Niche RPG Mechanics I Dig

I’ve been reexamining my posts from the first year of my blog (’09). In the first months, I wrote two posts- one on mechanics & sub-systems I hated and one on those I loved. So have my tastes or perspectives shifted since I wrote these? As you’ll see not so much on this post, but there’s more hubris on display in the next one I’ve kept the post in its original format (warts and all), but added commentary.

ODD RPG MECHANICS I'M FOND OF

While I've been whittling away at the mechanics I actually use at the table, I'll still admit that I have great fondness for cleverly constructed rules and systems. My problem stems from their real lack of utility at the table-- getting in the way of the story of narrative. But I still like the idea of structures-- and some of them do work for handling odd things. I know Sherri gets a little frustrated when I start talking about new system mechanics I've come up with-- she knows that 99% of the time I could handle the same thing through narrative negotiation. I have been trying to sublimate my affection for mechanics into my board game obsessions.

That being said if I find one of my “pet topics” has been covered interestingly or well in a game system, I'm feverishly drawn to pick it up. I've seen some good versions, and a lot of lousy versions of the systems. Some I've liked at first and then changed my mind after playing with them for a while.

Mass Combat: We used to play Chainmail with all the figures we had-- probably my first real introduction to miniatures game. It wasn't really tied to any campaign, but closer to pulling out all your action figures and rolling dice to determine battles. Back in 1985 TSR finally put out Battlesystem-- which was intended to be the definitive mass combat rules for Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. We still played AD&D at that time and I recall picking up the rules and never, ever using them.

Instead the first time I saw an even reasonably workable way to handle mass combat in a role-playing game came from Gurps. They first presented an abstract system in their Horseclans book and then later in their take on Conan. That broke forces down into numbers and values and had contested rolls. However both only had some light contact with how the players might interact with the battle (i.e. here's how you resolve the battle and you can do something...at some point...). Over the years I saw other iterations-- TSR with Birthright, ICE with War Law- which was even worse than you can imagine. Probably the best take I've seen has been L5Rwhich resolves the battle but also provides events and incidents to give more color and control for the players. Exalted 2e has a take on it that I don't find that appealing, despite its simplicity (essentially armies become like equipment and weapons for resolution). The Black Company RPG has some great stuff-- but it suffers from being based in d20.

I've tried some homebrew systems in the past-- trying to bridge the gap between the strategic choices of the leaders and the roles of the players on the battlefield. Some of those resolution systems have been interesting and made for good sessions (the Siege of Neutral City, the Battle of Whitewall) while others have been real misses (the Urokell Campaigns) in part because different players wanted different things out of the game. So my druthers these days is to handle those things as abstractly as possible-- but at the same time I look over the rules I find in other games, hunting for that magic bullet.

I’ve little with mass combat since I wrote this. Mostly I've handled it in the abstract. It’s a looming factor in our Legend of the Five Rings seasonal campaign, but we haven’t yet had any full-scale conflicts. In fact the players work hard to avoid those. Even our "Sellsword Company" campaign saw most things handled in tactical skirmishes, with players commanding themselves plus an abstract set of troops. In the last few years I’ve picked up a few games that have interesting mechanics at this scale like Reign and Legends of Anglerre.

Chases: Action movies live or die on their chase sequences. However, translating that energy on to the tabletop can be difficult. On the one hand, you want players to be able to make strategic choices-- whether their fleeing or pursuing, but on the other hand you want everything to move at a breakneck pace. You could make everything based on A or B shout it out choices-- like quick-time events from video games but that isn't entirely satisfying. The good action sequence has characters interacting with the environment in clever ways. There's also the question of how you represent skill in those situations-- I mean, beyond speed and reflexes. Let's say you have a system of compared maneuver types-- represented abstractly-- a good pursuer ought to be able to determine something about his opponent's actions going into the chase (“i.e. You think he's going to do an X, Y or Z escape action”). That would allow them to calculate more optimal responses. But that's another moment, another decision, another step, another cross-referencing that needs to be handled. And so we slow things down further.

Two games I recall with more involved discussion of chase mechanics are the old James Bond RPG and Spycraft. The former I don't remember that well-- but my suspicion is that it wasn't that great since I don't recall many exciting chases in the games I ran. Spycraft has some interesting ideas, but unfortunately wedded to a d20 based system with a highly, highly elaborated feat system. I still keep looking.

I still tend to run these as a series of competing tests. But I’ve also like options for risk vs. reward, where players can gamble on their success. I've begun to think that there’s a big difference in how you ought to present chases where the players are pursuers vs. those in which they’re pursued. Night’s Black Agents has some good chase mechanics, but perhaps a little more detailed than I want. Fate’s been useful as a model for handling environmental details and player’s ability to manipulate elements of the chase. I also have to check out the new Feng Shui rules and see what they have.

