PDA

View Full Version : “I know a guy” Rule



blackjack50
2019-09-27, 08:10 PM
I saw this on Instagram. I am wondering how others feel about it. This is how it goes...in an *appropriate* situation a PC can declare “I know a guy.” Then the following occurs:

1) PC sketches out a backstory and their relationship. Fewer details are better.
2) The NPC now exists in the universe and when it is time the player who created said npc makes a charisma role.
3) Said role has advantage/disadvantage at DM discretion.

I like it. I think it really does add some player participation. As a DM, I’d limit the use by players. But it would really make things interesting. So. How do you feel?

MarkVIIIMarc
2019-09-27, 08:17 PM
I saw this on Instagram. I am wondering how others feel about it. This is how it goes...in an *appropriate* situation a PC can declare “I know a guy.” Then the following occurs:

1) PC sketches out a backstory and their relationship. Fewer details are better.
2) The NPC now exists in the universe and when it is time the player who created said npc makes a charisma role.
3) Said role has advantage/disadvantage at DM discretion.

I like it. I think it really does add some player participation. As a DM, I’d limit the use by players. But it would really make things interesting. So. How do you feel?

Like a, "I know a guy who can get us a boat to cross the river"?

One of my DM's sneaks that into our backstories for us. Kind of a, "a pikeman you served with back in Waterdeep is now a member of the local militia. He walks up to you and after a warm greeting sets a heavy hand on your back and asks you and your party to visit his residence later" type thing.

blackjack50
2019-09-27, 08:20 PM
Like a, "I know a guy who can get us a boat to cross the river"?

One of my DM's sneaks that into our backstories for us. Kind of a, "a pikeman you served with back in Waterdeep is now a member of the local militia. He walks up to you and after a warm greeting sets a heavy hand on your back and asks you and your party to visit his residence later" type thing.

Yea. But this rule is more geared at getting you out of a jam. You are stuck in a city and are constantly being watched by the guards? Maybe you know a guy who is in the underground if you are a rogue. Or you know a member of the local magistrate if you are a noble background? But you still have to have a good role to get by depending on the situation :)

Galithar
2019-09-27, 08:20 PM
Definitely good as a way to get more passive parties to actively participate. It's a rule that gives them a prompt of something they can try. They say "I know a guy who can..." And then the DM can approve or disapprove as the situation warrants. The important part is that they are told in advance that they can do this. I've done the same thing without the rule, more like "My character grew up in this city, would I know if anyone who could X?" And I usually say yes, and make up the character myself.

Coventry
2019-09-27, 08:38 PM
I saw this on Instagram. I am wondering how others feel about it. This is how it goes...in an *appropriate* situation a PC can declare “I know a guy.” Then the following occurs:

1) PC sketches out a backstory and their relationship. Fewer details are better.
2) The NPC now exists in the universe and when it is time the player who created said npc makes a charisma role.
3) Said role has advantage/disadvantage at DM discretion.

I like it. I think it really does add some player participation. As a DM, I’d limit the use by players. But it would really make things interesting. So. How do you feel?

I would allow it in my game, unless it was just completely illogical.

From the first Incredibles movie, "Snug, I'm calling in a solid 'you owe me'" worked really well to advance the plot.

Atranen
2019-09-27, 10:44 PM
I do this. I think it's especially useful in oneshots, where the players don't have a strong connection to anything. I give my players some number of "contact points", which can be used to create characters in-world who are friendly to them. They can use more points on the same contact to increase how close their character is with them and how influential the contact is.

It's also quite useful to let their backstory be "living" as a campaign goes on, and allowing them to take ownership of the campaign world.

I haven't seen it abused by anyone, but perhaps someone could take advantage.

Anymage
2019-09-27, 10:51 PM
"I know a guy" seems like a specific case of a general idea that's good to have. Players should feel empowered to add facts about the world in general. If done right it takes work off the dm, and gives the players a stronger sense of ownership.

Ideally this would involve some sort of plot-point currency, either upfront (e.g: buying a high Contacts rating) or just through points that can be directly spent for some narrative control. D&D doesn't really have much framework for this, beyond some very light stuff about background features and a short blurb in the back of the DMG. But if your character has contacts or if you want to make up some background detail about your homeland, I'm generally in favor of letting those points stand.

Kaptin Keen
2019-09-27, 11:15 PM
Sounds fine to me - but of course, it needs to backfire approximately half the time. The friend turns out to be untrustworthy, or some such.

Why? Because otherwise, this is a key that unlocks all locks. Need a special component? 'I know a guy'. Information of the forces of the local count? 'I know a guy'. Passage to Sigil? 'I know a guy'. And so on. So since the PC's can, in principle, conjure solutions to any problem in this way .. it needs to be unreliable. By design.

Mechalich
2019-09-27, 11:33 PM
Knowing people who are willing to help you is a resource, whether that refers to specific people in relevant positions or 'people' generally. If this knowledge is useful in game it should be measured mechanically in some way. Many games have some form of 'contacts' skill that represents exactly this sort of network access. Eclipse Phase goes so far as having different networking skills linked to specific types of social networks. In D&D this specific ability would be represented by the Gather Information skill, with the expression 'I know a guy' perhaps being described mechanically as a character taking 10 on a gather information check for any given task in any particular area.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-09-27, 11:43 PM
This is already a mechanic in various roleplaying games. For example, noted "much better roleplaying game Burning Wheel".

Circles is an attribute, ie your social circles, how well connected you are as a person. You can try to make an NPC with a Circles roll, with the obstacle (ob) depending on various factors.

