Post by Lady Laiin on Apr 29, 2012 22:02:47 GMT -8
I am here to share my zen wisdom and experience! So, the first thing is a simple question - why? Why do we want to GM Action Chatrooms? Well, I can think of a dozen reasons, and I'm sure you can think of a dozen more. Everyone's got their own reasons. But they all boil down to "I think it would be fun." And that's the golden rule - have fun. Anything I say here? That rule supersedes it.
Now that that's out of the way - we know WHY you started. But then you have to actually figure out what you're doing. Trust me, that's the hardest part. Just like the hardest part of writing something is staring at the blank page and trying to decide what to write, deciding what kind of game to run is hard too. But there are a few stages you can work through to help you narrow it down - since the rules are GOING to be affected by the setting and plot.
For starters, the big question is what kind of game you want to run. There are three main types(shamelessly ripped from D&D):
1: Kick In the Door: There isn't a lot of contemplation or thought - you smash the door down, fight the stormtroopers, save the princess. These are good starting ACs, because you can focus on the combat mechanics and just familiarize yourself with how a game works.
2: Non-Combat Game. The focus is not on fighting - indeed, there's hardly any combat at all. The focus is on political maneuvering and charisma. This can work, but it can be awfully boring if done badly, so it's a bit finicky.
3: And now, guess the third type - a combination of the above. Most games fall into this category.
PacWar, AU and SSD were all Type One, IoD was Type Two, and Stellar War was Type Three. The focus may be on one part over the other but both exist and are viable - as in, it is POSSIBLE for a character to be a pacifist if they desire. Now, if it's possible for the WHOLE DAMN PARTY to be pacifists, you sure as hell have a Type Two.
So yeah. That's the first decision you need to make. Type One, Two, or Three? None are inherently better than the others.
Then, you have to worry about the setting. Screw any thoughts about plot for now. Just think about the technology level and such. Do you want to play Spartans? Redcoats? US Marines in Vietnam? Space captains? That is a keystone early decision. What you choose is going to screw with your plot and rules in many ways.
Okay, now you've settled that. You want, say, a kick in the door game as Redcoats in the American Revolutionary War. But do you want to allow an American faction too? There's an advantage in that EVERYONE likes challenging themselves against other players, and these games are memorable. But managing them? HELL ON FUCKING WHEELS.
A pitfall lies in making one faction - whether it's canonically or historically the victor or you just like 'em better - the stronger. Both factions shouldn't necessarily be copies of each other, but they should in their own ways have the same capabilities.
But let's say you're a guy who doesn't wanna get entangled. BRITAIN ONLY, you declare! Now, you have a whole host of new problems. One is that you have to decide the TONE of the game. Do you allow LORD CRUMPET or be serious? You can have fun being serious – AU - or you can have fun being patently absurd - PacWar, in many ways. It all depends on the GM. Just make sure you're consistant. If the King of the realm is a dog named Spiffy who speaks in Yodaisms, don't expect people to treat it 100% seriously.
Okay, serious Britain-only American Revolution game. You've got that down. Now, we're onto plot . . . right? The answer is my favorite 6-letter phrase: lolnop. Plot is completely unimportant. You never HAVE to work on it. If you want to, sure. But there is absolutely no pressure. Plotless games can be quite fun. Just for the love of god, have a plot for a Type Two.
Q: Would a plot be as much of a necessity in a type 3 game? A: Well, it all depends on how good you are at bullshitting. I make up 100% of my plots as I go along. If you're good at that, you'll never need to work on it beforehand.
Okay, with that concept work finally done, it's rule time!
There is an inverse relationship between the size of your rules and their effectiveness.
That is one of The Commandments. If your rules are too long, they're anal. No one will remember them(including you), no one will understand what they do remember and no one wants to read an encyclopedia every mission. In many ways, no rules at all is almost better. However many rules you make, the players WILL find loopholes you didn't think of. Unless you're Wizards of the Coast and have 100 guys slaving over computers who are being paid to make a textbook about one of these games. I'm guessing you're not. So, what I recommend is the bare minimum - in game actions will sort themselves out. Use common sense.
The only things you really NEED to have rules for are character creation (USUALLY) and abilities (if you have them). As you can see from that sentence, not even those are 100%. If you want, you can just have people supply a name and make their own bio, and not include any developing abilities. Slightly anarchic, but what the hell.
But let's say that doesn't do it for you. Well, you have a few preexisting systems to look at before you go make your own. For character creation: the only rules you should have would be about abilities and weapons. Yes, even if you're running a Type Two. I don't care if it's set in the 2008 US presidential campaign as Senators seeking the Presidency. People will want to blow shit up. So, the available options:
Ability-wise, you have Level Systems, SP and XP.