Duels: There's great tension that comes from seeing a single hero take on their rival in a one-on-one duel. The end duel from Robin Hood or any high noon showdown from a Western. That's hard to replicate at the table for a couple of reasons-- not least of which is that you have multiple PCs. You can kind of work around that through careful planning and a group that understands dramatic necessity. But most games done really simulate the back and forth of a duel-- advantage, gaining ground, managing to get out of a particular maneuver. Those are discrete elements and generally when I play, I'm imagining a round of combat not as a single swing and defense, but as a series of movements, strikes, and finally real attempts. One other problem comes up in gunfights or Iaijutsu duels-- that's really one strike or shot and ends up being a contest of initiative. I've tried a couple of work arounds-- usually involving perception and skill checks before a duel to gain advantage. Those have usually happened in tournament settings. Some of those ideas I took from a Pyramid article on the topic, but I haven't found anything entirely satisfying.

I still dig these- particularly as set-piece moments between a PC and a hated villain. I’d like something that allows that to be easily integrated into a larger combat. I built a dueling mechanic for our L5R Action Cards game. I worked decently the single time we’ve used it, but it hasn’t been stress-tested by any means.

Bases: This may sound odd, given my general dislike for building equipment or vehicles, but I like the idea of the group investing shared points into the resources of a base. What I don't like is systems with highly detailed rules for this-- including point costs for square footage and so on. Or even the old Warlord's keep structures from classic DnD (“Whee! Level 10! I get a Castle!”). I think these kinds of things ought to be abstract. The Angel RPG had a system of ratings for different aspects that I liked-- at least I think that came from the Angel RPG, but it might have been from one of the Buffy-verse rpg sidebooks from Eden. Changeling has some of this in the concept of a shared Hollow with resources that players can purchase. It is an aspect I like and if I see it, I usually try to take a look.

Social and Political Grand Scale: I think I mentioned this in [an earlier post on] the Weapons of the Gods Companion. While I'm not sure I'd ever use them, I like the concept of rules and structures to deal with these kinds of games. I remember the old Aria Worlds game which tried to deal with the evolution of civilizations. Impractical, absurd and strange-- but also fascinating at the same time. These kinds of rules approaches can develop good material inasmuch as they show what power structures and relationships exist within a society or group.

Reign does some cool things in this, but my go to has been Blood & Honor. I’ve used that as a structure, combined with concepts for modelling from Legends of Anglerre. The trick is to make these important and useful to the players- giving them control over development and choices. But if we’re going larger scale, to consider the really big picture, I think Microscope and Kingdom just plain works. Combine those with storytelling tools from things like DramaSystem, Durance, and The Quiet Year and you could easily craft a really interesting large-scale game that zooms down to the micro level and back.

Martial Arts Systems: I love seeing what people make of this-- from highly specific maneuvers with multiple rolls (ala Gurps MA) to delineated but looser feat blocks (ala True20 and the like) to simple lists of actions (ala Hero System). My problem now is that I've seen so many of these systems over the years that I immediately note the resemblances. I do love to look for the relative level of Wushu-y-ness of these systems though. I want a structure for MA that stays relatively loose-- but I'll read any of them, and there have been some bad ones (Enter the Zombie, some of the weirdness of Exalted where it goes into the highest level stuff).

Since I wrote this, I ran a wuxia campaign using my Storyteller hack- White Mountain, Black River. That went pretty well, but once we got deep into the game the complexity escalated; in part from my mechanics and in part from the base system. To build that game I went through other systems to see how they handled MA. In particular I went through the games from this post, Boot to the Head: Martial Arts Treatments in RPGs. I also looked at Qin, Spycraft, and several d20 MA approaches. Part of me wants to take some of the WMBR ideas and see if they’d work to do a wuxia version of 13th Age. I also have some new approaches I need to play out to see how they feel, in particular Jadepunk and Tianxia. I’ve also had Spellbound Kingdoms and Jadeclaw suggested to me.

Social Combat: I'm always curious about games which try to model social combat. I mean obviously you could handle it the same way as physical combat, but that seems to lose something. You have varying objectives, varying circumstances that might be even more difficult to model. Plus, once you go down the road of abstracting these kinds of interactions-- where do you stop? I don't think I'll ever use an involved system for this but I love to window shop. Both Burning Wheel and The Dying Earth RPG have systems for this. The former has all of the strange low-trust, low-detail problems of the rest of that game and the latter goes too far into paralleling the two kinds of combat. Dying Earth also suffers from some broken basic mechanics-- or at least mechanics which our play group didn't find palatable. I think there might be some things worth digging out of that game though (except that Pelgrane Press will lose their license to the material in the near future and make it OOP). I'd like to see more and fuller treatment of these ideas in the Legend of the Five Rings game-- that always seemed like a strange omission. Maybe they've done something with that in the newer books.

I think it is telling that I considered this a niche mechanic. I’m pretty happy with Fate for social conflict. I’ve found the addition of Composure Stress and the ability to push for Consequences & Concessions makes this a viable option. But sometimes it can be hard to maneuver players into taking that road and/or making it feel satisfying. Everyone usually builds themselves at least slightly for physical conflict, but more often we only get one or two players who’ve built for social. I’m also interested in looking more closely at how the various Apocalypse World games handle this. They seem to have all of these concepts baked into their DNA.

NEXT POST: I SAY STUPID SHIT ABOUT GAME MECHANICS AND AM OBLIGED TO CLARIFY AND REDACT MY POSITIONS. 