Occupation
Broad occupation -
Uncommon occupation +2ob
Rare occupation +3ob

Station
Same station -
Lower station +1
Higher station +2
Highest station +3

Disposition/Knowledge
Common -
Different than expected +1/2
Specific +3

Time and Place
Doesn't matter -
Unusual for this character +1/2
Here and now in the middle of trouble +3

If you pass the roll then you find who you've laid out. If you fail the roll then the GM has the option of saying you find the person, or maybe someone else instead, but they're an antagonist to you right now and are going to cause you problems.

False God
2019-09-28, 12:17 AM
I think I've always used this but in different words.

I'll call for a knowledge check and if successful, the character "knows a guy" and I detail in how they know them (usually met in passing or over a beer or heard a story) and then off they go.

Doesn't always mean the NPC will be super helpful tho.

Pex
2019-09-28, 01:45 AM
Sounds fine to me - but of course, it needs to backfire approximately half the time. The friend turns out to be untrustworthy, or some such.

Why? Because otherwise, this is a key that unlocks all locks. Need a special component? 'I know a guy'. Information of the forces of the local count? 'I know a guy'. Passage to Sigil? 'I know a guy'. And so on. So since the PC's can, in principle, conjure solutions to any problem in this way .. it needs to be unreliable. By design.

If it's unreliable then players stop doing it because it leads to nowhere or more trouble than the original problem. The original premise already prevents the abuse you fear - the ability of the DM to say no. "I know a guy" is meant to advance the plot, not circumvent it.

Kaptin Keen
2019-09-28, 03:11 AM
If it's unreliable then players stop doing it because it leads to nowhere or more trouble than the original problem. The original premise already prevents the abuse you fear - the ability of the DM to say no. "I know a guy" is meant to advance the plot, not circumvent it.

Dice are unreliable. Spells with saves are unreliable. Any type of social interaction is unreliable, regardless of succesful rolls. Players do unreliable things all the time. Literally.

jdizzlean
2019-09-28, 05:41 AM
i think its a good mechanic to have in the game.

as a player, you can't know everything that could happen in the game, especially long running games. and a character you build based off the info you have in the beginning, might be totally unprepared later on to handle things/figure things out. it does require a little flexibility on the DM's part, but if the table is stumped, and the guy you know fits your story, and you aren't doing this every single time the DM proposes a problem to you, i say go for it.


i'd also be perfectly ok w/ the DM popping a guy who knows you, on the group and side questing you should the DM want to add some flavor in as well.

a little blue booking between the DM and the player fixes that for the table on both sides of it real fast.

Guizonde
2019-09-28, 07:14 AM
i specifically asked my players to do this in the early stages of my world-building. half the characters of the dalarium chronicles were fleshed out by the players, at least in the beginning town. it made sense since the players grew up in that town and were known by everybody and knew everybody. hell, they were best friends with the resident resident marty stu (who turned out was actually loved by everyone).

Pex
2019-09-28, 07:55 AM
Dice are unreliable. Spells with saves are unreliable. Any type of social interaction is unreliable, regardless of succesful rolls. Players do unreliable things all the time. Literally.

There is a difference between game randomness and the DM arbitrarily making something backfire.

Anymage
2019-09-28, 08:06 AM
Dice are unreliable. Spells with saves are unreliable. Any type of social interaction is unreliable, regardless of succesful rolls. Players do unreliable things all the time. Literally.

There's a question of expected utility. If you miss an attack, you usually don't wind up worse off than you were before you swung. If there was a good chance of injuring yourself with a critical miss, that would change the situation considerably.

Having I Know A Guy just flat-out fail sometimes is okay. Maybe sometimes the guy happens to be wrong about some finer point and that happens to get the PCs in a scrape, that's okay too so long as the bulk of the info is good. But if there's a decent chance that someone you know will just up and screw you over, players will indeed quickly learn from that.

Chronos
2019-09-28, 08:16 AM
Quoth Anymage:

"I know a guy" seems like a specific case of a general idea that's good to have. Players should feel empowered to add facts about the world in general. If done right it takes work off the dm, and gives the players a stronger sense of ownership.
Heck, I created an entire gnomish nation in my group's world, because my character's backstory is tied to his patriotism, and he needed somewhere to be from, and the DM didn't already have a gnomish nation. Of course, there are things you can do to make this more seamless: For instance, I made Ilben an island nation, because that way, nobody has to worry about precisely where it is on the map: If you're at a harbor and can hire a ship, then you can get there, otherwise you can't.

Another player is from a different island nation that the DM didn't describe, either (in his case, it being an island was important, because he was a pirate privateer commerce raider), and based on both of our backstories, we decided that our nations were at war in the recent past, but now have a peace treaty, and no hard feelings, because if Her Majesty is satisfied, then I'm satisfied.

And yes, "I know a guy" should have a significant chance of failing, but that doesn't mean the failures should be catastrophic. It could just be "Oh, him? He moved to Waterdeep three years ago; haven't heard from him since.", or "Sorry, I'd love to help you, but it's crunch time at work right now, and the boss'd have my hide if I tried to take any time off to help you.", or "I could do that... if you repay those gambling debts you owe me.".

gooddragon1
2019-09-28, 08:47 AM
I think for 3.5 I'd go with knowing batman a Wizard. It's nice to be friends with a Wizard.

Kaptin Keen
2019-09-28, 08:52 AM
There is a difference between game randomness and the DM arbitrarily making something backfire.

Well - in principle, that may be true .... but the GM sets the difficulty, so the difference is hazy at best.


There's a question of expected utility. If you miss an attack, you usually don't wind up worse off than you were before you swung. If there was a good chance of injuring yourself with a critical miss, that would change the situation considerably.

