PDA

View Full Version : DM Help How to GM better?



Scowling Dragon
2015-12-11, 06:20 PM
Well a months long campaign over Star Wars Saga just ended. Im sad to say I think it ended poorly with allot of people mad at me. And I don't think its misplaced. But its something I gotta figure out in the generals of running the game:

Should I enable players when they do something, even if I think it should not work?

An example. Players managed to destroy a Droid sent to kill them. One of the players decided that he could send a signal through the droid back in the ship to tell the controllers that the target has been eliminated.

I would have thought that the time distance between the droids destruction (Thus the signal cutting out), and them turning it back on to send a different signal would be more suspicious then anything else.

But the player got very mad. And this got me thinking: The players didn't know all the details. The players didn't know the droid sent a signal continuously, and thus it might be suspicious. And so the player got mad with me because he "couldn't read my mind" as he said himself.

And even assuming I was right in this situation, how should I handle the situation in the future?

nedz
2015-12-11, 06:34 PM
How did the player know his plan hadn't worked ?

There are different ways of handling this depending upon your play style — and that of the players. Groups rarely contains players all of the same play-style.

You sound quite simulationist, maybe he was expecting a more collaborative story telling style ?

It's hard to tell from one incident — and only one side of it too.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-11, 06:34 PM
It depends on how you deliver that information.

"I want to hack the droid and send back a signal saying the target is eliminated."

"Ok, but [character] knows that droids like this one are usually slaved to a larger droid control unit. Like an RC car. You can absolutely send the signal, but at best it would delay them finding you without halting their search. At worst, it doesn't fool them at all and just wastes valuable time. You can do it, but [character] would be well aware of the risk." That way you're doing two things:
1. You let them do it anyways. Point out possible consequences but ultimately let them do it.
2. It makes their character COMPETENT. The character knows a piece of information that the player may not be aware of, and that's ok. Sometimes characters know stuff the players wouldn't. In fact, that's often the case. (Do any of your players know how to fly a space ship? Ok then.)

In general, I follow the rules of:
1. If they are going to do something risky/stupid, let them know.
And
2. Let them do it anyways if they really want to.

Remember, a success at a stupid thing should be, fundamentally, a success. It should help them to some degree, but not as much as they are hoping for.

I would highly recommend picking up Apocalypse World and reading their "How to MC" section. It's great stuff for GMing any game, if you tweak the wording slightly in one or two places. (Such as swapping "barf forth apocalyptica" with "Send them to a galaxy far far away")

It has had a massive positive impact on my GMing, and I recommend it to others. It's the only system I've seen that actually attempts to teach the HOW of GMing. So I rather like it.

thebluemusicbox
2015-12-11, 06:41 PM
As a rule of thumb, never say no. Especially to situations where there's a player-GM disconnect or where the character would have no way of knowing the outcome. If your player asks if he can reboot the droid to send a signal, let them. It doesn't have to turn out like they planned, but there's no reason to tell them it's a bad idea to try. I also find it helpful to pay attention to what other players say they think will happen and base what does off of that. It guarantees that it fits with what they believe possible and the person who suggested it gets to feel good about guessing what was going to happen.

BRC
2015-12-11, 06:49 PM
In terms of enabling, I think it is the GMs duty to enable the players with information that the characters would know.

Which is to say, a player can make a mistake, but if the character would know that was a mistake, the player should as well.

I do not approve of GMs using any variation of "You didn't ask" to excuse not telling the players something that their character would know.

In your specific example, I would have prompted whoever was mucking around inside the drold for some sort of skill or knowledge check to recognize that there was a continuous signal being sent.
Generally speaking, players are okay with being screwed over, they just hate being powerless. Knowledge is Power. If they feel that you withheld information they should have had, they stop taking the loss in stride, and start blaming the GM, just as if you deprived them of all their equipment just before a crucial battle.


Regardless of your intent, players can end up thinking about things as "Rewards" and "Punishments", directed not at the character, but at the Player.

If a Player has their character take some great risk, fully aware of the risk, and it goes badly, the CHARACTER may be punished for that risk, but the PLAYER does not feel that they are punished. They went in knowing the odds, and the dice fell a certain way.

If, however, the player makes some decision that has consequences they had know way of knowing about, from their perspective it seems arbitrary, and they feel that the GM is punishing them.

From YOUR perspective, the droid was always sending a constant signal, and so the droid's controllers were aware the moment it went offline. From your perspective, this was perfectly logical. This is how you assumed droids of this sort worked.
Your player assumed that the droid was running autonomously, and would send a signal back when it completed its mission. From their perspective, there was no way to know that their plan was doomed, so their plans failure feels like you (The GM) are punishing them (The Player) for attempting a clever and creative solution to their current problem.

So yeah, my general rules for this sort of situation.

1) If The Plan would Fail automatically, either tell the players that, or give them some sort of way to learn that before they go ahead with it (a knowledge check, or something).
2) If the Plan WOULD NOT Fail automatically, make the players aware (at least to the degree that their characters are aware, erring on the side of too much information) what the risks involved are.
3) If the Plan would only fail due to some minor detail (Plan involves burning a building, that particular building is clearly not flammable), point that out, and prompt the players to amend the plan.
4) If the Characters do not have the information, then the Players should be made aware of the limitations on their character's knowledge (Unless overconfidence is a feature of the character).
5) Any decision of consequence should be an informed decision. Neither players nor characters should ever suffer due to a choice they were forced to make blindly.

Scowling Dragon
2015-12-11, 09:10 PM
I think at least part of the dealio, is that it all happened in two sentences at the end of the session wrap up.

I think its those sorts of deals are when I rush it and cause the issues.

AMFV
2015-12-11, 10:04 PM
I think at least part of the dealio, is that it all happened in two sentences at the end of the session wrap up.

I think its those sorts of deals are when I rush it and cause the issues.

I would avoid giving last minute rulings like that, especially if it's during the wrap-up. Basically the wrap up should be used to wrap up sessions. If you're introducing new stuff, you aren't wrapping up.

goto124
2015-12-12, 01:54 AM
It also brings up another question: When should the player be 'punished' for not researching on the enemy?

In the GM's perspective, it's just running the world as it should be like, that the players rushing in to attack the enemy should come with appropriate consequences.

I suppose the best way would be to point out the possibility and advantages of researching the enemy, as well as how to go about the research?

Quertus
2015-12-12, 08:51 AM
As has already been said, give the players reasonable+ ability to understand what is going on. Make their characters seem competent.

So, in this case, when the player declares their intent to send the signal, inform the player that the droid was sending a continuous signal... Or give them a skill check to realize this. Then, perhaps, they may ask for a skill check to have the droid send a signal that a) indicates that the targets are dead and b) explains why the signal was interrupted (damage to transmitter, inside a shielded area, etc). This could result in an opposed skill check against the operator/monitor, with some bonus or penalty... Which a skill check on the part of the character could tell them what their odds of success are.

If they fail to convince the BBE of the authenticity of the signal, however, I would not force the action to have some beneficial consequences. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, under me, it would be detrimental. For one, they lost time getting away to send the signal. Also, the BBE now knows that they are the type to fake signals - and has some idea how good they are at it. And, if I'm feeling particularly mean, the next assassin droid will come with a surprise - anything from a fake signal array, to a thermal detonator timed to go off in the middle of their next hacking attempt.