All the Games: Actual Play Overview

I’ve made an effort to track my gaming in 2014. That includes noting games I played and those I bought. It also means I’ve expanded my library of Actual Play videos. I started recording these as a goof. RPG Sessions are transitory so the idea of being able to capture them appealed. But I’ve never gone back to watch these for nostalgia’s sake. Instead I’ve reviewed several of them to assess my approach, see what I missed, check my rulings, and find out where we left off exactly. We talked a little about taping your sessions in a recent This Imaginary Life episode. Watching your own sessions, painful as it can be, is a great way to reflect on your practice.

I hope some of the videos might be useful for other GMs. I’ve checked out Actual Play videos when I wasn’t sure how a game operated. Maybe aspiring gamemasters will gain a better sense of how a non-standard game plays (Kingdom or Durance for example). I watch other GMs' sessions for the simple fact I want to see how they run. To me, these GM videos show where the rubber hits the road. This is how I run. I write a ton about rpg ideas and practices, but that doesn’t matter as much as what I actually do at the table. That can get obscured when I'm working on blog posts. 

My recent “What I Want from Combat as a Player/GM” posts have gotten some great feedback. In particular Douglas Cole at Gaming Ballistic works some ideas through his own experience and preferences. In my six years I’ve had a few posts which spread further. I’ve learned to expect some oddness when that happens. I often get a small number of comments suggesting I’ve been unclear or someone’s misread, particularly on other forums. So this, these videos, they show what I actually do…

DARK COLORS ONLY: A SIMPLE VIDEO PRESENTATION STRATEGY

Below I’m listing all of my Actual Play Videos for different games, in reverse chronological order. In some cases I have a playlist. I’ve put and example up and a link to the larger grouping. In recent months I’ve recorded many of these sessions using XSplit. That allows me to capture the Roll20 app so you can see the map and dice rolls. Since I record these locally, I break these apart to reduce upload time.

DURANCE: DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED

13TH AGE: SHADOW OF THE TITAN

Campaign Playlist

ICONS: LEGION OF SUPER REBELS

Roll20 Version Playlist

FATE: GUARDS OF ABASHAN

Roll20 Version Playlist

KINGDOM: HEROES OF THE CITY

VENTURE CITY STORIES:
30 DAYS TO SAVE SCIENCE CITY

Roll20 Version Playlist

MUTANTS AND MASTERMINDS: FIRST WAVE SERIES THREE

Campaign Playlist

CHANGELING THE LOST FATE/FAE: LOST VEGAS

Campaign Playlist

KINGDOM: BATTLESHIP ORION

KINGDOM: THE DAILY SENTINEL

BASE RAIDERS: SUPERHERO DUNGEON CRAWL

FATE ACCELERATED: INTO THE UNKNOWN

MICROSCOPE: BUILD-A-WORLD WORKSHOP

Venture City Stories: Super Capsule Review

While I’ve run Venture City Stories, I realized I hadn’t done a write-up for it. VCS delivers a micro supers setting for use with Fate Core. The product's brief, coming in at 30 pages of material. Evil Hat released it as part of their Patreon Project and you can find it “Pay What You Want” at RPGNow. Since EH’s running a promotion, I decided to do a quick overview. I’m going to come at this from a couple of directions, but to be clear I like Fate. It works for me as a system. In particular we've integrated many elements from it into our local homebrew, Action Cards.

Presentation

Venture City Stories is cleanly laid-out, following the template established in other Fate products. It looks good, with highly functional sidebars and call-outs. There’s a wealth of solid art here for a small product. Illustrator Tazio Battin delivers with an excellent and evocative style. The images manage to capture the sense of a world with high level supers and street level conflict.

Premise

Venture City is a focal point location, a grim and murky urban center with corruption run through it. It exemplifies the rest of the setting: a world questioning supers and a deeply blurred line between good and evil. It reminds me a little of Hub City from the DC Universe. The whole tone feels close to Marvel’s Ultimates universe. You could also compare it to Aberrant, but dialed back significantly.

Setting Material

A little over two-thirds of the book presents Venture City. It opens with a nice overview of the issues and problems facing both the world and the city itself. After quickly setting the stage it moves to explore the details through people, places, and groups. I like the focus on concrete concepts players might interact with, rather than just a history and gazetteer. It’s a sketchy presentation, but it works especially well for two reasons. One, it manages to leave the GM room to imagine connections and come up with plots. Details are given, but they’re more hooks and ideas. Two, the connecting material in sidebars shows ties between the segments and illustrates how larger plots and stories could connect.

I like the setting, particularly because it is both grey without being gritty. At the same time it presents a living, breathing world. The Fate elements blend seamlessly with the background. Sometimes when I read supers settings, I’ll grind to a halt when we switch from info to stats & mechanics. Venture City Stories handles that well. It offers an awesome model as a Fate product. Is it worth it for non-Fate GMs? Let me come back to that at the end.

Super Powers

Fate players can celebrate having several different Super power sub-systems available. A quick look at the community extensions or the G+ group offers a host of options. We have several published versions as well, including material from the Fate Core Toolkit, “Wild Blue” in Fate Worlds, and the heavily reconstructed ICONS Assembled. Venture City Stories gives a simple system covered in only three pages.