Having I Know A Guy just flat-out fail sometimes is okay. Maybe sometimes the guy happens to be wrong about some finer point and that happens to get the PCs in a scrape, that's okay too so long as the bulk of the info is good. But if there's a decent chance that someone you know will just up and screw you over, players will indeed quickly learn from that.

If you roll a critical failure .... you wind up worse than before you swung.

And I also have no idea where you get your information. Did I say 'and then I screw the PC's over for no good reason!' Because I don't think I did. If you use I Know a Guy to get across the river, you'll get across the river. Well, propably. But if he isn't trustworthy - and he is an NPC, he's my god damned domain as GM - he may charge 10x the price for the return trip, knowing the Kings Guard is now after them.

And I'd inform the PC in advance this isn't a guy you'd trust with your life, much less your silverware. But he has a boat, and he can get you across the river.

Frankly, I don't care: I do not hand out one-fits-all solutions to challenges. If you use a wild card, expect the unexpected.

Rynjin
2019-09-28, 11:01 AM
This, but more broad is one of the better features about the Mutants and Masterminds system. You can spend Hero Points to "edit a scene" at any time. Not only making people up out of thin air, but describing something that makes sense which may aid you. A cryokinetic might spend a Hero Point to edit a fire hydrant into the scene, which they use to freeze the ground and make the bad guys trip, for instance.

The system as a whole can be clunky, but this is a great feature that helps smooth things out.

AthasianWarlock
2019-09-28, 11:35 AM
I had the "I know a guy" rule in a campaign. Nobody ever used it. It came from Merals or one of the other DnD twitter personalities, or was retweeted by him. I can't remember but I know I got it from there over a year ago.

1of3
2019-09-28, 11:36 AM
Urban Shadows has an explicit rule for that:

When you hit the streets to get what you need, name who you’re going to and roll with their Faction. On a hit, they’re available and have the stuff. On a 7-9, choose 1:
»» Whoever you’re going to is juggling their own problems
»» Whatever you need is more costly than anticipated

redwizard007
2019-09-28, 12:08 PM
It seems like it needs limited in some way. Maybe 2 "I know a guy points" per character (or player) per campaign, or 1 per adventure arc. Allow earning new points by playing up your flaws (or something similar.)

For 2 points your guy is owed you big. 100% reliable. Willing to take major risks to help you, but expects compensation.

For 1 point it's a friend of a friend. Not someone you'd expect to go out of his way for you, but maybe for a price... Might be trustworthy, might not, but probably won't sell you out without a decent reason.

For free. Yeah, this guy will help us for a price, but will almost certainly offer up info to our adversaries and may just walk us into a trap if it benefits him.

Traab
2019-09-28, 12:27 PM
I would suggest that the "I know a guy" factor be one thats included in the characters backstory before the campaign starts. Maybe put a limit on how many useful types each character can have. That way they dont have a library of useful guys to know for every situation. So as an example, you roll up a character who knows a guy in the local militia. Helpful in some scenarios, but useless if your campaign takes you into the underdark or something. Otherwise it becomes the magic box issue. "Oh, I went to the marketplace and bought a lot of stuff! Put it all in this box im taking with me." Then every time there is an issue "Oh I bought something to take care of that. Its in my magic box!"

redwizard007
2019-09-28, 12:46 PM
I would suggest that the "I know a guy" factor be one thats included in the characters backstory before the campaign starts. Maybe put a limit on how many useful types each character can have. That way they dont have a library of useful guys to know for every situation. So as an example, you roll up a character who knows a guy in the local militia. Helpful in some scenarios, but useless if your campaign takes you into the underdark or something. Otherwise it becomes the magic box issue. "Oh, I went to the marketplace and bought a lot of stuff! Put it all in this box im taking with me." Then every time there is an issue "Oh I bought something to take care of that. Its in my magic box!"

How would you limit it? 1 per Charisma bonus? Rogues get an extra 2, Bards are unlimited but have a 1 in 3 chance to turn on you?

Kaptin Keen
2019-09-28, 12:53 PM
There is a difference between game randomness and the DM arbitrarily making something backfire.

'Imposing consequences'.

When you rely on some random dude from your past - someone who, to date has made zero appearances .. it stands to reason there has to be some element of risk. What is this, anyways? What are RPG's? Games of 'wait, I conjure my random friend from the past who will fix this thing for us'?

What ..?!

A PC introduces a completely random NPC in place of proper thought process or actual skill rolls ... and suddenly I'm unreasonable for not just granting that instant succes? Get outta here! :p

I'm the GM. I decide the risk. It's in the bloody job description. It's what I do. Could we please refrain from the assumption that this mechanic somehow makes me a douche for not letting it auto-succed?

Traab
2019-09-28, 01:05 PM
How would you limit it? 1 per Charisma bonus? Rogues get an extra 2, Bards are unlimited but have a 1 in 3 chance to turn on you?

Honestly, im not sure, maybe just give an arbitrary number of contacts as a limit. Not counted are contacts that are made while adventuring of course. If your party saves a merchant family from bandits, it makes sense that when next you return to the city they are willing to help you out. But you cant just say, "My character went to the one main school for this city, known far and wide for the wandering feet of its students. So I have friends in every city town and hamlet between here and the sword coast in all walks of life!" Then when something pops up go, "Hey, I think joey three shoes moved out this way after graduating, he can help with this."

Kadzar
2019-09-28, 01:19 PM
I saw this on Instagram. I am wondering how others feel about it. This is how it goes...in an *appropriate* situation a PC can declare “I know a guy.” Then the following occurs:

1) PC sketches out a backstory and their relationship. Fewer details are better.
2) The NPC now exists in the universe and when it is time the player who created said npc makes a charisma role.
3) Said role has advantage/disadvantage at DM discretion.