Level Systems are the classic way to handle it. People start at either Level One or Level Zero, and gain new levels as time goes on. Add abilities at certain levels. Usually, this is paired with a class system - like choosing between Rangers and Sorcerers, for example, and the abilities you get at higher levels relate to the class you chose.
The XP system is next. This is sort of a cross between the Level and SP systems(I'll get to that in a minute). Basically, you earn XP on missions, and convert that XP directly into Abilities, Hit Points, Weapons, w/e. it could be XP, $$ - whatfuckingever. The only major downside is that it would require you to work out a cost for everything, which might go bad since you can't be sure it's all balanced.
Son made the SP system, and I personally think it's the best idea anyone's come up with so far. People start with X SP, and spend it on abilities just like XP, but with an SP system, you have to work your way up skill trees as opposed to just buying random crap. Centralizing everything on one resource is a good, solid idea - and it removes leveling altogether. Your call.
Okay, you've made that decision. Do you want people buying abilities beyond the start? I didn't allow that in SSD, as I'm sure at least some of you remember. It simplifies management of the game from a GM perspective, but it means character development is entirely roleplay. Again, neither idea is worse.
If you're running a larger-scale AC - like one set after D-Day as the US Army, do you let players command troops themselves, or just be single soldiers? You *can* do both. It depends on what you want. If you DO decide to use troops, there's three main systems to handle it.
1: The CP system. Each player has a certain amount of Command Points(CP) and they can command as many troops as they have CP value. A tank costs more to command than a dude with a rifle, for example. CP regenerates, so if a player has 30CP, uses 10, but then loses 3 of that 10, he now has 23 free CP.
The second system is the Command Class System that Sonereal created for Metro. You can spend Skill Points or what-have-you on getting a "Command Class" which enables you to purchase certain troop types and upgrades. This is the system most Commanding ACs are going with, as the CP system is prone to a lot of abuse. Esp. if you make troops and abilities cost the same resource - that way, you have to choose between being a badass and being a commander.
The third system is currently untested - the Companion System. In it, you purchase a single companion, but level him up the same way you level up yourself - purchase them weapons and abilities, name them, etc. Basically, almost a second character. Smaller scale, but possibly more manageable. It's up to you to decide what you want from that listing, or to disallow commanding.
So, from that. Hit Points. Sounds simple, right? Players have X HP and if they lose it all, they die. Well . . . you can avoid them altogether. Common sense games are usually noncombat.
The Chunky Salsa Rule: Any situation that reduces a player to the consistency of chunky salsa is lethal, regardless of other factors. That is the defining law of no HP games. Well, that and the Stupidity Rule. A player should not die doing something routine, like walking down the stairs, unless he's doing something fucking retarded at the time, like rollerskating, texting and chewing gum while sleepwalking. Or in a fight.
It’s okay to have Bob the Paladin trip in the epic swordfight with Don Drocha, the Big Bad, and break his leg. It is not okay for him to trip getting off his horse and break his leg unless something else was going on at the time. Like, say, a volcanic eruption or alien landing.
So yeah. It depends. If you use HP, you have a hard number to use. If you don't, common sense makes more sense. Just, if you use HP, don't get specific about where a guy is hit. "A bullet slams into your shoulder" is a no HP game phrasing. Then people have to worry about the injured shoulder. Just use generic "you're hit -X HP" - because HP doesn't just represent physical toughness or armor. HP can easily be skill at dodging.
After that? Weapons. Whether it's a Star Wars campaign or one as a Fellowship guarding a Ring on a magical journey, you gotta have weapons. You can either have weapons come based on people's bios and starting background pieces and skills, ala SSD, or you can have the players purchase weapons with $$, or you can give people total freedom with what weapons they have as long as they only have 3 weapons, or you can have people gain weapons based on the skills they take. The fourth is different from the first in that for the first, YOU award the weapons upon thought yourself, whereas with the fourth, if I choose the Archery skill tree I get a bow regardless. The better a weapon is, the harder it should be to acquire.
That leads us, I think, to the First Mission. Possibly THE most important one. You have to be interesting, but you're starting from nothing - you have no idea what to do! Well, there's a couple basic templates you can follow: if you're playing a game as military people, like SSD, have a small terrorist/enemy compound to attack. If a fantasy game? Have the players all camping together for w/e reason and are attacked by goblins. Or, if you have a non-combat game, just have them meet in a tavern or something. In fact, having people meet in a tavern is the trademarked first mission pattern.
Meet in tavern>introduce everyone>thugs burst in for w/e reason> players fight thugs> hints to larger conspiracy> game starts.
First mission layout. Change a few words and you can make it unrecognizable.
Paradrop from chopper>people meet upon landing> people engage hostile camp> hints to enemy offensive plan> game starts.
Same. Damn. Thing. I'll leave it to you to move on from that point and explore your larger plot and etc.
