last night's play session, but it was clearly full of flaws.

For my part, I stumbled through the descriptions way more than I wanted to. The general mood, getting wrapped up in the characters and the world, that didn't happen quite as well as it does during our DnD sessions, and I'm pretty sure my stumbling was both a cause and result of that. That lack of involvement is also probably just the way it works when everyone is unfamiliar with the system.

I also really need to just keep the meta-analysis out of it until after the game. I was too busy analyzing the way I built the game, and explaining/apologizing for things.

In general, we were all of us were playing it the same way we'd play DnD, and I don't think it's really supposed to be played that way. It's far less a dungeon crawling game, and I think that, at least in the action sequences, you're supposed to just barrel on through sometimes. Character death is a much smaller risk in this than DnD, even if you get completely slaughtered in combat, and recovering from injuries is far easier. (Particularly when you have a healer.) The system actually rewards reckless behavior a lot, too.

One thing I really wanted to do was to impose a real world timer on the Deathtrap sequence. There wasn't any sense of urgency, and I really wanted it to be a more fast-paced sequence. A big clock ticking down would have done the trick nicely, I think. The obvious downside is that we'd be learning to play at the same time we're rushing through, which is why I cut it, but I wish I had come up with something else to add that sense of urgency to it.

All that aside though, there were still some moments I really liked, and I think the system is great. I'm really looking forward to playing again.

[Enric]

I also liked it. It moved a little slowly, sure, but that's natural when we're learning a new system. And yeah, if M&M is a game that's meant to be played in a markedly different style, that would probably be something that it'd help to talk about with new folks beforehand - after all, it's a D20 game, so D&D is going to be our reference point. That said, I also think it's pretty hard to know quite how a game is going to flow until it actually hits the table.

As far as meta-analysis and getting the description right and whatnot is concerned, I mean, I think that's stuff that we're all working on all the time. I don't know about you guys, but I've been thinking lately that what I want in an RPG is to just focus on the play and the telling of a story together, and to try as much as possible to shed any self-consciousness I might have and not to worry about imperfections of phrasing or mechanical ambiguities or anything else. The discussion about and reflection upon that stuff can come afterwards.

Anyway, I had a good time. Please don't take my exhaustion the other night as a reflection on your game - I really was just wiped out! I'm looking forward to playing again.

[reefwood]

First off, kudos to Michael for getting the first session as GM under his belt. It can definitely be an overwhelming and nerve-wracking experience, in addition to being really fun. A couple things I learned when starting out - and they still come up for me now - are that scenes, and especially combats, can take way longer than anticipated, and you never know what players are going to do.

I have to echo the thoughts about using any new system in general. It's probably going to be at least somewhat choppy and mistakes are bound to happen, regardless of the story or people involved.

I did enjoy the story and agree that the sense of urgency was missing in a scene where that should have been an integral factor. A countdown would have helped keep the pressure on, but like Michael said, there was already enough to do with learning the new system.

One thing I could have done better is to read up more on the system. I didn't read anything more than character creation up through the Powers chapter, so I didn't know how combat worked, and I'm not sure how I feel about it. As I understand it, you roll to hit but have a flat stat for damage that is turned into a DC which a successfully hit target has to roll to withstand. I'm not sure how that's really any different than rolling damage or that it saves any time. Also, I didn't realize there were no hit points. I guess I didn't think about it one way or the other, and I guess that simplifies things to some degree and perhaps makes sense for a superhero game where you could take someone out with a single mighty blow.

One part of the game that was hard to follow was fighting the Paragondroid. For a long while, it seemed like nothing phased it, which caused me to get more creative with my strategy and was fun but also seemed like it might just be an impossible challenge. Although, once the system was explained and we knew that we just had to bruise him twice and the little damage we did was making it easier to bruise him, then it got more fun again... knowing that we were at least heading in the right direction, albeit slow going.

And one thing I enjoyed was the scenes cutting between our different paths. The one that ended with Drago swinging the axe into the seam in the pit was my favorite and a rad way to cut out and leave us wondering what would happen.

Oh, and a couple questions...

1) Michael, could you recap in the M&M thread what happened after the Paragondroid went down. I was pretty sleepy by that point and know someone appeared (out of thin air) and warned us about something, but that whole final scene was a blur for me.

2) Where do things go from now? Is Michael going to run the next session? Or is it open to whoever. I'd be into playing again but probably won't run a session.