I like it. I think it really does add some player participation. As a DM, I’d limit the use by players. But it would really make things interesting. So. How do you feel?
At the start of my last D&D 5E campaign, which took place in a single city for the most part, I let every PC make a free roll on the carousing table from Xanathar's Guide, which provides anywhere from 0-3 contacts (which can be hostile if they roll poorly enough), which are able to be kept abstract and defined as needed. I wouldn't necessarily say it's the absolute best system for such a thing, but it worked relatively well (several of the players eventually made use of it), and it's decent enough to use for a game system that didn't have a contacts system built in.


How would you limit it? 1 per Charisma bonus? Rogues get an extra 2, Bards are unlimited but have a 1 in 3 chance to turn on you?
Xanathar's limits unspecified contacts to 1+Charisma modifier at a time. You can always build it back up if you have downtime and gold to carouse, and apparently any contacts that are specified don't count against your limit.

Pleh
2019-09-28, 04:12 PM
Sounds fine to me - but of course, it needs to backfire approximately half the time. The friend turns out to be untrustworthy, or some such.

Why? Because otherwise, this is a key that unlocks all locks. Need a special component? 'I know a guy'. Information of the forces of the local count? 'I know a guy'. Passage to Sigil? 'I know a guy'. And so on. So since the PC's can, in principle, conjure solutions to any problem in this way .. it needs to be unreliable. By design.

This is why I would make sure, the moment this became a feature of the game, that my players are aware that "I know a guy..." can only help you indirectly achieve your goals.

I would encourage them to use this to shortcut parts of the campaign that would slow it down to a slog for them. "We have to explore this whole jungle for the ancient ruins the mcguffin may be found in."

They can not simply "know a wizard" who will happily teleport them into the mcguffin's location. That's bypassing the game itself. That's the problem of NPCs DIRECTLY helping them achieve their goals.

They COULD know a Ranger that would happily escort them through the jungle until they found the ruins (and who might have a rough idea of where the ruins might be, so they get a lighter version of the exploration game than searching on their own would have required). This way, the NPC is only reducing the burden and helping them get to the point of the campaign a little more easily. They still have to help protect their guide from random encounters and manage their food supply for both the journey to the ruins and while inside the ruins (presumably on their return trip as well, but that's more flexible).

I feel like "I know a guy" is a great rule to have bounce back and forth between DM and players. Allow them to instigate when they wish:

Player: "Do we really have to do X to get to Y? I think I might just Know A Guy."

DM: "What kind of help do you think your ally might be able to give you? How are you hoping this will work?"

Player: "I was hoping he could do X for us so we can work on solving for Y."

DM: "That completely bypasses a lot of the content I had prepared for you guys. What if instead your ally does Z and that makes X easier for you to manage, instead?"

Player: "Okay, that sounds good."

DM: "Then write up a general NPC outline, tie him into your backstory, and I'll review it when you're done."

Looks like a perfectly reasonable houserule to me.

Pex
2019-09-28, 05:52 PM
This is why I would make sure, the moment this became a feature of the game, that my players are aware that "I know a guy..." can only help you indirectly achieve your goals.

I would encourage them to use this to shortcut parts of the campaign that would slow it down to a slog for them. "We have to explore this whole jungle for the ancient ruins the mcguffin may be found in."

They can not simply "know a wizard" who will happily teleport them into the mcguffin's location. That's bypassing the game itself. That's the problem of NPCs DIRECTLY helping them achieve their goals.

They COULD know a Ranger that would happily escort them through the jungle until they found the ruins (and who might have a rough idea of where the ruins might be, so they get a lighter version of the exploration game than searching on their own would have required). This way, the NPC is only reducing the burden and helping them get to the point of the campaign a little more easily. They still have to help protect their guide from random encounters and manage their food supply for both the journey to the ruins and while inside the ruins (presumably on their return trip as well, but that's more flexible).

I feel like "I know a guy" is a great rule to have bounce back and forth between DM and players. Allow them to instigate when they wish:

Player: "Do we really have to do X to get to Y? I think I might just Know A Guy."

DM: "What kind of help do you think your ally might be able to give you? How are you hoping this will work?"

Player: "I was hoping he could do X for us so we can work on solving for Y."

DM: "That completely bypasses a lot of the content I had prepared for you guys. What if instead your ally does Z and that makes X easier for you to manage, instead?"

Player: "Okay, that sounds good."

DM: "Then write up a general NPC outline, tie him into your backstory, and I'll review it when you're done."

Looks like a perfectly reasonable houserule to me.

Exactly. "I know a guy" is a facilitator. It moves the game along, not win the adventure. If it doesn't move the game along players won't use it. It is reasonable for the DM to limit the number of guys a PC knows. If a set limit is needed have it, but the ideal is the players self limit in that they only know a guy every once in a while. As the campaign progresses it becomes more ideal they no longer need to "know a guy" because they already "know an NPC', either a previous guy or DM introduced.

Knowing a guy is a means for the players to contribute in building the gameworld, not cause trouble for themselves by their own fault through DM fiat because they introduced a guy into the gameworld.

kyoryu
2019-09-28, 08:20 PM
This rule works in multiple games where it's rules as written.

The roll usually indicates whether the NPC is found, or potentially they can be found but offer some complication (hostile, they've already sold you out to the Imperials, whatever).

So it's definitely an idea that can work, the only question is whether it's right for your game or not.

Inchhighguy
2019-09-29, 11:54 AM
I'm on the side against this sort of game control by the players. If your going to have the game where the players can just ''know a guy" to "move the game along"......well, why not just let the players just ''win the game'?

The 'know a guy" rule takes away what I see as one of the best things about RPGs: problem solving. The DM comes up with a problem, and the players must solve it. But the ''know a guy" just goes all around that. The DM sets out a problem and the players just say "skip".