Essentially players come up with a core concept for their power. They break the important features of that power into discrete stunts. Each power has a Drawback; really a trouble aspect for it. But it also has a set of Special Effects- microbenefits which can be called on when a player succeeds with style on the use of their power. They can also use their power in overdrive which gives them an amazing result, but inflicts a Collateral Damage effect. One of the examples is a Speedster able to travel anywhere in an instant but tearing up the streets behind them.

It like this structure. It worked pretty well when I ran Thirty Days to Save Science City. I’ve also tested it out with our homebrew and players seem to grok it fairly well. They especially enjoy the idea of the boosted power with a consequence. The Special Effects mechanic takes some getting used to. It means players must think about their powers in a different way. It reminds me of Dragon Age’s system of post-roll stunts. Venture City Stories's length works for and against it. The added mechanics are tight and streamlined. But at the same time I would have liked more examples- both of play and of character builds. Despite that, I’d recommend Fate Supers GMs take a look at Venture City.

Other Concepts

Venture City Stories also uses Factions as a key mechanism. We’ve seen things like this in other Fate games (Legend of Anglerre for example). Here Factions are defined by a slogan (public image) and a secret (true problems). Factions also have ratings in six skills: Bureaucracy, Espionage, Resources, Security, Tech, and Violence. The rules don’t take much time explaining those, assuming GMs can figure that out.

I like this mechanism. When I put together my online session, I leaned heavily on it. I essentially assembled the setting by coming up with different factions. To the structure above I added some GM-facing details: Hooks and Ways In. Hooks are just quick plot ideas involving the group. I avoided any detail on these; I wanted them as improv material. Ways In are the people, places, and thing players might actual contact in play. In the past when I’ve done games with multiple factions or groups, they’ve remained nebulous and then I have a harder time connecting the players to them. Here I began by thinking at the concrete level. Then when players did investigations and research, I had a line to throw. These can frame successful contacts and the like. This prep approach doesn’t take long if you avoid doing more than sketching 3-5 ideas for each. And there’s significant long-term payoff.

Final Thoughts

Fate players should pick this up. The presentation of the city offers a good model for building other locales. They might also like the supers system- though I suspect GMs will want to hunt around for some other example character builds (as I did). It takes some getting used to, but generally I dig it and it offers a slightly new approach. If you’re looking to do a pick-up Fate supers game, Venture City Stories has a solid system and an easily playable open setting.

Non-Fate Supers GMs will find a rich and interesting supplement. It has more of what I want a supers citybook to do than most. On the other hand, it leaves me wishing for more. But the low cost and the quality of the material means that most superhero gamemasters ought to at least check it out.

Venture City Stories on RPGNow

Thirty Days to Save Science City Actual Play Video

Notes on my adaptation of Venture City Stories (Session Summary and Discussion Part One & Part Two)

23 Things I Want From Combat As a GM

Yesterday I posted "33 Things I Want From Combat As a Player." That's an older post from '09 I wanted to revisit. Today I present the GM's flip side. I've included an edited version of some comments I originally got on the post. I've also included a few comments looking at this six years later. I'll tell you ahead of time that I'm less confident about #4 & #5 now, but that's worth a separate post of its own.  

Here are some first thoughts on what I want from a combat as a GM. Some are mechanics-based, some narrative-based, and some player/GM interaction-based. 

1. I want the players to enjoy their experience in the combat. They should come away feeling satisfied, even if they lost. They should feel that the combat was either logical or necessary to the plot or that, while it was tangential, it was exciting and cool.

2. Every player should have something to do in the combat. They should be able to do something beyond say “I attack” each round. On the other hand, if that's what they're comfortable with then they should be able to do that.

3. The combat should move fast, with the mechanical aspect not squeezing out the time I have for narrative. A simple combat shouldn't take more than an hour-- a more complex scene more than two hours.

4. The system should be flexible enough that I can fudge and flex things without the system breaking down or those changes being absolutely apparent to the players.

5. That also means I should be able to cheat-- for or against the players-- in order to enhance the narrative. That cheating shouldn't be too obvious. (see Note 1 below)

6. I shouldn't need to use a GM screen-- a can use one if I want, but I shouldn't have to in order to manage the combat system.

7. I shouldn't have to work up every detail of abilities in order to be able to manage a combat. I should be able to run from sketches-- attack/defense values, soak, hit points, some basic powers or attacks.

8. I should be able to put Mooks (as a concept) on the table and have them work with the system-- not just speed bumps but with some risk if not managed by the player.

9. I should be able to cause some damage to the players-- to create a sense of risk. That damage doesn't have to be just KO'ing them-- the system should allow easily for other effects (stun, knockdown, disabled limbs, etc).

10. It should be relatively difficult for me to one-shot the PCs, but it should be feasible in rare instances.

11. The system should discourage Glass Ninjas (can't hit them but they drop when hit) or...I don't know what you'd call them...Iron Butterflies (high soak, but can't do much of anything else). (see Note 2)

12. Neither I nor the players should have to go back to the rulebook more than once or twice per fight. There are exceptions for special actions or maneuvers.

13. Players should accept my rulings in play, and if there's a problem, be willing to negotiate those rulings after the session. (see Note 3)

14. Players should not bitch about how hard a fight is, especially if they're winning. Not sure how the GM manages this.

15. If I put terrain out on the table (either through description or through miniatures) the system should allow and encourage the players to use that. If they don't make a difference in play, then it is the same as if you had a blank map.