That having been said... If the droid was sending a continuous signal - a seemingly wise idea, the type I would use as a player or BBE - then this signal could be detected, or even hacked, by the players. While I would *not* give the players this idea, I would be prepared for what to do if they come up with it on their own. The only problem is if the players were already geared towards detecting the signal, and even had their gear active when/before the droid attacked. If they protest about the encounter on these grounds, you (as a group) may have to retcon a solution, like that this droid actually was autonomous, or its transmitter malfunctioned... Or even that the party should have been aware of, and gotten to ambush, the droid.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-12, 09:02 AM
As a rule of thumb: Always Say No.

A game can quickly get crazy if the GM just lets players do anything.


Try to be as clear as possible when describing things. Slow down. Even take the extra minute to ask the players if they understand. You want to make sure the players are on exactly the same page that you are on. You really can't ''over describe'' something unless your going over like 5,000 words.

When describing things in the game world, be unbelievably over the top and obvious with things far past the point of any reason. Whatever you might think is reasonable, go like two steps beyond that.

Try to think ahead to the future and have the present reflect that. At least add ''random'' details that you can use later. Always add more, not less.

Try to get your players in the habit of asking questions. Far too many players just arrogantly assume they know everything for no reason. And they will arrogantly have a character take actions on what they think they know, or worse what they want the game reality to be like. So again, slow down. Get the players to ask at least a couple questions before they try and do anything.

Try to drag actions out. Avoid quick ones. Once again slow down. Try to make any complex action take at least a couple rolls: both action rolls and information rolls.

Make any ''important'' activity a challenge. Avoid one dice roll to alter time and space.

Always, always feel free to alter the game reality to what ever you want it to be.


So for the killer droid example:

1. Have the droid have a big antenna sticking out of it with a little red flashing light.
2. Have the droid constantly say things like ''status report: targets sighted'' and ''status report: targets engaged''.

See how both the above ones are insanely over the top of ''hey guys this droid is sending a live signal to someone''. Even my grandma, who dislikes Sci-Fi, would get the message that ''the robot is on the phone with someone''.

3. When the droid falls, it should of course say ''Mission failure! Transmission terminated!" right before it goes off line.

4. When the driod falls, add in lots of sparks and flames even a small explosion. If your thinking ahead, you can say the droid parts are damaged or destroyed...by a fail-safe built into it. But even if you did not think of that ahead of time, still have the flashy damage. You can always link back to the damage for a reason, even if you did not have a reason to do so when you said it.

5. So the character wants to send a signal. This should take at least three action rolls. Something like ''fixing the transmitter'', ''fixing the antenna'' and ''getting a power source'', plus ''figuring out the right code to send''. This will require a couple skill rolls.

6. Make fixing the droid and sending the message a challenge, that might take all of five minutes of game time. Have the player think of a way to power the transmitter, not just ''I rolls the dice and dos it somehow''. It can be as simple as ''I take the power pack out of my blaster''. They still make the roll to to the action, but add in a bit of role play.

7. And over the top, once again. If the character does send the signal make some ''strange galactic feedback'' where they here something like ''Static.....sir, Droid PK179 stopped transmitting at 01230 when it sent the mission failure message. But we just got at message from the droid saying mission complete'' Static fade out.

8. And, of course: Have the transmission say "Send a Death Squad to the location of the signal immediately !''

nedz
2015-12-12, 10:16 AM
As a rule of thumb: Always Say No.
No ! Bad advice.

You always say "Yes", but then you make the rolls and enforce the consequences.

If the player is about to do something suicidal then you should ask them "Are you sure ?". I don't use this exact wording myself - I just point out the obvious.


A game can quickly get crazy if the GM just lets players do anything.
Embrace the chaos - it's more fun.


Try to be as clear as possible when describing things. Slow down. Even take the extra minute to ask the players if they understand. You want to make sure the players are on exactly the same page that you are on. You really can't ''over describe'' something unless your going over like 5,000 words.

When describing things in the game world, be unbelievably over the top and obvious with things far past the point of any reason. Whatever you might think is reasonable, go like two steps beyond that.
No !
Spewing out an info dump will just cause the player's eyes to glaze over. Eventually they will just Leroy your NPCs out of boredom.

Use Figures and Floorplans to give the tactical information.

Give out a general description to set the scene and then adopt a conversational approach to allow them to explore the scene. This way you can detect if they have misheard or misinterpreted anything you have said - which you should immediately correct; also it's interactive. If they fail to explore the scene then it's their loss.

You should pace your communication to create atmosphere and tension, not to paint extraneous décor.


Try to think ahead to the future and have the present reflect that. At least add ''random'' details that you can use later. Always add more, not less.
Decide whether you want to use Chekhov guns or not — I don't but it's a valid style.

Generally less is more, with a conversational approach you can add more detail later, without boring people.


Try to get your players in the habit of asking questions. Far too many players just arrogantly assume they know everything for no reason. And they will arrogantly have a character take actions on what they think they know, or worse what they want the game reality to be like. So again, slow down. Get the players to ask at least a couple questions before they try and do anything.
If you adopt a conversational style this will not be a problem, lecture them and it will be.


Try to drag actions out. Avoid quick ones. Once again slow down. Try to make any complex action take at least a couple rolls: both action rolls and information rolls.
No, see pacing above.

Make any ''important'' activity a challenge. Avoid one dice roll to alter time and space.
The more dice rolls you enforce: the less likelihood there is of success.

Always, always feel free to alter the game reality to what ever you want it to be.
Yes, until it's happened. Once dice have been rolled it's set in stone.

Calen
2015-12-12, 10:39 AM
Yes, until it's happened. Once dice have been rolled it's set in stone.

I would modify/expand this to say: Once the players see it its set in stone.

GM has a large repository of knowledge about the world that the players don't know, Probably they don't even care about it. You can feel free to fudge and change this information as needed to drive the story.
Players kill your main villain thinking that it is a random encounter in the third session? No they merely killed one of the villains mooks.
But once it is moved to the players side of the screen it becomes truth until their informed action or inaction causes it to change.

goto124
2015-12-12, 11:23 AM
I've seen the suggestion that players could have a set of 'Preparation Points' to retroactively say they've prepared in some manner. For example, if they encounter a guarded gate, they could say "My PC bribed a guard earlier on - how many points is that?"

The limited number of points is what prevents abuse.

Scowling Dragon
2015-12-12, 01:00 PM
I guess its a case of what players and GMs want as well.

Some players may just want to goof off all day and just be empowered to do anything.

Others might want more of a challenge, or more of a story focus.

The preparation points are interesting. Might want to take that into account.

Glimbur
2015-12-12, 05:53 PM
You're already taking the first step to being a better DM: recognizing a problem. Kudos for that.

I like a rule I lifted from improvisational comedy, called "Yes, and". As some other people have said, it can be boring and dis-empowering to just say no to player plans. But if you just say yes, then they have too much power and it can be difficult to plan and/or challenge them. Hence, yes and. Yes, you can hack the droid and send the signal, and... 1) you learn it is sending a continuous signal until you killed it, do you still send the signal? or 2) The person receiving the signal is suspicious because of the break in the signal; also they learned something about your abilities 3) The signal is not as tightly controlled because it is jury-rigged so someone else also receives it or... So either their character knows something and looks competent, or their plan maybe work, or it works with a hiccup, or... but just a firm 'no', as you have seen, can make the players less excited about trying things.

I could probably come up with a better example for "Yes, and", or I suspect Google could help.

Jayngfet
2015-12-13, 08:51 PM
Player here. So from my perspective, the incident in question basically went like this:

We land on a planet using faked credentials so my name never comes up.

I use a fake ID to book hotel rooms away from the ship.