Now, I do like the idea of contacts....and the RPGs that do have such rules. The idea the character does know some NPCs. Though I'd much more like to do this in game play, not just having the player make a list.

But the idea of giving a player a magic wish of knowing a guy to solve a problem rubs me the wrong way.

Beleriphon
2019-09-29, 12:54 PM
I'm on the side against this sort of game control by the players. If your going to have the game where the players can just ''know a guy" to "move the game along"......well, why not just let the players just ''win the game'?

The 'know a guy" rule takes away what I see as one of the best things about RPGs: problem solving. The DM comes up with a problem, and the players must solve it. But the ''know a guy" just goes all around that. The DM sets out a problem and the players just say "skip".

Now, I do like the idea of contacts....and the RPGs that do have such rules. The idea the character does know some NPCs. Though I'd much more like to do this in game play, not just having the player make a list.

But the idea of giving a player a magic wish of knowing a guy to solve a problem rubs me the wrong way.

It depends entirely on the context of the game. It isn't a magic wish, so much as the players being able to exert control on the game to a limited degree.

If you had a superhero game and the objective is to sneak into Wakanda then is the challenge actually getting to Wakanda, or figuring out how to cross the border? Because quite frankly the former in that game is easy, fly to a near by nation and walk. If the challenge is getting into the country then "I know a guy..." works, the character knows a guy that can arrange to get them into the country, say in the hold of a tramp freighter; but, the freight is also a front AIM and its full of AIM guards.

Pleh
2019-09-29, 01:05 PM
I'm on the side against this sort of game control by the players. If your going to have the game where the players can just ''know a guy" to "move the game along"......well, why not just let the players just ''win the game'?

This is the "where do you draw the line" question. Granted, it's a fuzzy line, which tells us that if we're going to explore this territory, we have to be very intentional about what we're doing and careful about understanding what effect it's having on the game.

Always go back to, "what about this game are the players finding fun?"

Just last night, I had a player die instantly to a critical (by RAW, no workarounds). A combination of the enemy rolling a literal Critical Hit, the Player rolling a Critical Failure, and having exhausted his meta currency before the attack, there was no other legal outcome.

But I watched the group carefully. No one was happy about this. The player wasn't exactly close to death and had been handling the dungeon encounters well with good strategies. It was a stroke of bad luck.

Before determining how to rule it, I stopped the session to get people's opinions. Some players would feel worse about the game if we disregarded the dice and saved the PC. Like we had cheated and what's the point of rolling ever if we retcon the bad rolls? Other players would feel absolutely cheated by bad luck and unhappy to have to roll a new party member for one instance where the game broke down and didn't work within the intended tolerances.

I could only know which scenario I was dealing with by checking in with the players. Everyone had to be on board, because we couldn't have some wanting to heed the dice and others wanting to overrule it. I had to step out of the rules and decide whether to enforce the rules or the will of the party.

Ultimately, my players all decided it would be more fun to save the character. No one was felt they would have more fun by letting this random roll kill this beloved member of the story. So we worked with what resources the party had to have the character's allies teleport out of initiative into the path of the shot, forcing them to change their plans and damaging some equipment, but ultimately keeping their party together.

Does this mean my group doesn't care about honoring the rules about death in our campaign? Not at all. Each of these players tends to prefer to keep bad rolls in the game and work around them in most similar cases. This just happened to be a loss that would have demoralized the PLAYERS and not just their CHARACTERS. Maybe later, in other circumstances, the same character could die under different circumstances and we'd all feel much better about letting that happen

TL;DR, There's usually not a single reason to let players have a magic wish button that resolves specific problems. It's more of an art than a science. And, as others have noted, if you feel like the magic wish button is a little too convenient, you can mitigate this somewhat by increasing the cost of using the option.

Quertus
2019-09-29, 01:18 PM
I… I think I would prefer to play in a game where "I know a guy" - where spontaneously changing/defining the history of the character/world - is not allowed, and clearly detrimental to the game. I think that I would prefer to play in a game with such high coherence that no-one would even suggest using a retcon rule like this. I want the GM to care enough about world-building that such random insertions would be ludicrous. And then I want to explore their world.

Avoiding this kind of incoherence is part (admittedly, just a very small part) of why my characters are "not from around here". I *want* to "know a guy" - but I want that to be because I've met him, in character. I'm all about actually forming those relationships during a game, and I feel that these mechanics would detract from that.


I'll call for a knowledge check and if successful, the character "knows a guy" and I detail in how they know them (usually met in passing or over a beer or heard a story) and then off they go.

Doesn't always mean the NPC will be super helpful tho.

I think rules to "know *of* a guy" can be very helpful.


This, but more broad is one of the better features about the Mutants and Masterminds system. You can spend Hero Points to "edit a scene" at any time. Not only making people up out of thin air, but describing something that makes sense which may aid you. A cryokinetic might spend a Hero Point to edit a fire hydrant into the scene, which they use to freeze the ground and make the bad guys trip, for instance.

The system as a whole can be clunky, but this is a great feature that helps smooth things out.

This is one of the ways that I've used such rules. It felt a bit odd at first, but I've gotten more used to it. The trick, for me, was just pretending that there were random tables, and that the players were just using reroll powers on those tables. Then it became something I could accept into my world view.

Drascin
2019-09-29, 01:50 PM
Yeah, generally it's a good idea to let players add things to the world in this way. It helps people get invested in things, and gives you great hints for what kinds of solutions your players prefer. As a GM, this kind of stuff is a godsend.