Now we get to talk about the combat system, since your players will ALMOST ALWAYS trigger a fight in Mission One.
In general, a 1 represents an Epic Fail, and a 20 represents a Crowning Moment of Awesome - I.E. - the best possible result from their order. If one side gets a 20 and the other a 1? That's known as total success. Feel free to spice up what happens at that point.
Now - what do you do in a tie? A normal tie should never be a problem - either attacks miss when the opponent's defensive roll matches, or they hit. Just establish beforehand whether defender advantage or attacker.
But what do you do if both sides get a 20? Well, there's 4 options:
GM interpretation: you consider all the component factors and create a common-sense scenario. Not always possible, but it can be a fast solution.
Reroll: what do you THINK?
Then there's the PC advantage versus NPC advantage concept - either PCs win opposed criticals automatically, or NPCs do. Be careful with this.
The last one is Stalemate - the overall situation does not change at all.
You have to be clear on what you're doing of these BEFORE an opposed crit happens, because trying to decide in-mission? Not fun. If Krognar the Barbarian is dueling Duke Jameson on a rickety bridge in a thunderstorm while the rest of the party is fighting his mooks, and both get 20s, what would happen on each of these ideas?
GM interpretation could be anything.
Reroll would just try again.
PC advantage? Krognar hits Jameson, probably disarms him.
NPC advantage? The reverse.
Stalemate just leaves it the way it is and you try again next round.
But there's another option with them: BOTH fail. In the above example, if both people got 1s, then the bridge gives under them. Or whatever you want, actually. Criticals are the only thing you really should WORRY about, combat-wise. And while indvidual crits are fairly frequent, either successes or failures, dueling crits or total success occur almost never. There's a 5% chance of a critical success OR a failure. There's a 2.5% chance of dueling crits or total success.
Now, a new topic – you’re playing your game, having fun - and a player pisses you off. How do you react? Three letters: B-R-B. Take 5. Grab a drink. Smoke some weed. Above all else: DO NOT FOLLOW YOUR KNEE-JERK REACTION.
Tip: if it's a knee-jerk reaction, it is probably such a bad idea there aren't words for it.
If the player is being completely disruptive, then just tell him to focus please, stop please, etc. Once the mission is over, talk to him. Now, this can go well or badly, but most people will be surprised that they were being a pain in the ass. I know of no one, actually, who WANTS to be one.
So yeah. Then comes the rule of GMing: it ain't all fun and games. You MUST control the thread and the game. That's ironclad. If you lose that control, then the game dies.
I'm gonna have to backtrack a bit. As the GM, you are the arbiter of life and death. That's an enormous amount of power. You hold the fate of a world in your pizza-stained hands. But you're not actually "the ruler of the game." The relationship between a GM and his/her players isn't that of a ruler to vassals, whatever Wizards of the Coast would have you believe.
There is a certain trust between you and the players - you trust that the players are here to play, have fun, not cheat, etc. But what do you trust your GM to do? Whatever you just thought, it's not serious enough. You trust your GM to not fudge rolls, to not reroll just because you made an irritating comment, to not throw you into a fight you cannot win etc. etc. If you lose that trust with your players, good luck getting it back. Players can smell bad GMing. Above all else? Never never never never admit that you did anything just to punish a player, or because they said something that irritated you, or etc. It can be true all day. But you can't admit it.. Otherwise, that trust dies, and the game does too.
Now that that's all out of the way, GMPCs. What is a GMPC? A GMPC is a PC that the GM controls and who accompanies the party. There are three ways to do GMPCs:
Type One GMPCs: these are "good" GMPCs. They have a skill the party lacks, but aren't taking the spotlight. I.E. a medic in a fighter-heavy party, but one who can't shoot for crap.
Type Two GMPCs: These are GMPCs who don't appear much. The unit commander for your Infantry Battalion, for example, is a Type Two. They should remain in contact with the players and probably be their nominal superior, but they don't hang out with them. The King of the Realm who ordered the players on the quest could be a good GMPC of the T2 variety.
Type Three GMPCs. The bad GMPCs. Type 3a is the Useless GMPC. One who adds nothing to the team and in fact detracts from it. A guy who has the same skills as most of the players, and ruins stealth ops, is a T3a.
T3b is the Mary Sue GMPC. Kills everything, takes the spotlight, etc. etc. Bonus points for both if all the other NPCs love them.
GMPCs can improve the game - Captain Andropov and Admiral Arion are two good GMPCs, of the 1 and 2 variety respectively. But 3s are really, really bad. A 3a just ruins the game for the players. A 3B? There might as well not be players.
A GMPC can improve options - if the player naval squadron decides to defect and join the Nazis, the high admiral of the Royal Navy should be the first to try and convince them otherwise. And if they defect anyway, well, you have a new Big Bad or Dragon - and the old Dragon/Big Bad might be the new GMPC.