I'm in disguise under an alias when we go out.

The only pieces of paperwork with my name on it in the entire galaxy are essentially a birth certificate, a missing and presumed dead form showing the last time I'd been seen was about a decade ago, and a physical contract kept my someone else in hiding and presumed dead. The only other non-party people aware of this have it in their best interest to keep quiet and were doing so, and even they had no way of knowing where I was or where I'd gone.

Basically the moment I step out of the hotel room, then come the assassin droids, looking for me specifically under my real name and apparently knowing half my secrets already. The fact that they exploded violently with nothing leftover to either loot or signal if they're both reduced to 0 hit points AND thrown down the condition track basically meant nothing I did regarding them mattered. Even getting the computer core was a thing I basically had to fight the GM for and make a bunch of rolls towards.

Which is kind of where my problem comes in. I didn't need prep points because I cleared all my disguises and did all my bribery and aliases beforehand and it amounted to nothing, then there wasn't really anything I could do during or after the encounter to affect things. For all it basically mattered I could have walked down main street wearing a sandwich board with my name and social number right on it.

I mean, what's the point of playing a paranoid guy who's good with machines if literally nothing you do has an effect?

valadil
2015-12-13, 09:12 PM
The best thing you can do to improve your GMing is more GMing. Reading forums and blogs helps, but less than just doing it. If something doesn't work try and figure out where you went wrong. If something works well, see if you can make it repeatable. Ask your players for feedback, but accept that they won't always be able to provide it.


Well a months long campaign over Star Wars Saga just ended. Im sad to say I think it ended poorly with allot of people mad at me. And I don't think its misplaced. But its something I gotta figure out in the generals of running the game:

Should I enable players when they do something, even if I think it should not work?


IMO, PC empowerment is the most important thing in an RPG. It's what differentiates tabletop gaming from books and video games. When the players make a decision, you should honor that decision.

That does not mean you're obliged to make their decisions successful. The opposite in fact. If you offer them choice A, B, C, and D, but all four choices lead to the same victory condition, you haven't really offered them a choice. You let them think they made a decision and then nullified it by making it meaningless. Commit to whatever the players decide to do.

goto124
2015-12-14, 02:20 AM
[snip] I didn't need prep points because I cleared all my disguises and did all my bribery and aliases beforehand and it amounted to nothing, then there wasn't really anything I could do during or after the encounter to affect things. [snip]

Oh, that changes a lot of things! Did you bring this up with the GM before posting here?

SirNMN
2015-12-15, 04:12 PM
I've seen the suggestion that players could have a set of 'Preparation Points' to retroactively say they've prepared in some manner. For example, if they encounter a guarded gate, they could say "My PC bribed a guard earlier on - how many points is that?"

The limited number of points is what prevents abuse.

how do you assign Preparation points? Do they get set number for time skipped, or based on class, or is it from I spend X time preparing? it sounds like something that I might want to use.

Earthwalker
2015-12-16, 06:21 AM
I think you need to find your style of GMing and run with that on this thread we already have disagreement on what to do when GM. I am going to tell you how I would handle the situation my style has change the last few years from picking up and playing so different systems.

I am about player empowerment these days, that doesn’t mean you don’t challenge your players by the way. Just you take queues from them.

So in this situation I think I would do the following.
When the player annouced he wanted to hack the signal and send out a confirmed kill order. I would ask for the following (DCs made up)

Ok if you roll a DC 10 driod engineering you can hack the signal and send a message back.
You would then need a DC 13 buff check (The sense motive of the guy on the other end) to convince the other side some reason for the signal disruption. I am also adding 5 to the DC. If you make it the other side think you are dead, at least until they try to recover the driod (in 2 days), if you fail they know not only was the droid was killed but someone tried hacking the signal.

The player rolls and if he makes it, he gets what he wants. If he fails he doesn’t.
It’s a case of letting the player know what he is rolling and more importantly what success or failure means generally before the dice are rolled.

Also this might drive the plot forward as the player is then working on how can I stop the droid recovery in 2 days time, driving the plot forward.

Quertus
2015-12-16, 11:38 AM
Player here. So from my perspective, the incident in question basically went like this:

We land on a planet using faked credentials so my name never comes up.

I use a fake ID to book hotel rooms away from the ship.

I'm in disguise under an alias when we go out.

The only pieces of paperwork with my name on it in the entire galaxy are essentially a birth certificate, a missing and presumed dead form showing the last time I'd been seen was about a decade ago, and a physical contract kept my someone else in hiding and presumed dead. The only other non-party people aware of this have it in their best interest to keep quiet and were doing so, and even they had no way of knowing where I was or where I'd gone.

Basically the moment I step out of the hotel room, then come the assassin droids, looking for me specifically under my real name and apparently knowing half my secrets already. The fact that they exploded violently with nothing leftover to either loot or signal if they're both reduced to 0 hit points AND thrown down the condition track basically meant nothing I did regarding them mattered. Even getting the computer core was a thing I basically had to fight the GM for and make a bunch of rolls towards.

Which is kind of where my problem comes in. I didn't need prep points because I cleared all my disguises and did all my bribery and aliases beforehand and it amounted to nothing, then there wasn't really anything I could do during or after the encounter to affect things. For all it basically mattered I could have walked down main street wearing a sandwich board with my name and social number right on it.

I mean, what's the point of playing a paranoid guy who's good with machines if literally nothing you do has an effect?

And this is why I never like GMs to try to use my backstory. "Oh, you're hunted? I'll introduce an NPC (organization?) that is better than you, that is hunting you. It worked for Han Solo, it should work for you, too"

Sounds like y'all need to sit down and have a little chat, and try to get on the same page - both about your character, and how to give you the ability to influence the world and the story in a satisfying way. And about how that last season could have possibly happened in the first place. Come to the table with ideas.

Also, you should probably do the whole billboard thing - but recton that you a decoy - you are not, in fact, the one the droids are looking for. ;)

neonchameleon
2015-12-16, 12:48 PM
An example. Players managed to destroy a Droid sent to kill them. One of the players decided that he could send a signal through the droid back in the ship to tell the controllers that the target has been eliminated.

I would have thought that the time distance between the droids destruction (Thus the signal cutting out), and them turning it back on to send a different signal would be more suspicious then anything else.

But the player got very mad. And this got me thinking: The players didn't know all the details. The players didn't know the droid sent a signal continuously, and thus it might be suspicious. And so the player got mad with me because he "couldn't read my mind" as he said himself.

And even assuming I was right in this situation, how should I handle the situation in the future?


Player here. So from my perspective, the incident in question basically went like this:

We land on a planet using faked credentials so my name never comes up.

I use a fake ID to book hotel rooms away from the ship.

I'm in disguise under an alias when we go out.

The only pieces of paperwork with my name on it in the entire galaxy are essentially a birth certificate, a missing and presumed dead form showing the last time I'd been seen was about a decade ago, and a physical contract kept my someone else in hiding and presumed dead. The only other non-party people aware of this have it in their best interest to keep quiet and were doing so, and even they had no way of knowing where I was or where I'd gone.
...
I mean, what's the point of playing a paranoid guy who's good with machines if literally nothing you do has an effect?

*Bangs heads together*

OK. Some pretty major basic mistakes going on here. I'm going to set these as rules; as ever experts are invited to break them all when they know what they are doing.