Luckmann
2019-09-29, 02:34 PM
I saw this on Instagram. I am wondering how others feel about it. This is how it goes...in an *appropriate* situation a PC can declare “I know a guy.” Then the following occurs:

1) PC sketches out a backstory and their relationship. Fewer details are better.
2) The NPC now exists in the universe and when it is time the player who created said npc makes a charisma role.
3) Said role has advantage/disadvantage at DM discretion.

I like it. I think it really does add some player participation. As a DM, I’d limit the use by players. But it would really make things interesting. So. How do you feel?We've never needed a rule for this. Based on our backstories (even if very loose), it's always very easy to say things like "I served in the guard in this region, is there any chance that I know anyone that lives in this city?" or anything to that effect, even in games where these things are not handled concretely (some games handle reputations and contacts and interests, in which case it becomes things like "I've got a deep interest in recreational drugs, is there any chance I know a dealer around here, or see directions to one?")

I generally prefer that than to create a formal rule that potentially elbows its way into the narrative and the situations set up by the GM.

I've never had a GM complain or go "This wasn't in your three-paragraph backstory!". They're usually quick to play along and latch onto it, no crutches necessary. And as a GM myself, I consider it a godsend when players gives me an excuse to move on and keep things going, especially if it's a non-intense situation and they're stumped.

MrSandman
2019-09-29, 02:35 PM
I… I think I would prefer to play in a game where "I know a guy" - where spontaneously changing/defining the history of the character/world - is not allowed, and clearly detrimental to the game. I think that I would prefer to play in a game with such high coherence that no-one would even suggest using a retcon rule like this. I want the GM to care enough about world-building that such random insertions would be ludicrous. And then I want to explore their world.

Avoiding this kind of incoherence is part (admittedly, just a very small part) of why my characters are "not from around here". I *want* to "know a guy" - but I want that to be because I've met him, in character. I'm all about actually forming those relationships during a game, and I feel that these mechanics would detract from that.


How do you deal with games that have rules for contacts, then?

kyoryu
2019-09-29, 02:37 PM
I… I think I would prefer to play in a game where "I know a guy" - where spontaneously changing/defining the history of the character/world - is not allowed, and clearly detrimental to the game.

The trick is that in games where this is allowed, it's not allowed to retcon.

We don't know the full population in each city. We don't know who's in every bar and shop. We don't know everyone that a PC has encountered.

It's really no different than asking the GM "hey, what's the chance I know somebody here?" I mean, that's reasonable, right?

If it doesn't make sense that the PC could know somebody there, or if it has in some other way been established that they don't know anybody there, then you don't get to apply the rule.

In general, no fact that has been established can be overwritten. There's no retcon. But there's HUGE swaths of things that haven't been established one way or the other and are basically uknown.

As an example, I'd say Han meeting up with Lando was an example of a failed roll to know a guy - sure he knew a guy, but it ended up creating more compliations than anything. And that didn't feel like a retcon of anything.

NOTE: You're still allowed to not like it. But I'm just pointing out that in no game that I'm aware of are you actually allowed to override things that have been established.

Luckmann
2019-09-29, 02:54 PM
There is a difference between game randomness and the DM arbitrarily making something backfire.That's what "secret rolls" are for.

Rynjin
2019-09-29, 05:04 PM
'Imposing consequences'.

When you rely on some random dude from your past - someone who, to date has made zero appearances .. it stands to reason there has to be some element of risk. What is this, anyways? What are RPG's? Games of 'wait, I conjure my random friend from the past who will fix this thing for us'?

What ..?!

A PC introduces a completely random NPC in place of proper thought process or actual skill rolls ... and suddenly I'm unreasonable for not just granting that instant succes? Get outta here! :p

I'm the GM. I decide the risk. It's in the bloody job description. It's what I do. Could we please refrain from the assumption that this mechanic somehow makes me a douche for not letting it auto-succed?

I'm on the side against this sort of game control by the players. If your going to have the game where the players can just ''know a guy" to "move the game along"......well, why not just let the players just ''win the game'?

The 'know a guy" rule takes away what I see as one of the best things about RPGs: problem solving. The DM comes up with a problem, and the players must solve it. But the ''know a guy" just goes all around that. The DM sets out a problem and the players just say "skip".

Now, I do like the idea of contacts....and the RPGs that do have such rules. The idea the character does know some NPCs. Though I'd much more like to do this in game play, not just having the player make a list.

But the idea of giving a player a magic wish of knowing a guy to solve a problem rubs me the wrong way.

Attitudes like this are why players tend to create backstories where they are orphaned children from a doomed home town and all their friends are deaaaaaddd.

The idea that they are not allowed to have an impact on the game world beyond what abilities they directly use, that nothing about their character as a PERSON matters, and that when it does matter it will inevitably be used against them by the GM.

It's okay to just let the player, like, do stuff without making it edgy sometimes.

Quertus
2019-09-29, 08:16 PM
How do you deal with games that have rules for contacts, then?

Hmmm… so, there's 2 questions here.

There's games that have rules for "I am a member of Xavier's School for Gifted Children" (and can kinda count on them to have my back in some ways). Those are just annoying, when my concept of the school and the GM's don't match - often to the point where my characters backstory is nonsensical. Which is why my character is "not from around here", so that I never have to see the GM's concept of my backstory contacts. Since my background contacts have no mechanical impact, I endeavor not to pay for them. But I'll happily snap up contacts that I meet in character.

Then there's games that have rules for "this wasn't covered (explicitly) by your background, or during game time, or whenever you know the character from (including, I suppose, the future or even an alternate timeline), but, by golly, you can suddenly decide to flesh them out right now!". That kind of incoherent effect-and-cause is indicative of a world I'm not interested in Exploring.


The trick is that in games where this is allowed, it's not allowed to retcon.

We don't know the full population in each city. We don't know who's in every bar and shop. We don't know everyone that a PC has encountered.