16. Called shots should be effective, but not necessarily easy. If a player takes a risk in making that shot, they should be prepared to miss.

17. Players should gain a benefit from working together-- I'm not sure if the reverse is true-- should the GM be able to penalize for not working together?

18. Initiative should be rolled at the start of the fight and stay in that order. If a player wants to change their place in the initiative, they should have some mechanism to do so.

19. Mages (or those with other funky powers) should be willing to trade off a little straight combat effectiveness for their increased flexibility.

20. Sometimes the story demands that bad guys get away-- players should be willing to accept this every once in a while. The GM ought to make this logical and not abuse this privilege. The GM should be able to offer a benefit or compensation in these circumstances.

21. The system shouldn't require extra maintenance-- special charts or dials or dice types-- that get in the way.

22. There shouldn't be an obvious mechanic or path to victory in all situations. On the other hand, having multiple attack types requiring multiple defense forms can be a pain. The system should have one pool for tracking damage. The example of the worst offender in this case would be DC Heroes. Each of the three attack forms (Physical, Magical, and Mental) had separate pools. This meant that two people dishing out two different attack forms had to both take someone down to zero. It also meant that a person who could take one form of damage, would likely be KO'd by another. So bad guys either had to be resistant to all three or have some people just wiped the table with them. Weaknesses in bad guys are fine, but not to that extreme.

23. Players should be able to track their own abilities easily.

Note 1: Regarding 5 and the question of GM cheating. I think this totally works, for you. There are some other GM's out there that I wouldn't trust with that power. But a good GM should definitely be able to do this.

I think a good game is built on trust between the player and the GM on several levels. The players should be able to trust that the GM is not going to deliberately hose them in combat. If things are seem unbalanced, that there's a reason: to move the narrative forward, to make a point, or simply to enhance the challenge. (Or because the players have chosen to dive into something over their heads).

If a combat is a tactical simulation purely, between me and a group of players with evenly balanced forces, I’m going to lose. I'm not saying that's going to happen every time, but for the most part. I’m not as sharp as the collective intelligence of my players. So I have to be able to shift things on the fly: add opposition, provide baddies who can only be take down by coordinated action, set up an environment that works against the players, to make a combat interesting.

At the same time, the players should to feel accept that I’m going to play reasonably fair. Once I break that trust, I’ll have a hard time regaining it. The players will questioning the details of a situation, wondering if I’m trying to hose them again. How does that trust get lost? There are several ways.

In a bad Exalted game we played, it became clear that the GM centered things around one player-- giving more opportunities and bigger breaks in combat. Now, this wasn't the player’s fault-- instead it was a particular GM tic. The most egregious example came when the GM essentially shut down actions, despite extraordinary successes, of other players. Consistency is important-- giving everyone equal opportunity to shine. Another example is when the GM let’s their bad guys do something absurd. All that takes is the GM calling a miss when a player rolls an extraordinary success, have a superb damage roll simply glance off, force a player to roll multiple support skill rolls and not give them any benefit, or to give a bad guy a soak equal to wearing three suits of plate mail. All of these we saw in the Exalted game and others. Players know when things are not in sync, and so do GMs. A GM who has built trust can get past that and show how it fits in later. But they need an affirmative relationship and clear signals. This assumes the players are reasonable and approach the game in the same way as the GM-- a distinct question of player management.

As I said at the start, I'm less sure about #4 & #5 now, but I'll deal with that in another post. Short version: die-fudging feels more ham-fisted to me now.  

Note 2: 11. anti-Glass Ninja games, what would be your preference examples? MnM, WoD, D&D, other?

Generally either level-based or supers games games have this problem. Ath the lower-ranges level-based games can create significant disparities between classes, such that some get knocked out much faster if hit-- but those differences vanish as levels go up. But at that point, everyone simply becomes varying sized lumps of stone that you have to chip away at. Superhero games have this mechanic built into them-- the speedster should be fragile if hit. I think MnM handles this pretty well-- mostly because it has a tight mod range for Defense Value/Toughness.

OOH in my head, I like the idea that games have a wide range of difference between players or granularity. In practice, I don't dig that. Players, regardless of class and type, shouldn't have a huge difference in the amount of damage they can take. There should be differences, especially if a fighter has sacrificed mobility and defense for heavier armor. But they shouldn't be too vast. I think Exalted and Storyteller handles this fine, as does GURPS.

I’m going to reverse myself here. My original stances is self-protective and maybe paternalistic. If a player wants to be a glass ninja, that’s cool. But the system should advertise is that way- rather than players discovering suddenly that they’re fragile and easily taken out. The player also need to take responsibility if they make that build, recognizing that while they might be super-effective at times, there’s a trade off in potentially losing turns. And I as a GM have to accept that players have made those decisions. I’ve talked before about my hesitation at hammering players on weaknesses they’ve chosen. This falls into that category. 

Note 3: The problem I've seen with this, is when the player builds up an ability/power that they think will be "l33t" and then they get burned when they can't do it. I'm thinking of Charlie in several of my games or Will's character in the MnM game. How do you propose to get around/through this situation? If you effectively tell a player at the table, "No, it doesn't work like that," you're setting up a potential argument or shutdown. Players won't always tell you up front about their cool ability and that can lead up to this situation.