Rule 1: You do not deny the PC's character after accepting it. Once Jayngfet's character had been accepted then they had been accepted as a paranoid computer hacker with no known identity. What happened after that was the equivalent of the GM accepting a wizard into a D&D campaign then setting the entire thing in an anti-magic field. The GM gets the rest of the world to play with - you don't deny the player the schtick they have chosen. (This doesn't say you can't say "I don't want that character concept as it doesn't fit" - just that once you've accepted it you've accepted it.) The same would go for someone wanting to play a smuggler with their own ship - if you ground the ship immediately and drop them into the Rebel Alliance then they can't do what their character was intended for.

(You can of course occasionally use anti-magic fields in D&D or have the players have to hijack the ship back once in a while. But not in the first adventure, and not more than once in a while.)

Rule 2: Teflon characters are no fun. Don't lock off entire avenues of play if you don't have a character about to collapse on another flank.

Rule 3: Give the PCs their rewards. "The fact that they exploded violently with nothing leftover to either loot or signal if they're both reduced to 0 hit points AND thrown down the condition track basically meant nothing I did regarding them mattered." is a huge red flag. Exploding the computer cores would be one thing (and a sensible precaution). Exploding absoultely everything is petty and mean - with no good reason in character.

I honestly think both of you should give Apocalypse World a shot - played exactly by the rulebook. It would go a long way to dealing with the causes of the problems being talked about.

Scowling Dragon
2015-12-16, 01:51 PM
I have learned allot but I think its a good time I explained myself.

My side of the story:

A BadMan Hires a bunch of Thugs, to eliminate evidence of his wrongdoing, and by coincidence, the players are there to RETRIEVE the evidence of wrongdoing (But they don't know about it). The characters manage to defeat the thugs after them and claim the thugs superior ship.

The Badman receives no notice from the missing thugs regarding the dispersal of evidence. So this gets him suspicious.

Sending more people to inspect the missing thugs, he finds out that they where killed, and the evidence was retrieved. And that his brother whom he assumed dead was alive.

Deciding not to strike then, because of a belief that it would cause too much trouble, he decided to ambush them in space, however he misses them, as the characters go to do business on a different Planet.

Meanwhile, the Badman decides to take care of business elsewhere, looking for a valuable black artifact. However he notices the ID signature from an Arriving ship and realizes that it belonged to the crew of people he hired. Realizing that it contains the people his brother hired, an hoping that they could lead him to his brother he watches them.

When they are alone, and at night, he sends droids rigged to self destruct in case of failure (As to not lead a trail back to himself), to ambush them.

The PCs overcome, and by my failure, I should have cleanly implied that the character probably couldn't disarm a beeping, locked access bomb in 12 seconds, and this would lead to his death. Instead however I decided that the player could partially disarm it, leaving some scraps to trace.

In the last moment, I did panic, and I probably should have slowed the player down and said the details of the droid instead of just saying that this would result in tracking once the player decided to send a message that the target was dead.
I don't deny my mistakes, but I want to explain myself, and some examinations.

For one, I did not take into account as a GM what I wanted to do. For low effort fare like D&D, Im fine just being in charge of a linear succession of monsters that the players take out in a linear succession, down a linear succession of dungeons whilst feeling empowered.

However for the more complicated Star Wars game I wanted something more classically Star Wars Themed, and In hindsight I should have realized that this was what I wanted rather then have it influence my decisions subconsciously.

Star Wars (At least the OT), is an non-linear adventure. The characters bypass some obstacles, but more often then not have to work around situations that they could not normally overcome, retreat, and try those obstacles from a different angle.

Even in the 3rd movie, at the height of Lukes "Power" Luke never carves a bloody path through the DeathStar and slices the emperor in half. He does however get himself out of Jabbas Palace, but thats something else.

For a more complicated story, with allot of effort I was putting into my own assets, I was not entertained by just linear empowerment. Perhaps this shows my fault as a GM, and aight.

Star Wars is screwy, and lots of things happen because of coincidence and "Destiny" (Da will of da forceh!). Otherwise the plot doesn't happen.

nedz
2015-12-16, 02:13 PM
You should have explained less - until the game is over - not more.

OK, so the player complained because of some false assumptions on their part about how they were tracked. This is quite common, but can usually be answered with something like "Er, nope - that's not what happened".

I frequently run far more complex plots than this, in D&D too FWIW, and I usually just say something like "It does all make sense - to someone".

Madeiner
2015-12-17, 01:43 PM
*Bangs heads together*

OK. Some pretty major basic mistakes going on here. I'm going to set these as rules; as ever experts are invited to break them all when they know what they are doing.

Rule 1: You do not deny the PC's character after accepting it. Once Jayngfet's character had been accepted then they had been accepted as a paranoid computer hacker with no known identity.

Sorry, i totally disagree with this.
A GM can accept a paranoid hacker character, but still it does not mean that you can NEVER be found/outsmarted/prevent from hacking.

What it does mean is that while you are normally very good against these kind of threats, it takes something special to track you.
If the DM says the assassin droid comes for your specifically, and he's a good DM, it probably means that:
- the story he has in mind required you to be tracked regardless of your background
- this is an exceptional circumstance

Your character probably knows that something very powerful REALLY wanted you dead. If it can track you after all your preparations, it surely must be something big. You can work around that an enrich the story, instead of throwing a fit. If you trust the DM, you should think he has a good reason for this to happen. There's probably something happening that you don't know about, and now you have a reason to suspect it.

What a good DM would NOT do is send mook after mook that can track you, or other background related affairs that are easily able to track you. That is negating the character concept.

In a story, especially in star wars, what's the point to have a character trait that is NEVER questioned? As he was introduced to the story, Han solo was talking about how good he is at evading empire patrols. That's the background of the character. What's one of the first things that happen to him? You guessed it, he fails at what he's good at. This marks exceptional circumstances and sets the tone of the story.

To answer the OP:
if you want to be a better DM, remember the character traits and background. Be sure to include them in the story in a way that even if is not clear at the beginning, eventually it becomes clear and important.
Also, you need trust from players in order to do this. Good players trust their DM, if he's worthy of that trust.
To build that trust, reinforce the idea that you remember the character concept and are building on that. "These assassin droids are targeting you specifically and they exploded as soon as dead. Someone, clearly powerful, has somehow recognized you, which is not an easy task, and probably prepared against your specific abilities. Looks like you are in trouble, and you are missing critical information"

JAL_1138
2015-12-17, 03:27 PM
Unless the PC is the villain's brother (and personally I try to really avoid doing such things without the players' say-so, especially in Star Wars where "your long-lost family member is secretly TEH EVUL" is really overdone, and because using backstory elements against a PC gives rise to orphaned murderhobos, and I especially wouldn't add a relative in that the player hadn't mentioned explicitly, because it's their backstory, not mine), that doesn't explain how the assassin droids knew the PC's real identity. Have them looking for the assumed name, the name he was hired under, so that the precautions to burn his identity seem to have paid off.

If the characters would know something or plausibly guess something, tell the players that. If a paranoid character should know to futz with the ship's IFF and conceal its identity, and seems to be missing it, ask if they want to do that. Err on the side of giving the players information.

If the droids have a self-destruct, the gadgeteer should still be able to salvage something. "The 'droid fried its memory banks, but you think you can salvage quite a few spare parts for future use" or something. "Your character would know these sorts of droids are usually in constant contact with their commander, and that the signal disruption will be suspicious." Note--suspicious, NOT an automatic failure for the bluff attempt.

As another poster mentioned before, the bluff could be something like damaged communication, e.g., "Communications damaged when target shot YW-866. YW-867 destroyed by target. Commlink repaired following mission completion. Target eliminated. Entering standby self-repair mode. YW-866 out." That might work. Roll for it, don't just declare it can't be done.