[michael]

_{"if M&M is a game that's meant to be played in a markedly different style, that would probably be something that it'd help to talk about with new folks beforehand - after all, it's a D20 game, so D&D is going to be our reference point. That said, I also think it's pretty hard to know quite how a game is going to flow until it actually hits the table."}

I didn't really even consider that MnM might need a different play style until well into the game when I was thinking about the way sequences were run and all the choices players made. Thinking about it further, I may have been a bit wrong in stating that it should be played differently anyway. I think players should feel ok taking more risks without fear of death, but that's about it.

_{"One part of the game that was hard to follow was fighting the Paragondroid. For a long while, it seemed like nothing phased it, which caused me to get more creative with my strategy and was fun but also seemed like it might just be an impossible challenge. Although, once the system was explained and we knew that we just had to bruise him twice and the little damage we did was making it easier to bruise him, then it got more fun again... knowing that we were at least heading in the right direction, albeit slow going."}

That encounter did get close to the reaction I was hoping for, but with more frustration that I'd anticipated. I wanted him to be really imposing, and for you all to worry whether or not he'd be possible. I also wanted to make sure the fight would last for a bit while at the same time keep him beatable. Like you said, I think if everyone at the table knew how knockout worked, and knew about ablative damage (toughness going down 1 pt every time it applies its bonus) then it would have been much more enjoyable for everyone from the get-go.

I still stand by the concept though, and I'm chalking up the problems to everyone being unfamiliar with the details of the system and everyone being tired. I was doing a bad job of giving you cues as to what was going on. In my notes, I had a written down lot of things other to do/say during that fight to give you a better idea of what was happening, but I was too tired at that point, and everyone else was too tired to pick up on what few hints I did give.

As far as the combat system itself, I really like it. There are some tips on speeding up combat on page 152, but in general, I think the knockout system can make it much faster than whittling down HP. This was less than evident in our game because of another minor mistake I made. Brian, Brawn, and the Paragondroid all had large toughness modifiers, which made all of those encounters take longer than average. I had several weaker enemies in there too, but they were all skipped over. (Those golems you fought got very lucky, by the way. I rolled high every time you attacked. They were minions, so if you had done any damage at all, they would have gone down in one.)

Also, most of these fights weren't that much longer than a DnD fight, even though we were learning the system at the same time. Once we have it down, it should go much faster.

And in answer to your questions,
1) I'll probably post a recap and explain what happened afterward tomorrow.
2) The next session is open to whoever. I have a rough idea for another game, but I'm also interested in playing as a character, so whatever anyone else prefers.

[Rabbit]

I like the MnM system, too. I think the game went really well despite any bumps. First off, we were all learning the system so we were asking questions that in the future we will all just know. At least for myself I was openly asking questions so they would be discussed (since it was likely new to all of us.) I know that slowed the game but it seems like a necessary evil for a first time through a new system.

In general I think the MnM system provides lots of versatility and getting good at the system will only make character/world building all the more fun.

And yeah, congrats Michael on running your first game! And on a new system at that! I found it very helpful that you were knowledgeable about everything so thanks for taking the reins. I used to get really nervous before running games and just recently realized that I was not getting the pre-games jitters anymore. It can be like giving a public speech sometimes and I would tell myself to just keep calm and try to keep a steady calm pace when narrating.

Also, games will ALWAYS take weird directions GMs have a hard time anticipating. Sometimes they work out for the better and sometimes they can bog the game down. While planning detailed events I want the players to go through I try to at least mentally go through what would happen if the payers did a number of other options. And a behind the scenes GM trick; if the players skip a scene that you really wanted to use and they go somewhere else take the scene to them. Characters never know what is around the corner until the GM tells them.

Another thing to think about on this topic is being sure to provide the proper motivations to make the players/characters WANT to do what you want them to do. Not just getting the players to think, “OK, well obviously this is what the GM wants us to do so let’s do it.” I think you did a fine job of that Michael; I am mainly talking in general here.

And finally, reading and playing pre-made adventures can be helpful 'training' tools for GMing. If you use a premade game that was well planned and layed out it can give you ideas for how to plan your next home made games.

[EDIT: yeah, the keeping us feeling rushed could be tricky (especially as we were learning a new system) perhaps if there was something showing our loved ones' impending dooms. Like a fuss burning away to a stack of dynomite, a train about to run them over, or something like that...]

[michael]

One of the paths led directly to your tied up friends, and had any of you started down it, it would have released 2 giant lizards in their chamber. (You would see it on the monitors.) Then you'd have had to rush through the remaining traps before they went up and ate your family. That was the hallway you didn't take, however... Ah well.

I considered looking up some premade adventures, but I really enjoy the story-building aspect of it. I may not have had the best follow-through with writing it all down or remembering it come game time, but I absolutely loved thinking about the adventure. Building a mystery for you to unravel, what I'd do in situation X, creating problems with several solutions built in, while also leaving it open enough for you to find your own ways to solve it.... Adapting a story from somewhere else wouldn't have been the same.