I think these problems come from three sources: system, player and gamemaster. In the first case some systems have too many rules or too much rules arcana which has moved beyond the grasp of the GM and players. That may be why I’m not as into Rifts and other expansion/addition driven games. They encourage rules abuse and combining powers to make UltraGoobasaur. I'm leaving aside Supers games from this consideration, as I think they operate under a very different set of meta-rules.

I think the first line of approach when dealing with those moments is for the GM to evaluate their own reaction to them popping up. Sometimes the player's clear intent is to create a “game-breaker” or a system advantage. And sometimes players are just being dicks. But more often that's a problem with the way the player presents their action. If they're confrontational or presenting it in sneakily, then they may know something’s a little off about it. That can come from the kinds of GMs they played with before or reflect the current GM/Player dialogue. Ideally if a player is goobing, they're doing it for the cool of the situation or to find a desperate solution to a difficult problem. They should be looking for ways to enhance the narrative, and the GM should be looking for ways to assist that.

A point I miss in these comments: if that’s the way the system’s written, I’m going to let it roll at least once. If they pull it out at the table, I’m check it and confirm afterwards. But I don’t want to argue/check it in the middle of a session. If it is the way the game’s written, then I have a couple of choices. Figure out if that’s actually broken, if there’s a counter, and what the other players think. Assess that and if its still a problem talk with the player about it. Often they’ll be willing to work something out. Not always. I had a player quit because I was worried about the effectiveness of Possession in M&M 2e. I tried to negotiate out a compromise, but they didn’t care for it.

I can imagine three obvious situations where the GM will want/need to shut down a goob:

1. The player cheats. Perhaps he's used a set of unapproved rules. Perhaps he suddenly has a new ability. Maybe his character’s powers varies from session to session. That's tough, but asking players for a copies of their character sheets. OOH we had one long running player who would make excuses every time about why he didn’t have a copy or only had things sketched out. He’d been with the group long enough pressing him on this new behavior meant creating a bad scene. But sometimes you can't keep up with their sheets. I try to contain it-- if someone's cheating this way and it isn't affecting the other players, then I'll turn a blind eye. I'll up the opposition to that character in a quiet effort to balance. If that doesn't work, then you need to have a talk with the player.

Ugh. Of course when I wrote this I was dealing with a couple of these players- where the social contract kept me from pressing the issue. Now I’d say: deal with it right away through conversation. But I also recognize that isn’t always an option

2. The player's using what Hero System calls “Stop Sign” powers. They might include some perception abilities, danger sense, lie detection. These bypass the normal process of mystery solving. It can also include things like Mind Control or the like that can break what you're doing. The GM needs to be clear with the player about what he doesn't want in the game and why. If that breaks the player's concept of their character, then you can negotiate. You can always allow players to reallocate exp if that situation arises.

But if I’ve let them in, then my first instinct ought to be less “how do I fix their characters?” and more “how do I make the setting work well with that?”. For the latter, the world should let these function and succeed from time to time, but not be overpowering. If they have these powers they should remain useful, but I may need to shift the games’ focus.

3. Most important is the situation where one player's goob or power overshadows other PCs or intrudes on their enjoyment. I believe there ought to be perceived parity between the players. If someone has an ability that always one-hits without any real penalty, while the other players have to work to take people down, that can frustrate the group. Or if one player can take many more actions or boost their stats above anyone else at the table. If the other player's perception of that discrepancy is legitimate and continuing, then I want to figure out how to balance that..

If a problem does occur, I need to take a breath and assess. Is allowing this going to negatively affect the other players? Does it go directly against something I've already established? If the answer to those two questions is no, then I should should let it fly. Later I can talk to the player and ask them to change if it seems like it might evolve into a problem. If the answer is yes, then I need to say something equivalent to: “Sorry-- actually I want to hold off on that happening that way. I'm going to handle that this way right now, and we can talk about that afterwards. If you want to change what you're doing, go ahead.” But I should do that reluctantly. 

33 Things I Want From Combat As a Player

Back in this blog's first year, 2009, I opened with pieces on GMing, prep, and what I wanted out of games. I thought for the end of this sixth year, it could be good to republish some of those pieces. I've added some commentary, especially where my thinking's changed. See also 23 Things I Want From Combat As a GM. 

Here are my first 33 thoughts about what I want from/in a rpg combat-- from a player's perspective. Some of this is mechanics, and some GM based.

1. I don't want to have to look up complex maneuvers and abilities-- if I have something special, like Martial Arts or something, I should be able to write the quick details on my sheet. The complexity of some of the Gurps MA (for Gurps 3e) is an example of this done badly. Basic maneuvers-- feint, disarm, etc should be simple enough that after doing them once or twice, I don't have to look them up again.

2. Maneuvers like feint, disarm, grapple, called shot shouldn't be hideously complicated in play. Yes, maybe there are one of two extra rolls or tests, but they shouldn't bog things down into a mini-game. At the same time, if I forgo my standard action I should have a chance of getting a benefit. That chance should be balanced against the potential reward. That's not always realistic-- disarming can be devastating, so it ought to be tough. As a player I want fun more than I want realism in the combat.