Don't be afraid to have T2 GMPCs save the day once or twice. If the players have infiltrated the orc camp so that the King's army can get in, but wind up chased out by hundreds of orcs and pinned in a canyon, then you can have the King's army ride to the rescue all LOTR-like. He's not a 3B at that point because it was set up that he was around, and he doesn't make a habit of saving the players.
If the players pick a fight you think is too big for them, don't just drop a GMPC or such into it and have the GMPC win it or encourage the players to run.
This ties into another rule: be prepared for ANYONE to die. If the players meet a mailman, know what would logically happen if the mailman died. Because otherwise? They WILL kill him, just by Murphy's Law.
If you have the Big Bad, a major recurring villain, appear on a high balcony to taunt the players while they're fighting a dragon, be prepared for Krognar to grab a toilet seat and fling it like a frisbee, and get a total success. So yeah. Now your Big Bad is dead. To a toilet seat. Sounds like the players just fucked your plot gleefully, eh? They actually just strengthened it, if you're prepared.
You can have a grief-stricken widow come forward, having been forced into taking the reins of the evil empire. You can have the Big Bad's young son consumed with a furious desire for revenge against your players. You can have the police(or Sherlock Holmes) investigate the murder of a man with a toilet seat. As long as you're not too attached to any one NPC, you can make it work. Don't tie yourself to any one villain, because they're going to die, and probably when you can least afford them to.
Now let's talk about encounters. What fun is it if every encounter is handled on a clear, sunny day? Why not change things up? Introduce a pounding rainstorm that prevents the players from using their muskets! Make them fight the villain in a volcano lair! Maybe cliche, but have them make saves to resist the heat of the volcano! For reference, take a duel against Duke Jameson and his guards. Put it in the Imperial Dueling Grounds on a fair day. Change it to stormy midnight. Take them on the same clear day and put them on a ship. Put them on a mountaintop, snow raging around them. Have them go bowling. Have them riding dragons through the clouds. Etc. etc.
In general, the boss fight should not be on a perfect day, in perfect conditions - it should evoke movie finales - the pounding rain, the fiery volcano, the pounding heat of the desert. Or, it CAN be basic. But only if almost every encounter has been special - that makes the sheer normality of a 1v1 on the Imperial Dueling Grounds in and of itself abnormal.
Now, we get onto Total Party Kill. If the players did something stupid enough that a TPK is looking likely, you can either lay a hint(through an NPC, preferably) or let 'em die. Either works. Generally, you should let players win most encounters, even if you have to fudge the dice a little bit. Never said they all had to live, or that they all had to get through easy. But unless it's a special fight, the players should probably win.
Q: Is it ok to continue the plot if the players miss most of the plot points in mission 1? Because my first mission outlined two major things about the plot I think everybody missed.
A: Yes. You can continue the same plot, or adjust it a little. If they missed Mission One? Well, that's their loss, not yours. They'll remember it later on. Or, you can have an NPC pull "What The Hell, Player?" moment and everyone will be like "oh yeah . . . ." In fact, count on doing that.
Q: If your game is plot-heavy, how much should be made by you, and how much should be made by the players?
A: The foundations should be made by you, and you should make a general curve of the overall plot. It's a hard question. I'd say 30% you. Because you have to make the plot, but be 100% willing to shred it on the flip of a coin. You make the foundations and backstory, but the players’ actions control where it goes from there. You should know the goals of the NPCs, but the actions of the PCs should drive what exactly the NPCs are planning. Their goals don't change - the methods and plans do. A bit complicated, but it's a complicated subject. Some people will say that the plot is YOURS and not the PLAYERS’ – but forcing the players along your plot is deemed railroading, and typically is frowned upon. Some others will say the GM should have NO plot, and let the PLAYERS make the whole thing up. This *can* work, but it's not a great plan. Players can't be left totally alone with no guidance.
On a vaguely related topic: What do you do if the players decide to start chucking fireballs around the town center? Being, after all, the PCs and danm powerful.
Qui-Gon Jinn: There's always a bigger fish.
Maybe the King has a legion of mage-police just in case some wiseass tries that. Maybe there's an antimagic field around the town. In general, there should always be someone more badass than the PCs just in case they go psycho. There's an intangibility spell that lets people fade through walls. Why are bank vaults still safe? Obviously, there's a reason. Make the PCs find out that reason when they try to pilfer gold.
Also, alignments. Alignments are only useful if they are . . . useful. Don’t include alignments if you’re going to force everyone to be one of them and not allow them to change. At that point, why bother?
Q: What if, unintentionally, you add a number of adversaries the PCs cannot defeat?