Also, don't plot. Create scenarios. React to what the players do with that scenario. Do not assume any particular outcome. And don't be overreliant on coincidence, if it gets to the point it strains credulity and nullifies player decisions. Because if it *does,* why are they making any decisions, when regardless of what they do there'll be a screwy coincidence Because Destiny anyway? Don't fall prey to the Quantum Ogre with it.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-17, 05:35 PM
Star Wars is screwy, and lots of things happen because of coincidence and "Destiny" (Da will of da forceh!). Otherwise the plot doesn't happen.

I think you define "linear" differently than most people. A New Hope and RotJ are both pretty linear plots. Bad guy building a Death Star, heroes blow it up. How they get there may vary, but the plot is pretty basic.

The problem with "coincidence and destiny" is that, from a player standpoint, they both suck. If you got a raise at work, how happy would you be if your friends say, "Hey man, happy coincidence!" or "Wow, I guess it must be fate!"

ESPECIALLY in a game, a player wants to feel like HE was responsible for the actions his character takes, that SHE is responsible for her character's growth. No one wants to feel like they saved the galaxy on accident. I'm sure Luke didn't see it that way.

Here's the thing... Luke COULD'VE blazed a path through the galaxy, but didn't. He won, in fact, EXACTLY HOW HE WANTED TO. He didn't kill Darth Vader. Darth Vader turned good and took down the emperor. Luke didn't give in to the dark side.

I think your view of what the movies presented isn't what I took from them at all. The Force doesn't just "happen". It's utilized by people with agency. It's a tool. It doesn't have a mind of its own.

Flickerdart
2015-12-17, 05:37 PM
Well, first you want to have about 200-300 players. Then you want to kill off a dozen characters every session.

Oh wait, I must have misread the title. I thought you were asking how to GRRM better.

Scowling Dragon
2015-12-17, 06:18 PM
Well so far I have learned that there is no singular answer because there are a million GMs and a Million Players.

Anyway, I will say that Star Wars plot is non-linear as an adventure story.

Most D&D stories I know Go Like this Success->Success->Success->End

But Star wars has twists and turns, and its not fair to say that its so linear as to be a Point A-B shoot em up.

themaque
2015-12-17, 06:24 PM
Re: How to GM better?

How do you get to Carnegie Hall?

(Couldn't resist.)

LnGrrrR
2015-12-17, 07:17 PM
Well so far I have learned that there is no singular answer because there are a million GMs and a Million Players.

Anyway, I will say that Star Wars plot is non-linear as an adventure story.

Most D&D stories I know Go Like this Success->Success->Success->End

But Star wars has twists and turns, and its not fair to say that its so linear as to be a Point A-B shoot em up.

That just means you have to step out of your box a little. D&D can have failures as well. Maybe you didn't beat that bad guy in time, or you saved only half the town, etc etc. Besides, most of SW goes that way too. I'll put S for success and F for failure for the major "beats" of the movie...

Droids Escape with Plans (S) > Find a Pilot (S) > Alderaan Goes Boom (F... ish... more of a plot hook) > Blow Up Death Star I (S) > Lose Hoth Base (F) > Train on Dagobah/Escape Empire (S) > Lose Solo (F) > Loses Fight with Vader (F) > Saves Cloud City (S) > Jabba's Palace (S) > Ewoks! (S) > Final Battle (S) > Blow up Death Star II (S)

If you were to put that into a campaign perspective, there aren't a ton of losses there. There are a few to make the successes more memorable. What type of campaigns were you running in other RPGs? Was the threat of failure even present? It doesn't sound like it was the way you put it.

Scowling Dragon
2015-12-17, 09:10 PM
My point is that D&D is made to take into account monster levels so that the heroes may overcome and slay them.

In Star Wars there is never a "Hey Han, you think we can take them all on?". They always have to use some form of trickery, or mainly retreat.

AMFV
2015-12-17, 10:51 PM
My point is that D&D is made to take into account monster levels so that the heroes may overcome and slay them.

In Star Wars there is never a "Hey Han, you think we can take them all on?". They always have to use some form of trickery, or mainly retreat.

Not technically true. There is no reason why all your encounters should be CR appropriate and surmountable through combat in D&D. There should be encounters that the players can't simply fight through and must evade (IMHO), or retreat from, or talk through. Encounters should be varied and there should be some failures along the way. If the players never are at a failing point how are they supposed to feel the joy of true success.

JAL_1138
2015-12-17, 11:42 PM
Most D&D stories I know Go Like this Success->Success->Success->End



Obligatory "old grognard" comment:

Back in my day, ya dagnabbed whippersnapper, "AD&D" meant "Arbitrary Death and Dismemberment." Want to play a wizard in TSR-era AD&D? Have fun with your d4 hit points that you rolled for at first level, your Con bonus--if you got lucky enough to roll one, and they started at way higher stats than they do now, and it capped at 2 for non-Warriors, your instant death at 0HP (no negative con, no newfangled death saves, nothing; 0HP = You Died, roll new character), and your one (1) spell per day--no cantrips unless you had Unearthed Arcana in 1e or the first level spell that was called "Cantrip" in 2e. I once died before we got out of the inn the adventure started in. I lost a wizard to a barnyard goat, and another one to squirrels. And no, I'm not making any of that up. (F#%&ing squirrels. They did 1 point of damage per hit and I had all of 2, count 'em, two hit points.) My characters died like flies to kobolds and goblins, and we brought stacks of spare characters because we'd need them. Low level AD&D wasn't "success after success," it wasn't "heroic fantasy," it was survival horror. Success meant surviving a fight by any means available, whether that be running (bad idea if you're in melee; monsters get a free attack if you regreat faster than 1/3 your speed) or tricking other monsters into fighting them for you (once cleared out the Caves of Chaos by starting feuds between the inhabitants and picking off the stragglers), not winning a "balanced" fight. Balance was something you did on a tightrope, not an encounter-design paradigm. Modules were written with monsters that could TPK the party in one round as random encounters on the wandering monsters table. And we liked it! NOW GIT OFF MY LAWN DAGNABBIT!

nedz
2015-12-18, 08:46 AM
Most D&D stories I know Go Like this Success->Success->Success->End

Lets see, last session I ran for one game went something like:

Success->Success->Partial Success[Friendly NPC death]->Success->Success->Fail[Run away]->Fail[2nd attempt Run away]->Success[on 3rd attempt, by attrition]->Partial Success[one monster down, party withdraw in dribs and drabs]

There were several options for avoiding the repeated Fail, but they went for: Brute force, a trick that didn't work so Brute force again, another trick but they had won by attrition at that point anyway.

hifidelity2
2015-12-18, 08:52 AM
Obligatory "old grognard" comment:

Back in my day, ya dagnabbed whippersnapper, "AD&D" meant "Arbitrary Death and Dismemberment." Want to play a wizard in TSR-era AD&D? Have fun with your d4 hit points that you rolled for at first level, your Con bonus--if you got lucky enough to roll one, and they started at way higher stats than they do now, and it capped at 2 for non-Warriors, your instant death at 0HP (no negative con, no newfangled death saves, nothing; 0HP = You Died, roll new character), and your one (1) spell per day--no cantrips unless you had Unearthed Arcana in 1e or the first level spell that was called "Cantrip" in 2e. I once died before we got out of the inn the adventure started in. I lost a wizard to a barnyard goat, and another one to squirrels. And no, I'm not making any of that up. (F#%&ing squirrels. They did 1 point of damage per hit and I had all of 2, count 'em, two hit points.) My characters died like flies to kobolds and goblins, and we brought stacks of spare characters because we'd need them. Low level AD&D wasn't "success after success," it wasn't "heroic fantasy," it was survival horror. Success meant surviving a fight by any means available, whether that be running (bad idea if you're in melee; monsters get a free attack if you regreat faster than 1/3 your speed) or tricking other monsters into fighting them for you (once cleared out the Caves of Chaos by starting feuds between the inhabitants and picking off the stragglers), not winning a "balanced" fight. Balance was something you did on a tightrope, not an encounter-design paradigm. Modules were written with monsters that could TPK the party in one round as random encounters on the wandering monsters table. And we liked it! NOW GIT OFF MY LAWN DAGNABBIT!
:smallbiggrin:

Agree 100% (As someone who started playing back in 83/4)

neonchameleon
2015-12-18, 09:16 AM
The Badman receives no notice from the missing thugs regarding the dispersal of evidence. So this gets him suspicious.