It's really no different than asking the GM "hey, what's the chance I know somebody here?" I mean, that's reasonable, right?

If it doesn't make sense that the PC could know somebody there, or if it has in some other way been established that they don't know anybody there, then you don't get to apply the rule.

In general, no fact that has been established can be overwritten. There's no retcon. But there's HUGE swaths of things that haven't been established one way or the other and are basically uknown.

As an example, I'd say Han meeting up with Lando was an example of a failed roll to know a guy - sure he knew a guy, but it ended up creating more compliations than anything. And that didn't feel like a retcon of anything.

NOTE: You're still allowed to not like it. But I'm just pointing out that in no game that I'm aware of are you actually allowed to override things that have been established.

That is… technically true.

I'm giving myself… not a seizure… maybe something like a panic attack, or maybe just high blood pressure… trying to grok this down to my most fundamental reasoning*. Best I can guess, from as far down that rabbit hole as I'm willing to risk going, is that I prefer solving puzzles by manipulating existing pieces over through the creation of new pieces. The latter smells of "cheating" to my mindset.

Then there's always the disconnect between "(on the fly) Creation" and "Exploration" to consider.

So, yeah, even if I could accept it as reasonable, it's in conflict with some low-level directive(s) of mine.

Or, as they say in the vernacular, "I don't like it". :smallwink:

* EDIT: thank you for giving me something so tough to think about. It's rare that I get to dive that deep these days. I actually had to erase my first couple of tries to type after probing my reasoning, as my initial attempt at words were *completely* incoherent. Good times!

Inchhighguy
2019-09-29, 08:40 PM
It depends entirely on the context of the game. It isn't a magic wish, so much as the players being able to exert control on the game to a limited degree.

If you had a superhero game and the objective is to sneak into Wakanda then is the challenge actually getting to Wakanda, or figuring out how to cross the border? Because quite frankly the former in that game is easy, fly to a near by nation and walk. If the challenge is getting into the country then "I know a guy..." works, the character knows a guy that can arrange to get them into the country, say in the hold of a tramp freighter; but, the freight is also a front AIM and its full of AIM guards.

But this is the problem with giving the players the power to alter the game reality with a wish: The players will expect, if not demand, that it always work. The players don't want the DM to ruin thier wish.

So if a character ''knows a guy with a freighter" it can't just be ''a guy" that the DM can change and alter. As soon as the DM says ''oh the ferighter from that guy you know is full of AIM bad guys" the player will say "no way, I don't know THAT guy! The guy I know is the Super Sumgller, that can get us in anywhere."


Attitudes like this are why players tend to create backstories where they are orphaned children from a doomed home town and all their friends are deaaaaaddd.

The idea that they are not allowed to have an impact on the game world beyond what abilities they directly use, that nothing about their character as a PERSON matters, and that when it does matter it will inevitably be used against them by the GM.

It's okay to just let the player, like, do stuff without making it edgy sometimes.

Players can have plenty of effect on the game world with thier characters without using a reality altering wish.


And if your not using the ''I know a guy" as a reality altering wish, then why use it at all?

If a player can just make up a guy they know that will sort of help them out maybe, but the DM can twist it into whatever they want...well why even have the player make up anything at all?

kyoryu
2019-09-29, 11:17 PM
That is… technically true.

I'm giving myself… not a seizure… maybe something like a panic attack, or maybe just high blood pressure… trying to grok this down to my most fundamental reasoning*. Best I can guess, from as far down that rabbit hole as I'm willing to risk going, is that I prefer solving puzzles by manipulating existing pieces over through the creation of new pieces. The latter smells of "cheating" to my mindset.

Then there's always the disconnect between "(on the fly) Creation" and "Exploration" to consider.

So, yeah, even if I could accept it as reasonable, it's in conflict with some low-level directive(s) of mine.

Or, as they say in the vernacular, "I don't like it". :smallwink:

* EDIT: thank you for giving me something so tough to think about. It's rare that I get to dive that deep these days. I actually had to erase my first couple of tries to type after probing my reasoning, as my initial attempt at words were *completely* incoherent. Good times!

For a lot of people, in a lot of games, the challenge/fun of the game is in taking the existing pieces and figuring out how to use them to beat the game. It's a kind of puzzle solving. A lot of it gets into what I call "gated challenge" structures, where the point of a given 'scene' is to figure out how to 'win' and progress.

Rules like this usually come in systems where scenes are more about what happens, rather than beating the challenge. In those games, 'beating the challenge' is less important, and many of these games have a higher expectation that players will 'lose' more frequently, or to put it better, that things won't go their way.

It's gaming from fairly different first principles.

Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that every game has this rule.

"Hey, GM, I was a soldier in the 23rd Legion. Any chance any of my old buds are here?"
"Maybe. Let's roll.... Sure is!"

vs.

"Okay, I was a soldier in the 23rd Legion. I'm going to see if any of my old buds are here."
"Sounds reasonable. Roll your contacts skill."

The only real difference here is presentation, in that this presentation gives the... for lack of a better word... "right" for the players to do this. As such, it starts to cross the traditional GM/player boundary of "GM says all the things that are true about the world, the players explore the world and say how they react". By giving that authority to the player, this rule can seem very weird to those coming from a mostly traditional background, even though it's really the same thing.

Kaptin Keen
2019-09-29, 11:45 PM
Attitudes like this are why players tend to create backstories where they are orphaned children from a doomed home town and all their friends are deaaaaaddd.

The idea that they are not allowed to have an impact on the game world beyond what abilities they directly use, that nothing about their character as a PERSON matters, and that when it does matter it will inevitably be used against them by the GM.

It's okay to just let the player, like, do stuff without making it edgy sometimes.