A: If you add a number of adversaries that the PCs can't fight? DO NOT PROVIDE AN NPC TO FIGHT FOR THE PCs. Make them have some sort of arcane weakness. If it's a fantasy game, maybe those wraiths the PCs can't seem to beat are SUPERvulnerable to fire?
Hope you enjoyed and found it useful!
-L
Now that that's out of the way - we know WHY you started. But then you have to actually figure out what you're doing. Trust me, that's the hardest part. Just like the hardest part of writing something is staring at the blank page and trying to decide what to write, deciding what kind of game to run is hard too. But there are a few stages you can work through to help you narrow it down - since the rules are GOING to be affected by the setting and plot.
For starters, the big question is what kind of game you want to run. There are three main types(shamelessly ripped from D&D):
1: Kick In the Door: There isn't a lot of contemplation or thought - you smash the door down, fight the stormtroopers, save the princess. These are good starting ACs, because you can focus on the combat mechanics and just familiarize yourself with how a game works.
2: Non-Combat Game. The focus is not on fighting - indeed, there's hardly any combat at all. The focus is on political maneuvering and charisma. This can work, but it can be awfully boring if done badly, so it's a bit finicky.
3: And now, guess the third type - a combination of the above. Most games fall into this category.
PacWar, AU and SSD were all Type One, IoD was Type Two, and Stellar War was Type Three. The focus may be on one part over the other but both exist and are viable - as in, it is POSSIBLE for a character to be a pacifist if they desire. Now, if it's possible for the WHOLE DAMN PARTY to be pacifists, you sure as hell have a Type Two.
So yeah. That's the first decision you need to make. Type One, Two, or Three? None are inherently better than the others.
Then, you have to worry about the setting. Screw any thoughts about plot for now. Just think about the technology level and such. Do you want to play Spartans? Redcoats? US Marines in Vietnam? Space captains? That is a keystone early decision. What you choose is going to screw with your plot and rules in many ways.
Okay, now you've settled that. You want, say, a kick in the door game as Redcoats in the American Revolutionary War. But do you want to allow an American faction too? There's an advantage in that EVERYONE likes challenging themselves against other players, and these games are memorable. But managing them? HELL ON FUCKING WHEELS.
A pitfall lies in making one faction - whether it's canonically or historically the victor or you just like 'em better - the stronger. Both factions shouldn't necessarily be copies of each other, but they should in their own ways have the same capabilities.
But let's say you're a guy who doesn't wanna get entangled. BRITAIN ONLY, you declare! Now, you have a whole host of new problems. One is that you have to decide the TONE of the game. Do you allow LORD CRUMPET or be serious? You can have fun being serious – AU - or you can have fun being patently absurd - PacWar, in many ways. It all depends on the GM. Just make sure you're consistant. If the King of the realm is a dog named Spiffy who speaks in Yodaisms, don't expect people to treat it 100% seriously.
Okay, serious Britain-only American Revolution game. You've got that down. Now, we're onto plot . . . right? The answer is my favorite 6-letter phrase: lolnop. Plot is completely unimportant. You never HAVE to work on it. If you want to, sure. But there is absolutely no pressure. Plotless games can be quite fun. Just for the love of god, have a plot for a Type Two.
Q: Would a plot be as much of a necessity in a type 3 game? A: Well, it all depends on how good you are at bullshitting. I make up 100% of my plots as I go along. If you're good at that, you'll never need to work on it beforehand.
Okay, with that concept work finally done, it's rule time!
There is an inverse relationship between the size of your rules and their effectiveness.
That is one of The Commandments. If your rules are too long, they're anal. No one will remember them(including you), no one will understand what they do remember and no one wants to read an encyclopedia every mission. In many ways, no rules at all is almost better. However many rules you make, the players WILL find loopholes you didn't think of. Unless you're Wizards of the Coast and have 100 guys slaving over computers who are being paid to make a textbook about one of these games. I'm guessing you're not. So, what I recommend is the bare minimum - in game actions will sort themselves out. Use common sense.
The only things you really NEED to have rules for are character creation (USUALLY) and abilities (if you have them). As you can see from that sentence, not even those are 100%. If you want, you can just have people supply a name and make their own bio, and not include any developing abilities. Slightly anarchic, but what the hell.
But let's say that doesn't do it for you. Well, you have a few preexisting systems to look at before you go make your own. For character creation: the only rules you should have would be about abilities and weapons. Yes, even if you're running a Type Two. I don't care if it's set in the 2008 US presidential campaign as Senators seeking the Presidency. People will want to blow shit up. So, the available options:
Ability-wise, you have Level Systems, SP and XP.
Level Systems are the classic way to handle it. People start at either Level One or Level Zero, and gain new levels as time goes on. Add abilities at certain levels. Usually, this is paired with a class system - like choosing between Rangers and Sorcerers, for example, and the abilities you get at higher levels relate to the class you chose.