I still generally hold to this but I'm not sure how it squares with Mutants & Masterminds 2e which I've run the last couple of years. That game doesn't have tons of manuevers, but it does have tons of conditions, all with slightly differetn effects. M&M also doesn't have the best team up mechanics. 

3. There should be some mechanism for coordinated attack or aiding another person. If multiple people fight a target without coordinating, the target should get a penalty. If I forgo my action to aid another person, then the benefit should be tangible. It shouldn't be overpowering, but giving up a possible attack should get me somewhere in the range of a bonus close to half of the original attack.

4. I should be able to do something on my turn. I should be able to move and take an action. That movement shouldn't be too short.

5. Drawing items, reloading, perception checks, etc. should be a freebie. If the system keeps me from doing multiples, I don't mind.

6. There should be a bonus available for clever things. Usually I mean Stunting. If I describe my action to get a modest bonus, I shouldn't have to make an additional check or take a penalty. If I'm going for something bigger, I accept that there might be more tests involved.

7. I like having more hit points or wound levels. If a system has a chunk of hit point-- more than any one weapon strike can do-- there should be a critical hit, status effect or damage bonus system that means we aren't just grinding something to death round after round.

8. I want to be able to make a called shot and have it do something. Called shots shouldn't be insanely difficult to pull off. I also should be able to pull my blow and not necessarily kill someone unless I happen to roll insanely well or insanely badly.

These last three are interesting in light of my shifting to playing more Fate-based games. Those games take very different, almost non-lateral thinking approaches to these concepts. 

9. The combat should more fast enough that I don't forget what's going on by the time the round gets to me.

10. I should have a decent sense of where we are in the turn.

11. I should be able to delay my action and take it later.

12. Everyone should have someone to fight.

13. There should be some sense of risk from the mechanics itself. By that I mean, I should be worried about damage or status effects. There should be a chance I could die if things go terribly badly-- well, maybe not die, but that I'd get taken out.

14. At the same time the system shouldn't be so risk heavy as to make me afraid to take chances. One hit shouldn't take me out of the fight.

15. If I'm a magic user, I should be able to dish out damage relatively equivalent to a fighter. Some of those effects will probably be not measured in damage, but in my ability to debuff or disable. I accept that the flexibility of magic means a slight trade off, but I should not be significantly behind other characters. If magic costs mana, I shouldn't tap out in a fight unless I've really pushed myself.

16. By the same token, if I'm a fighter I should have some options available to me so I can do more than just declare “I attack” every round.

17. Archers should be able to fire every round.

18. Even in a hopeless fight, I should be able to go down swinging, taking some of the bad guys with me. There's a certain satisfaction to taking out agents and mooks. But mooks shouldn't be just blow-up dummies on the field-- if they gang up they should have the potential to harm me if they coordinate or if I'm stupid.

I'm not sure how this desire jibes with the concession mechanics from some games (Fate, 13th Age)

19. If the combat is incidental, it shouldn't take more than an hour of play time. If it is a larger, set-piece and important battle it can go longer.

20. If I expend limited resources-- like drama and conviction points, the GM should take that into account when describing consequences.

21. The GM should tell me the relative level of damage I've done-- to give me a sense of satisfaction about my action. If something does bounce, the GM should either describe that as a rarity or make clear that some other tactic needs to be applied.

22. If the bad guy is going to escape, I should have been able to do something to him before that-- reducing his forces, getting a wound in, thwarting some portion of his plan.

23. If a combat is narratively unwinnable-- which I can accept for storyline purposes-- the GM should send those signals clearly.

24. I should feel like I'm fighting in a story, not playing a tactical game against the GM. I also shouldn't feel like the GM is changing the situation to get me.

I've come to accept that some games are about being a tactical game vs. GM. And that's cool. It isn't what I want when I'm playing, but I know some folks dig that. 

25. If I ask about a combat rule, the GM should be able to make a decision quickly-- unless it is the first time we've encountered that circumstance-- and move on. If we get the rule wrong we can fix it after the fight.

26. Even if I'm a heavy fighter, I shouldn't always go last.

27. The GM should reward clever thinking or clever plans, even if it shifts the GM's notions about the direction of the fight.

28. I should feel all players have equal opportunities.

29. One bad die roll shouldn't make or break my experience.

30. I should be able to have all my basic info for managing my character in combat on the front side of a sheet.

31. Different weapons should neither be too same-y nor vastly different. There should be weapons which are always the obvious choice in all fights, all the time. The same thing for armor. There should be some trade offs (and different initiative values/speed should be worth less in this calculation).

32. I should feel like one player is intended to take out the major bad guy and if that's not me, then I don't have a shot.

I have literally no idea what I was saying here. What does that mean? Even if I change the "should" to "shouldn't" it doesn't make any sense. 

33. NPCs should bat clean up-- holding strategic points, tying up some of the opposition, and aiding others. Unless there's a plot point involved they shouldn't be overpowering or take care of all the bad guys. At the same time, if we have brought some NPCs to the fight, the GM shouldn't forget them or kill them off to get them out of the way.

See also 23 Things I Want From Combat As a GM.