So far so good.


Sending more people to inspect the missing thugs, he finds out that they where killed, and the evidence was retrieved. And that his brother whom he assumed dead was alive.

Dubious.


When they are alone, and at night, he sends droids rigged to self destruct in case of failure (As to not lead a trail back to himself), to ambush them.

Here's a mistake. A full self destruct on an assassin droid is wasteful (and the droid might well object). Just blow up the memory chips and give the PCs weapons as loot. One obvious and justifiable complaint is that you took away all the PC rewards. And another is that the droids are metal - trying to destroy all scraps of them is amazingly hard.


The PCs overcome, and by my failure, I should have cleanly implied that the character probably couldn't disarm a beeping, locked access bomb in 12 seconds, and this would lead to his death.

And here you're stepping outside the genre. If when the droid had been hurt there'd been a small bang and it had slumped, dead, it would have been in-genre, built up a melodramatic picture of a paranoid BadMan who kills for failure, made the PCs hate him, and not made them think they could do nothing.

On the other hand destroying all traces of the droid is ridiculous and builds up an incredibly unsubtle BadMan who's using huge explosions (which is what it takes to utterly destroy a droid) - and having one of those as a villain leaves huge waves.


Star Wars (At least the OT), is an non-linear adventure. The characters bypass some obstacles, but more often then not have to work around situations that they could not normally overcome, retreat, and try those obstacles from a different angle.

Indeed. But what do they retreat from? Star Destroyers. Han running into that room full of Storm Troopers. Dozens of Storm Troopers in general Luke runs from the rancor. Darth Vader If the fight looks remotely even the protagonists in Star Wars can handle it. (Especially Leia - Vader doesn't look like a fair fight).

The Droids were obviously something the PCs could overcome. And should have also left some clues.


For a more complicated story, with allot of effort I was putting into my own assets, I was not entertained by just linear empowerment. Perhaps this shows my fault as a GM, and aight.

The problem is that you made the villain powerful and hypercompetent in all the wrong places. Long reach? Good. Lots of power? Great. Ability to erase all clues? This smacks of railroadery. The PCs can't get at the bad guy other than by the clues you allow them in your pre-plotted story. No loot? Irritating as hell while being unrealistic.


Star Wars is screwy, and lots of things happen because of coincidence and "Destiny" (Da will of da forceh!). Otherwise the plot doesn't happen.

Don't have your plots rely on coincidence and destiny other than as (a) inciting incidents or (b) if the PCs run out of clues. It's just a cover for bad writing.


Sorry, i totally disagree with this.
A GM can accept a paranoid hacker character, but still it does not mean that you can NEVER be found/outsmarted/prevent from hacking.

As I said, like any rule, if you know exactly what you are doing, it can be broken. But generally that sort of background means "I don't want this sort of background hook used against me." (As opposed to screwups made in play which are very much fair game). It's generally a slightly callused hook caused by having one too many bad GMs who will jump on any element of backstory and turn it against the PC while never giving them benefits for good people in their backstory


If the DM says the assassin droid comes for your specifically, and he's a good DM,

Then mu.

If the GM says the assassin droid comes for you specifically under your old buried identity in the teeth of that sort of backstory then they are not a good GM at this aspect of GMing. They are a GM that has just undermined trust and ignored slightly obliquely expressed PC wishes.


it probably means that:
- the story he has in mind required you to be tracked regardless of your background
- this is an exceptional circumstance

The first case is utterly irrelevant. The problem is that the droids used the PC's old name. If the PC just needed tracking there was nothing at all saying that they couldn't use the cover ID.

The second means that the GM is digging into the well of cliches when the player has said they don't want that to be a hook early on.


In a story, especially in star wars, what's the point to have a character trait that is NEVER questioned?

And this is utterly irrelevant again.


As he was introduced to the story, Han solo was talking about how good he is at evading empire patrols. That's the background of the character. What's one of the first things that happen to him? You guessed it, he fails at what he's good at.

As he was introduced to the story, Han Solo was a braggart testing a couple of rubes (Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs?) What's one of the first things that happens to him? He gets an Empire patrol to try and evade. He doesn't have storm troopers walk into the bar to try and pick him up and then tell him they've been playing catch-and-release. There's a huge difference between testing a PC at a hard version of what they are good at and negating the background.

Once again you can break any rule if you know what you are doing.


and because using backstory elements against a PC gives rise to orphaned murderhobos,

And this PC essentially was an orphaned murderhobo. And still had backstory elements used against him :)


that doesn't explain how the assassin droids knew the PC's real identity. Have them looking for the assumed name, the name he was hired under, so that the precautions to burn his identity seem to have paid off.

Absolutely.


Also, don't plot. Create scenarios. React to what the players do with that scenario. Do not assume any particular outcome. And don't be overreliant on coincidence, if it gets to the point it strains credulity and nullifies player decisions. Because if it *does,* why are they making any decisions, when regardless of what they do there'll be a screwy coincidence Because Destiny anyway? Don't fall prey to the Quantum Ogre with it.

And QFT

Madeiner
2015-12-18, 10:16 AM
it probably means that:
- the story he has in mind required you to be tracked regardless of your background
- this is an exceptional circumstance



The first case is utterly irrelevant. The problem is that the droids used the PC's old name. If the PC just needed tracking there was nothing at all saying that they couldn't use the cover ID.

The second means that the GM is digging into the well of cliches when the player has said they don't want that to be a hook early on.


Here i meant that the GM was (probably, if he was a good GM) using both those points. It is an exceptional event, and is specifically tied to your backstory.





If the GM says the assassin droid comes for you specifically under your old buried identity in the teeth of that sort of backstory then they are not a good GM at this aspect of GMing. They are a GM that has just undermined trust and ignored slightly obliquely expressed PC wishes.


This is probably a different style of DMing, or even of accepting personal backgrounds. I am always trying to build an interesting, complex story around the PCs.
For me, when i present a background, i'm telling the DM what's special about me, but also where i want to be contested.
If my background says that i'm an exceptional swordman, unbeaten in any duel, then probably i want the DM to have me beat in a duel once. That means the story is special for me. It's not another "usual" duel that i'm used to win. This one i lost, and it's an exceptional situation. Eventually, the story might unfold so that it is discovered that the other contestant cheated.

If my background says my old identity is buried and lost, i want that fact to be contested in a story arc about me. Otherwise, what's my background for? Why am i writing up a story that never comes up in play, or is always in my favor? That would be boring for me.

Now, i don't know if this is what the DM was thinking. But that's what i would do in that situation.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-18, 10:54 AM
I find it's much more useful as a GM to ask a player about what their character's goals and aspirations are, moreso than just reading the background.