The XP system is next. This is sort of a cross between the Level and SP systems(I'll get to that in a minute). Basically, you earn XP on missions, and convert that XP directly into Abilities, Hit Points, Weapons, w/e. it could be XP, $$ - whatfuckingever. The only major downside is that it would require you to work out a cost for everything, which might go bad since you can't be sure it's all balanced.
Son made the SP system, and I personally think it's the best idea anyone's come up with so far. People start with X SP, and spend it on abilities just like XP, but with an SP system, you have to work your way up skill trees as opposed to just buying random crap. Centralizing everything on one resource is a good, solid idea - and it removes leveling altogether. Your call.
Okay, you've made that decision. Do you want people buying abilities beyond the start? I didn't allow that in SSD, as I'm sure at least some of you remember. It simplifies management of the game from a GM perspective, but it means character development is entirely roleplay. Again, neither idea is worse.
If you're running a larger-scale AC - like one set after D-Day as the US Army, do you let players command troops themselves, or just be single soldiers? You *can* do both. It depends on what you want. If you DO decide to use troops, there's three main systems to handle it.
1: The CP system. Each player has a certain amount of Command Points(CP) and they can command as many troops as they have CP value. A tank costs more to command than a dude with a rifle, for example. CP regenerates, so if a player has 30CP, uses 10, but then loses 3 of that 10, he now has 23 free CP.
The second system is the Command Class System that Sonereal created for Metro. You can spend Skill Points or what-have-you on getting a "Command Class" which enables you to purchase certain troop types and upgrades. This is the system most Commanding ACs are going with, as the CP system is prone to a lot of abuse. Esp. if you make troops and abilities cost the same resource - that way, you have to choose between being a badass and being a commander.
The third system is currently untested - the Companion System. In it, you purchase a single companion, but level him up the same way you level up yourself - purchase them weapons and abilities, name them, etc. Basically, almost a second character. Smaller scale, but possibly more manageable. It's up to you to decide what you want from that listing, or to disallow commanding.
So, from that. Hit Points. Sounds simple, right? Players have X HP and if they lose it all, they die. Well . . . you can avoid them altogether. Common sense games are usually noncombat.
The Chunky Salsa Rule: Any situation that reduces a player to the consistency of chunky salsa is lethal, regardless of other factors. That is the defining law of no HP games. Well, that and the Stupidity Rule. A player should not die doing something routine, like walking down the stairs, unless he's doing something fucking retarded at the time, like rollerskating, texting and chewing gum while sleepwalking. Or in a fight.
It’s okay to have Bob the Paladin trip in the epic swordfight with Don Drocha, the Big Bad, and break his leg. It is not okay for him to trip getting off his horse and break his leg unless something else was going on at the time. Like, say, a volcanic eruption or alien landing.
So yeah. It depends. If you use HP, you have a hard number to use. If you don't, common sense makes more sense. Just, if you use HP, don't get specific about where a guy is hit. "A bullet slams into your shoulder" is a no HP game phrasing. Then people have to worry about the injured shoulder. Just use generic "you're hit -X HP" - because HP doesn't just represent physical toughness or armor. HP can easily be skill at dodging.
After that? Weapons. Whether it's a Star Wars campaign or one as a Fellowship guarding a Ring on a magical journey, you gotta have weapons. You can either have weapons come based on people's bios and starting background pieces and skills, ala SSD, or you can have the players purchase weapons with $$, or you can give people total freedom with what weapons they have as long as they only have 3 weapons, or you can have people gain weapons based on the skills they take. The fourth is different from the first in that for the first, YOU award the weapons upon thought yourself, whereas with the fourth, if I choose the Archery skill tree I get a bow regardless. The better a weapon is, the harder it should be to acquire.
That leads us, I think, to the First Mission. Possibly THE most important one. You have to be interesting, but you're starting from nothing - you have no idea what to do! Well, there's a couple basic templates you can follow: if you're playing a game as military people, like SSD, have a small terrorist/enemy compound to attack. If a fantasy game? Have the players all camping together for w/e reason and are attacked by goblins. Or, if you have a non-combat game, just have them meet in a tavern or something. In fact, having people meet in a tavern is the trademarked first mission pattern.
Meet in tavern>introduce everyone>thugs burst in for w/e reason> players fight thugs> hints to larger conspiracy> game starts.
First mission layout. Change a few words and you can make it unrecognizable.
Paradrop from chopper>people meet upon landing> people engage hostile camp> hints to enemy offensive plan> game starts.
Same. Damn. Thing. I'll leave it to you to move on from that point and explore your larger plot and etc.
Now we get to talk about the combat system, since your players will ALMOST ALWAYS trigger a fight in Mission One.
In general, a 1 represents an Epic Fail, and a 20 represents a Crowning Moment of Awesome - I.E. - the best possible result from their order. If one side gets a 20 and the other a 1? That's known as total success. Feel free to spice up what happens at that point.