This Imaginary Life: GM Weaknesses

Last week I had the chance to once again sit in on Rich Rogers’ amazing “This Imaginary Life” videocast. We had a larger than usual crew of amazing commenters (plus me). We took on the question of GMing Weaknesses and how we analyze those. We drilled down on a few individual weaknesses and explored what they meant and how we might deal with them. I have a bundle of notes from what I heard- and a couple of concrete techniques I plan to try out ASAP.

I should also mention that Rich has been tapped as producer for the Dr. Tom the Frog show, an rpg program with tight interviews. It’s hosted by an illustrious gaming maven and certified frog physician. (Not a physician for frogs, that would be a vet).

I have a few random thoughts on the TiL topic, some further afield than others…

Our Strengths

Assessing our strengths parallels assessing our weaknesses. What do you do well as a GM? For example, I think I’m strong on pacing. I like to keep the table moving. I interact with players to help things along. That’s combined with my desire to allow all players equal access and time at the table. I know that isn’t going to happen- players contribute differently from session to session. But I think I’m strong on communicating that they always have the opportunity. If they want to jump in, I’ll help them. I believe I demonstrate that if they give other players room in the spotlight, I’ll make sure they their time later. I’m also pretty good at coming up with names, something often cited as a GM difficulty.

If looking at weaknesses helps us, what can we learn from looking at strengths? For one thing it shows what we value at the table at least subconsciously. Thinking about it those elements embody what I expect most from a GM. I can forgive quite a bit: linear play, uninteresting encounters, slow character development. But if my play time pops with steady pacing and the sense I’ll get the opportunity to do things, I’m in. I also notice the strengths I’m identifying are about table management, rather than prep, system, or story. Why is that?

It’s also worth considering if there might be downsides to those identified strengths. I like to keep the pace brisk and I rarely stop to consult with the rules if I can help it. But I know at times I have cut scenes before they’ve played out fully. I may have kept players from the room the time to figure something out or suffocated an interaction because though forward momentum. I read a post last year about a gamer playing at a European con and being marked out for his “American” style. That seemed to be about a kind of impatience and desire to jump in and get out of moments quickly.

Checking and Assessing

We hit on it a little, but I think it’s worth emphasizing recordings can be a great way to identify what’s happening at your table. If you’re doing Hangout games, take the time to record and watch them again. It’s possible to record sessions privately, rather than broadcasting them on air. Then you and your players can watch them later. Or for F2F games record just the audio. Listening often puts you in the position of your players- hearing what they hear and how you’re interacting with them.

More importantly, watch other GMs. Play in other games or at the very least observe some actual play videos. Make notes, figure out what you like about what they’re doing. Pay attention to what’s actually going on at their table. When you find yourself thinking “No, what you ought to say is…” make a note of that. Figure out why that moment’s rubbing you the wrong way. I think GMs can and should build a conversation between their own weaknesses and what they see happening in other GMs’ styles.

Campaigns and Failing Faster

There’s a piece of age-old advice in design: fail faster. In particular, Extra Credits did an episode on this related to game design. 

That can be a problem for me, especially when I’m running an extended campaign. Most of my f2f campaigns last about two+ years and we’ve had many last longer. Often I’m using a homebrew system, hacking an existing game, or trying out new approaches & mechanics. That’s a great test bed in some ways- you get to see these elements in many contexts. But on the other hand, it can also be a real pain. I don’t like making large-scale changes after we’ve started playing. So I end up doing minor patch versions to shore up problems. By the time we’d played seven years with a particular early version of our Action Cards homebrew, I’d duct-taped the system together and the rickety beast barely made it over the finish line. In the meantime I’d developed and played out several iterations of the mechanics in other campaigns. The longer the campaign goes on, the greater the pressure I feel not to change.

There’s a fight in my head when I’m playing and the system isn’t working right. On the one hand I want to make adjustments and get things tweaked. On the other I don’t want to draw attention to the mechanics or change the rules in a way that screws someone’s character build. That comes from bad experiences in the past. I played with GMs who would change things on the fly “for balance.” What that usually meant was a player had come up with an effective build and the GM wasn’t sure how to handle it. But instead of discussion, they’d impose changes. I also saw several campaigns go south when the GM (in several cases, me) decided to change game systems. Conversion’s tricky and despite best intentions can never satisfy everyone. My new character’s never going to be the same as my old. Some players might come away happy, but others won’t.

So is this weakness a worry about changing and breaking the game? Let’s say it is. If so what does that tell me?

First, I’ve identified this hesitation in myself and I wonder if it extends beyond the mechanical. Do I have the same worries in adjusting my ‘style?’ I don’t think so because most of that side isn’t as visible to the players. Second, I have made some shifts to help me out with this. I’ve aimed for trying new things out via one-shots or shorter campaigns. I’ve also tried to break games into arcs or segments. If I’m going to make changes I do so at those transition points. I built my OCI campaign around that. We work through smaller worlds and tweak the system in between each. (I’m going to post more on this approach tomorrow). Third, it points to what’s really critical for me. To make shifts or changes successfully you need to have trust and communication. My bad experiences with game changes all come down to mistrust. The GM shifted things arbitrarily without explanation. Or they had a nonsensical cover story. In some cases they hadn’t demonstrated their mastery of the system, so I didn’t trust their judgment. In others they wouldn’t listen to feedback- either because they didn’t trust us or respect our judgment.