For instance, reading a background where one wants to stay hidden, the GM could ask the player, "So, would you be cool with someone finding out about your identity?"

Scowling Dragon
2015-12-18, 11:06 AM
Im not sure then what the point of any game is if you know everything beforehand.

I asked my PCs a billion times what they wanted. I got allot of "Dunno" or "Do what you want". Only later Jayngfet figure out he was interested in acquiring a battle group.

I just never received so much coddling In the campaigns I have been in. And I would not like too. If as a player, the enemy disintegrated to leave no evidence, Im gonna work on a way not to disintegrate it next time. I would feel patronized by this sort of bullcrap thats all feel good. I want difficult, unforgiving, and I want to feel smart and have the GM go "Dammit, you overcame my plan".

Plus we have a player that rolls reliably higher then anyone else always, so I don't play it to feel "Empowered". I play to feel clever, or to have an interesting plot. And I can't have that feeling of cleverly overcoming an obstacle, or an interesting plot if everything is so goddam safe.

Il still say I didn't handle the Signal tracking the best way but this just goes against everything that I play with.

JAL_1138
2015-12-18, 11:55 AM
Safe? What's "safe" here? Nobody's saying don't send assassin droids. Just have it make sense--if there's no plausible way they ought to know about the PC's real identity, then they shouldn't know that. You can brutally murderize your PCs with ludicrously tough encounters and make them flee for their lives from tough opponents, you can make them have to come up with Cunning PlansTM to complete objectives, and all that stuff. As long as it makes sense. As long as you give the players agency to actually make Cunning Plans and succeed at them or fail at them for reasons that will appear plausible and internally-consistent.

None of that conflicts with the "Fantasy-F***ing-Vietnam" brutality of old-school low-level AD&D as I mentioned above, and it applies to Star Wars here too if you want to run it old-school).

So don't overdo it on the Because Destiny Coincidences, because if you do, how can they ever defeat your Evil Schemes by their own initiative? They're going to run afoul of Because Destiny. How are they going to be clever if the Badguy is so far ahead of them or catches so many lucky breaks that the PC's plans--which might be perfectly clever in their own right but don't happen to match the one exact particular way to solve the plot you decided would be appropriate--never work? Why should they bother making decisions? If you want them to foil your Evil Schemes, be prepared to let them do that in ways you didn't expect, rather than finding the one exact specific solution to the puzzle--or at least give the puzzle a logical enough solution that doesn't snarl itself into Quantum Ogre "Because Destiny" coincidence diabolus-ex-machina solutions.

Even the most legendarily, infamously brutal old-school "puzzle dungeon" gave hints, gave clues, gave information. Most of the auto-fatal traps in the Tomb of Horrors gave off a rumbling noise or a feeling of the floor shifting or crackled with lightning or something, or looked suspiciously out-of-place, or had corpses strewn nearby, or otherwise gave a paranoid enough person the hint that something was amiss.

goto124
2015-12-18, 12:00 PM
I didn't know that about ToH... people talked about it as if the traps were nonsensical and out of nowhere. (http://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0005.html)

http://darthsanddroids.net/comics/darths0005.jpg

Either way, JAL's main point stands.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-18, 12:02 PM
Im not sure then what the point of any game is if you know everything beforehand.

I asked my PCs a billion times what they wanted. I got allot of "Dunno" or "Do what you want". Only later Jayngfet figure out he was interested in acquiring a battle group.

I just never received so much coddling In the campaigns I have been in. And I would not like too. If as a player, the enemy disintegrated to leave no evidence, Im gonna work on a way not to disintegrate it next time. I would feel patronized by this sort of bullcrap thats all feel good. I want difficult, unforgiving, and I want to feel smart and have the GM go "Dammit, you overcame my plan".

Plus we have a player that rolls reliably higher then anyone else always, so I don't play it to feel "Empowered". I play to feel clever, or to have an interesting plot. And I can't have that feeling of cleverly overcoming an obstacle, or an interesting plot if everything is so goddam safe.

Il still say I didn't handle the Signal tracking the best way but this just goes against everything that I play with.

Didn't you say you didn't experience failure in your other games? That would seem like "coddling", personally speaking.

Most games don't have "adversarial" DM'ing any more. Most games portray the DM as a way to carry out a story, or to share fun. Now, there are some players who like that style, but you need to make it known in advance.

But no one in this thread is saying that everything has to be a success. By the same token, if you don't give your players something to work with... well, that's not very exciting for players. Not many people would have given Luke very good odds of overcoming the Empire in the beginning of the story, after all.

You say YOU play to feel clever. Do your players also play for that reason? A DM has to put aside his own feelings of what he would want for what the players would want, in order to successfully run a campaign. (Ideally, most players and DM have the same mindset. Or the players allow the DM to do his bit every once in awhile, and then the DM has a game where the players get to have their style.)

No offense, but you come off as defensive in this thread. If you do the same with your players, that might be leading to issues where they feel you're not paying attention to what they want. The very title of this thread is "How to GM better", but you haven't actually seemed to take any of the advice at face value, and continue to believe that you made the correct decisions. Was this thread a way to improve yourself as a GM? Or did you make it thinking everyone would agree with your viewpoint and thereby justify your actions?

JAL_1138
2015-12-18, 12:14 PM
If as a player, the enemy disintegrated to leave no evidence, Im gonna work on a way not to disintegrate it next time.

How? If it had a beeping counting-down bomb powerful enough to "completely disintegrate" a durasteel assassin droid, which is, frankly, bigger than most vehicle-scale[i] weapons to do that much damage to a droid, AND which gives you [i]nothing to investigate or examine afterward because it disintegrated, HOW are you going to not-disintegrate it next time? And no, you don't really want to capture it, because it has a ludicrously powerful bomb in it, which for all you know it can set off voluntarily and blow a hole in your ship. These things are worse than Minecraft's creepers.

If the bomb isn't that powerful, then, just going by basic plausibility, there should be droid-bits left. Which can be salvaged or examined.

That's the point. Brutal and unforgiving and difficult are fine. Implausible, internally-inconsistent, undescribed, and unsolveable are not.

JAL_1138
2015-12-18, 12:21 PM
I didn't know that about ToH... people talked about it as if the traps were nonsensical and out of nowhere. (http://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0005.html)

http://darthsanddroids.net/comics/darths0005.jpg

Either way, JAL's main point stands.

On the ToH tangent, I got through largely unscathed, and the party made it through with exactly one death, which was due solely to a character's steadfast refusal to use 10-ft poles to prod things, against our advice. The exact same trap that killed him also triggered on the other side of the room simultaneously for another character, who had been using a 10ft pole to check the trapped-thingy on his side of the room, and emerged completely unharmed.

nedz
2015-12-18, 01:29 PM
On the ToH tangent, I got through largely unscathed, and the party made it through with exactly one death, which was due solely to a character's steadfast refusal to use 10-ft poles to prod things, against our advice. The exact same trap that killed him also triggered on the other side of the room simultaneously for another character, who had been using a 10ft pole to check the trapped-thingy on his side of the room, and emerged completely unharmed.

I've not seen anyone bother with a 10' pole for years, yet they were once ubiquitous - and necessary.

I'll have to drop one in some random pile of loot - just to see how the party react.

Florian
2015-12-18, 01:38 PM
Well a months long campaign over Star Wars Saga just ended.
*snip*

Two very important words: "Yes, but...."