Now - what do you do in a tie? A normal tie should never be a problem - either attacks miss when the opponent's defensive roll matches, or they hit. Just establish beforehand whether defender advantage or attacker.
But what do you do if both sides get a 20? Well, there's 4 options:
GM interpretation: you consider all the component factors and create a common-sense scenario. Not always possible, but it can be a fast solution.
Reroll: what do you THINK?
Then there's the PC advantage versus NPC advantage concept - either PCs win opposed criticals automatically, or NPCs do. Be careful with this.
The last one is Stalemate - the overall situation does not change at all.
You have to be clear on what you're doing of these BEFORE an opposed crit happens, because trying to decide in-mission? Not fun. If Krognar the Barbarian is dueling Duke Jameson on a rickety bridge in a thunderstorm while the rest of the party is fighting his mooks, and both get 20s, what would happen on each of these ideas?
GM interpretation could be anything.
Reroll would just try again.
PC advantage? Krognar hits Jameson, probably disarms him.
NPC advantage? The reverse.
Stalemate just leaves it the way it is and you try again next round.
But there's another option with them: BOTH fail. In the above example, if both people got 1s, then the bridge gives under them. Or whatever you want, actually. Criticals are the only thing you really should WORRY about, combat-wise. And while indvidual crits are fairly frequent, either successes or failures, dueling crits or total success occur almost never. There's a 5% chance of a critical success OR a failure. There's a 2.5% chance of dueling crits or total success.
Now, a new topic – you’re playing your game, having fun - and a player pisses you off. How do you react? Three letters: B-R-B. Take 5. Grab a drink. Smoke some weed. Above all else: DO NOT FOLLOW YOUR KNEE-JERK REACTION.
Tip: if it's a knee-jerk reaction, it is probably such a bad idea there aren't words for it.
If the player is being completely disruptive, then just tell him to focus please, stop please, etc. Once the mission is over, talk to him. Now, this can go well or badly, but most people will be surprised that they were being a pain in the ass. I know of no one, actually, who WANTS to be one.
So yeah. Then comes the rule of GMing: it ain't all fun and games. You MUST control the thread and the game. That's ironclad. If you lose that control, then the game dies.
I'm gonna have to backtrack a bit. As the GM, you are the arbiter of life and death. That's an enormous amount of power. You hold the fate of a world in your pizza-stained hands. But you're not actually "the ruler of the game." The relationship between a GM and his/her players isn't that of a ruler to vassals, whatever Wizards of the Coast would have you believe.
There is a certain trust between you and the players - you trust that the players are here to play, have fun, not cheat, etc. But what do you trust your GM to do? Whatever you just thought, it's not serious enough. You trust your GM to not fudge rolls, to not reroll just because you made an irritating comment, to not throw you into a fight you cannot win etc. etc. If you lose that trust with your players, good luck getting it back. Players can smell bad GMing. Above all else? Never never never never admit that you did anything just to punish a player, or because they said something that irritated you, or etc. It can be true all day. But you can't admit it.. Otherwise, that trust dies, and the game does too.
Now that that's all out of the way, GMPCs. What is a GMPC? A GMPC is a PC that the GM controls and who accompanies the party. There are three ways to do GMPCs:
Type One GMPCs: these are "good" GMPCs. They have a skill the party lacks, but aren't taking the spotlight. I.E. a medic in a fighter-heavy party, but one who can't shoot for crap.
Type Two GMPCs: These are GMPCs who don't appear much. The unit commander for your Infantry Battalion, for example, is a Type Two. They should remain in contact with the players and probably be their nominal superior, but they don't hang out with them. The King of the Realm who ordered the players on the quest could be a good GMPC of the T2 variety.
Type Three GMPCs. The bad GMPCs. Type 3a is the Useless GMPC. One who adds nothing to the team and in fact detracts from it. A guy who has the same skills as most of the players, and ruins stealth ops, is a T3a.
T3b is the Mary Sue GMPC. Kills everything, takes the spotlight, etc. etc. Bonus points for both if all the other NPCs love them.
GMPCs can improve the game - Captain Andropov and Admiral Arion are two good GMPCs, of the 1 and 2 variety respectively. But 3s are really, really bad. A 3a just ruins the game for the players. A 3B? There might as well not be players.
A GMPC can improve options - if the player naval squadron decides to defect and join the Nazis, the high admiral of the Royal Navy should be the first to try and convince them otherwise. And if they defect anyway, well, you have a new Big Bad or Dragon - and the old Dragon/Big Bad might be the new GMPC.