[reefwood]

Pathfinder: War Stories [Marching Inland]

I'm glad you guys had some fun with last night's session. Wasn't too sure how it was going to go, especially since I have been very busy with house stuff this week and there were few non-D&D people who stopped by last night that required my attention in spurts.

My intention was to have a mix of tactical/strategic wartime combat mixed in with more standard adventuring/roleplaying. I think it kinda worked and may try to do something like this with every other session in this series. Maybe have it be a bit more intertwined instead the first half one way and the second half the other way. But what do you think? Or did it even come off that way?

Also, I didn't get around to planning as much I had hoped, so I wound up winging the second half of the session with what was in my head. The battle with the mayor was the last thing I had sketched out on paper. I'll go more into the details of this game in its thread.

So yeah, it'd be good to know of any thoughts about the style mix in this session, and I'm curious if you could tell I was winging in the second half and how that felt for you two.

[reefwood]

A couple other things to mention in relation to last night:

1) I may have given you too many troops. Not so much the actual amount in terms of being a fair challenge but just a lot of NPCs for only two people to control. Thoughts? How did it feel for you Michael as your first time controlling so many NPCs? Enric, what, if any, differences did you notice this time from the last time?

2) As always, players acted and thought it ways I hadn't expected, which worked out well in ways and slowed things down in others. Sending a scout ahead prevented others from getting hit by the trap. Marching in the grass was a good way to avoid other traps in the road but slowed you down and led to forced marches which required additional rolling and math. Sending the scout ahead into town also worked out favorably for your side, but not so well for the scout. The last thing that stands out is how you thought the people in Longtree ran off to hide out from your invading army. That possibility never even occurred to me as an explanation you might come up with for the town being empty, but it made total sense.

Sept 4, 2009 14:45:16 GMT -5 reefwood said:

Pathfinder: War Stories [Marching Inland]

I'm glad you guys had some fun with last night's session. Wasn't too sure how it was going to go, especially since I have been very busy with house stuff this week and there were a non-D&D people who stopped by last night that required my attention in spurts.

[Enric]

Yeah, I had a great time. I definitely am into the mix of tactical group combat and more conventional adventuring, but I actually feel like last night's session was still very much a tactical game - for the most part, we were almost never separated from the rest of our squad. One thing I really liked, actually, was the whole chain of command, giving orders to Michael's character and then having him take on the lion's share of the actual organizing. I think I'm more of a single-character kind of player, but this was a nice way of giving that feeling of being part of a larger unit without any of the fiddly stuff.

As for the improvisation in the second half, I didn't have that sense at all. If anything, the second was the part I enjoyed more, and I'm glad you were able to roll with whatever shenanigans we came up with. I also like the feeling that my character has come out of this whole experience changed - but maybe I'll talk with you about that more in another thread.

[michael]

Sept 4, 2009 15:01:59 GMT -5 reefwood said:

How did it feel for you Michael as your first time controlling so many NPCs?

I really enjoyed it, and never felt like I had too many troops to handle. The biggest struggle for me was trying to not micro-manage. I play a lot of tactical video games that work very similarly to last night's game, (turn based grid combat) and I always play those very slowly and deliberately, carefully positioning each soldier. So I was constantly resisting the instinct to play like that, which would have slowed things down far too much, and been out of character for Preston Shaw. It was really fun to control those troops in what felt like a reckless manner.

I really liked the way Harry handled it, with just giving vague orders to his subordinate (me) and letting things go from there. It really made the roleplaying feel much smoother to me.

I also never noticed that you were winging the second half. (Although you picked a good section to improvise. No people, no intelligent enemies... There's a trail. There are zombies. Your men go missing.) Anyway, I loved it. It was the perfect way to end that session. Great session all around.

[reefwood]

Thanks for the feedback!

I had intended to have the 2 PCs tackle most of the Longtree scene on their own, but between lack of planning and unexpected turns, it didn't work out that way, so I'm glad that you decided to leave half the troops in the village.

Also, it is good to learn who feels comfortable handling what kind of role, so I can keep that in mind for the future.

I'll delve into more specific stuff in the game thread.

[Enric]

Okay, here are a couple of things that I just wanted to throw out for general discussion:

The Big Model

GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, Chapter 2

In particular, I'm curious about what you folks think of this GNS/Creative Agenda stuff. Does that seem useful to you? For me, it's been really useful when it comes to thinking about what I want out of a game. What kind of creative agenda do you feel like you pursue when you're playing??