Besides that, we´re talking about a vague feeling of verisimilitude that you as a gm have and that you absolutely have to share with your players. They depend on that. They are not their characters, who are competent professionals and would know such stuff. The flow of information is more important than anything else and going meta in short and informative bursts also helps with immersion.

JAL_1138
2015-12-18, 01:46 PM
I've not seen anyone bother with a 10' pole for years, yet they were once ubiquitous - and necessary.

I'll have to drop one in some random pile of loot - just to see how the party react.

They're so useful! Break 'em into thirds for clubs when you need bludgeoning damage, use two (or break one in half) and a tarp or some sacks to make a travois/litter to carry heavy objects or wounded party members, use them to pole-vault, replace the broken haft of a polearm, sharpen one end to make a makeshift pike that a rust monster can't eat, check for traps, check for green slime, detect illusory terrain, use it to help balance on narrow bridges or tightropes, use as a lever to help open doors or move objects, hang it between the branches of two saplings and drape a tarp over it to set up a tent, and so many more uses...a 10ft pole is more useful than a Swiss Army Knife, and may well save an adventurer's life more often than a +1 sword ever could.

neonchameleon
2015-12-18, 04:59 PM
This is probably a different style of DMing, or even of accepting personal backgrounds. I am always trying to build an interesting, complex story around the PCs.
For me, when i present a background, i'm telling the DM what's special about me, but also where i want to be contested.
If my background says that i'm an exceptional swordman, unbeaten in any duel, then probably i want the DM to have me beat in a duel once. That means the story is special for me. It's not another "usual" duel that i'm used to win. This one i lost, and it's an exceptional situation. Eventually, the story might unfold so that it is discovered that the other contestant cheated.

Yes (and so do I) - but you sound as if you've just been dealing with good DMs. And your background says "Exceptional swordsman". People used to dealing with a certain type of poor DM generally create backgrounds that make them into orphaned murderhobos. This is because there's a certain type of DM who will kill any friends and family the PC has in the backstory as brutally as possible just for cheap drama. It's not fun. Teflon backgrounds tend to indicate a history with that and should be respected - and that trust needs to be built up between player and DM.


Im not sure then what the point of any game is if you know everything beforehand.

I asked my PCs a billion times what they wanted. I got allot of "Dunno" or "Do what you want". Only later Jayngfet figure out he was interested in acquiring a battle group.

I just never received so much coddling In the campaigns I have been in. And I would not like too. If as a player, the enemy disintegrated to leave no evidence, Im gonna work on a way not to disintegrate it next time. I would feel patronized by this sort of bullcrap thats all feel good. I want difficult, unforgiving, and I want to feel smart and have the GM go "Dammit, you overcame my plan".

Plus we have a player that rolls reliably higher then anyone else always, so I don't play it to feel "Empowered". I play to feel clever, or to have an interesting plot. And I can't have that feeling of cleverly overcoming an obstacle, or an interesting plot if everything is so goddam safe.

Il still say I didn't handle the Signal tracking the best way but this just goes against everything that I play with.

OK. Let's talk about cleverness and safety.

You sent assassin droids that automatically destroyed themselves when defeated, using the DM's power to use unrealistic physics to protect your plot. You removed the plot hooks and the ways the PCs could or should have got any levers at that point. As GM you were playing it ultra-safe there and doing so from a position of power over the table.

And PCs without ambitions are annoying.


I didn't know that about ToH...

ToH plays strictly, ruthlessly fair. It was originally set up as a challenge for Rob Kunz and Ernie Gygax when they said Greyhawk was too easy. The end result was that the pair of them got away with all the loot and with no PC deaths (and when confronted by Acecerak himself teleported clear on the grounds that fighting was for chumps). It's also pretty easy once you understand it because it's trying to be so hard while playing fairly.

Quertus
2015-12-19, 12:05 AM
If my background says that i'm an exceptional swordman, unbeaten in any duel, then probably i want the DM to have me beat in a duel once. That means the story is special for me. It's not another "usual" duel that i'm used to win. This one i lost, and it's an exceptional situation. Eventually, the story might unfold so that it is discovered that the other contestant cheated.

If my background says my old identity is buried and lost, i want that fact to be contested in a story arc about me. Otherwise, what's my background for? Why am i writing up a story that never comes up in play, or is always in my favor? That would be boring for me.

Now, i don't know if this is what the DM was thinking. But that's what i would do in that situation.

We are clearly in different camps. My favorite character has never *won* a duel (except against doppelgangers, copies from mirrors of opposition, etc). I include that in backstory to a new DM with the expectation that this will continue to be true. Depending on the DM, I sometimes even write down, on the character sheet, under "special abilities", "always loses duels".


I just never received so much coddling In the campaigns I have been in. And I would not like too. If as a player, the enemy disintegrated to leave no evidence, Im gonna work on a way not to disintegrate it next time. I would feel patronized by this sort of bullcrap thats all feel good. I want difficult, unforgiving, and I want to feel smart and have the GM go "Dammit, you overcame my plan".

Plus we have a player that rolls reliably higher then anyone else always, so I don't play it to feel "Empowered". I play to feel clever, or to have an interesting plot. And I can't have that feeling of cleverly overcoming an obstacle, or an interesting plot if everything is so goddam safe.

Il still say I didn't handle the Signal tracking the best way but this just goes against everything that I play with.

Other people have already said most of what I would say here, regarding "different kinds of fun", and "don't have a plan". I would only add, what have you done to enable the players to "overcome your plan" next time?

What I mean is, primarily, related to player skills vs character skills. Give me this challenge and, if I trust you, I'll be hacking the droids' memories, building signal-detection and suppression devices, making skill checks to know if ion blasters / EMP / McGuffin Particles should disable most conventional droid destruct mechanisms (and, if so, acquiring some), doing a full chemical analysis of the debris, checking the debris for microorganisms that might be indigenous to other planets, hunting down records from the manufacturers of that droid model about recent sales/thefts / sales from the period that droid's age indicates, backtracking the droids' movements on the planet, backtracking cargo manifests of ships that could have carried those droids, mind raped everyone on the planet to get some answers, and/or any number of other options. And hopefully limiting myself to options my character could realistically come up with (does Star Wars even have the concept of finger prints?).

If the player(s) don't have the mindset (or the trust) to come up with these, have you been giving them skill rolls for their characters to come up with anything?

Jayngfet
2015-12-19, 05:43 PM
...just a quick note. The BBEG had no way of knowing we landed anywhere. I explicitly had that ships transponder codes changed like two months real time in advance and it was ok'd. I basically made sure from every possible angle well in advance this situation wouldn't happen. Even if that did t work I had my name never entered into crew and somebody else registered as captain.

Even then I was in a hotel room registered under an alias since I knew I was also being tracked by a third party, for something else entirely, but that was backstory stuff and they had been looking longer.

Scowling Dragon
2015-12-19, 06:01 PM
You did NOT change the ship transponder codes. But this is gonna change into a memory match.

Jayngfet
2015-12-19, 06:15 PM
You did NOT change the ship transponder codes. But this is gonna change into a memory match.

I explicitly did. You even rolled knowledge beaurocracy.

Even if I didn't the ship was overhauled from the ground up and bore zero resemblance to the previous version. Any deeper investigation would show a differing ship of different color, deck plan, weapon loadout, and other parts installed. Even if that didn't work my name wasn't actually attached to the ship to begin with.

Or the network of sentry droids modified to alert the party if anyone ever came looking for any reason that were installed.

Scowling Dragon
2015-12-19, 06:27 PM
Lets not have our fits on a common forum.