Don't be afraid to have T2 GMPCs save the day once or twice. If the players have infiltrated the orc camp so that the King's army can get in, but wind up chased out by hundreds of orcs and pinned in a canyon, then you can have the King's army ride to the rescue all LOTR-like. He's not a 3B at that point because it was set up that he was around, and he doesn't make a habit of saving the players.
If the players pick a fight you think is too big for them, don't just drop a GMPC or such into it and have the GMPC win it or encourage the players to run.
This ties into another rule: be prepared for ANYONE to die. If the players meet a mailman, know what would logically happen if the mailman died. Because otherwise? They WILL kill him, just by Murphy's Law.
If you have the Big Bad, a major recurring villain, appear on a high balcony to taunt the players while they're fighting a dragon, be prepared for Krognar to grab a toilet seat and fling it like a frisbee, and get a total success. So yeah. Now your Big Bad is dead. To a toilet seat. Sounds like the players just fucked your plot gleefully, eh? They actually just strengthened it, if you're prepared.
You can have a grief-stricken widow come forward, having been forced into taking the reins of the evil empire. You can have the Big Bad's young son consumed with a furious desire for revenge against your players. You can have the police(or Sherlock Holmes) investigate the murder of a man with a toilet seat. As long as you're not too attached to any one NPC, you can make it work. Don't tie yourself to any one villain, because they're going to die, and probably when you can least afford them to.
Now let's talk about encounters. What fun is it if every encounter is handled on a clear, sunny day? Why not change things up? Introduce a pounding rainstorm that prevents the players from using their muskets! Make them fight the villain in a volcano lair! Maybe cliche, but have them make saves to resist the heat of the volcano! For reference, take a duel against Duke Jameson and his guards. Put it in the Imperial Dueling Grounds on a fair day. Change it to stormy midnight. Take them on the same clear day and put them on a ship. Put them on a mountaintop, snow raging around them. Have them go bowling. Have them riding dragons through the clouds. Etc. etc.
In general, the boss fight should not be on a perfect day, in perfect conditions - it should evoke movie finales - the pounding rain, the fiery volcano, the pounding heat of the desert. Or, it CAN be basic. But only if almost every encounter has been special - that makes the sheer normality of a 1v1 on the Imperial Dueling Grounds in and of itself abnormal.
Now, we get onto Total Party Kill. If the players did something stupid enough that a TPK is looking likely, you can either lay a hint(through an NPC, preferably) or let 'em die. Either works. Generally, you should let players win most encounters, even if you have to fudge the dice a little bit. Never said they all had to live, or that they all had to get through easy. But unless it's a special fight, the players should probably win.
Q: Is it ok to continue the plot if the players miss most of the plot points in mission 1? Because my first mission outlined two major things about the plot I think everybody missed.
A: Yes. You can continue the same plot, or adjust it a little. If they missed Mission One? Well, that's their loss, not yours. They'll remember it later on. Or, you can have an NPC pull "What The Hell, Player?" moment and everyone will be like "oh yeah . . . ." In fact, count on doing that.
Q: If your game is plot-heavy, how much should be made by you, and how much should be made by the players?
A: The foundations should be made by you, and you should make a general curve of the overall plot. It's a hard question. I'd say 30% you. Because you have to make the plot, but be 100% willing to shred it on the flip of a coin. You make the foundations and backstory, but the players’ actions control where it goes from there. You should know the goals of the NPCs, but the actions of the PCs should drive what exactly the NPCs are planning. Their goals don't change - the methods and plans do. A bit complicated, but it's a complicated subject. Some people will say that the plot is YOURS and not the PLAYERS’ – but forcing the players along your plot is deemed railroading, and typically is frowned upon. Some others will say the GM should have NO plot, and let the PLAYERS make the whole thing up. This *can* work, but it's not a great plan. Players can't be left totally alone with no guidance.
On a vaguely related topic: What do you do if the players decide to start chucking fireballs around the town center? Being, after all, the PCs and danm powerful.
Qui-Gon Jinn: There's always a bigger fish.
Maybe the King has a legion of mage-police just in case some wiseass tries that. Maybe there's an antimagic field around the town. In general, there should always be someone more badass than the PCs just in case they go psycho. There's an intangibility spell that lets people fade through walls. Why are bank vaults still safe? Obviously, there's a reason. Make the PCs find out that reason when they try to pilfer gold.
Also, alignments. Alignments are only useful if they are . . . useful. Don’t include alignments if you’re going to force everyone to be one of them and not allow them to change. At that point, why bother?
Q: What if, unintentionally, you add a number of adversaries the PCs cannot defeat?
A: If you add a number of adversaries that the PCs can't fight? DO NOT PROVIDE AN NPC TO FIGHT FOR THE PCs. Make them have some sort of arcane weakness. If it's a fantasy game, maybe those wraiths the PCs can't seem to beat are SUPERvulnerable to fire?
Hope you enjoyed and found it useful!
-L