Like I said before: Where do you get this???

First off, in all the games I ever played, I've never had a player with a backstory of 'orphan, doomed town, everyone dead'. Nothing even remotely resembling.

Second off, who said they're not allowed to impact the game??????? PLEASE ... will you please point out to me where I said that?

Third, the game consists of conflict resolution, challenge, and narrative. Giving a player a iWin button removes all of those. And yet I never once indicated I wouldn't let the I Know a Guy thing work. I merely stated it might well lead to unforeseen complications - as in, conflict resolution, challenge, and/or narrative.

So, fourth, you're accusing me of not playing the game. Unsurprisingly, that's not how I see it.

kyoryu
2019-09-29, 11:49 PM
Games where this is in place, it’s not a “win” button.

Knowing someone doesn’t guarantee that they can or will help, even on a “success”

Kaptin Keen
2019-09-30, 12:38 AM
Knowing someone doesn’t guarantee that they can or will help, even on a “success”

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Knaight
2019-09-30, 12:54 AM
As has been established this sort of thing is pretty ubiquitous - but it being a clean, easy method is really rare. Maybe it sucks up metagame currency, maybe there tend to be complications (whether of the "I know a guy, but he'll want a favor" variety or the "I know a guy, but she's not exactly accessible" variety), maybe it just costs character generation points. Generally it's a way to get past a problem by changing it to a different problem that's more in your wheelhouse. Maybe you, Mynra the Clever, have no idea how you would break the magical control on the mad emperor - but you know someone who could, your old buddy Aldric Elkkin, shaman of the elk tribe. You just need to bust them out of an imperial prison, which is going to be tricky but at least plays to your strengths of sneaking around and lying to people.

The smaller the benefit, the smaller the cost tends to be - eventually hitting first the "just roll for it" phase where a success just gets you that benefit, then the "don't even bother roll for it" phase. Your debonair swashbuckler might need to do a real favor for even their best old friend to get them to even consider helping them assassinate a hated duke. Having a contact willing to front them a lot of money probably involves either a metagame currency expenditure of a good roll on Contacts, Circles, or similar (especially if they have a reputation for squandering it, which the concept "debonair swashbucker" suggests). Having someone in their past they can call upon for an invite to a ball? That's probably not going to take a roll at all, and there are probably options. Meanwhile the hardened former mercenary they're palling around with can probably call upon a blood debt easily enough to get help with an assassination (assuming the help is more on the distraction or supply end of things), will probably have comparable trouble securing a bunch of money, and is likely to need a non contact based plan to get into that ball, at least if they're going as something other than somebody's guard.

kyoryu
2019-09-30, 09:06 AM
Most of the time in my experience it ends up being plot lubricant rather than an “I win” button.

JMS
2019-09-30, 09:20 AM
Then there's games that have rules for "this wasn't covered (explicitly) by your background, or during game time, or whenever you know the character from (including, I suppose, the future or even an alternate timeline), but, by golly, you can suddenly decide to flesh them out right now!". That kind of incoherent effect-and-cause is indicative of a world I'm not interested in Exploring.



That is… technically true.

I'm giving myself… not a seizure… maybe something like a panic attack, or maybe just high blood pressure… trying to grok this down to my most fundamental reasoning*. Best I can guess, from as far down that rabbit hole as I'm willing to risk going, is that I prefer solving puzzles by manipulating existing pieces over through the creation of new pieces. The latter smells of "cheating" to my mindset.

Then there's always the disconnect between "(on the fly) Creation" and "Exploration" to consider.

So, yeah, even if I could accept it as reasonable, it's in conflict with some low-level directive(s) of mine.

Or, as they say in the vernacular, "I don't like it". :smallwink:


So, I kind of like the rule, but I get where you’re coming from.
If I have this right, you are saying you prefer stuff to be pre defined, over made up on the spot or very shortly before?

Now, that is a great goal, and thing to aim for in a world, but most GMs, players, etc. are unable to put that kind of detail into the setting (for any number of reasons, be they time, interest, skill, effort, not going to ever come up, etc.), and that in lack of a fully fleshed out setting with NPC write ups for everyone, tools to quickly improvise in logical ways are probably needed, and I feel that this is a great tool for such purposes, used in moderation.

Eldan
2019-09-30, 09:38 AM
I always do this. Depending on the system, it may be part of the system (Contacts in Shadowrun or World of Darkness), cost a resource (a fate point in FATE), or include some kind of dice roll (gather information or local knowledge in D&D). Always very nice to happen.

Kardwill
2019-09-30, 11:09 AM
So if a character ''knows a guy with a freighter" it can't just be ''a guy" that the DM can change and alter. As soon as the DM says ''oh the ferighter from that guy you know is full of AIM bad guys" the player will say "no way, I don't know THAT guy! The guy I know is the Super Sumgller, that can get us in anywhere."



Yeah, that will be a problem if you use the "guy" as a "gotcha" to trick your players like an evil genie perverting a wish. But there are ways to have player buy-in for complications.

- It could be negociated between GM and player. "Your old pal from the army? Yeah, he's part of the city guard, but not that high ranked, okay? Or he's an officier but did some pretty shady stuff to get to that rank?"
- It could be covered by rules or a ruling. "Roll contact, "challenging" difficulty. If you succeed, then your friend Lando's station is nearby. If you lose, the same, but he's going to be tough to convince/there's going to be trouble when you arrive. You still want to roll?"
- You could warn the player. "Captain Wellers? Yeah, you can see his cargo at the dock, but the word of the street is he's been seen in pretty dubious company since you last talked to him."
- They can pay for it. "A cargo captain willing to get you to Wakanda, no question asked, as a way to repay the favor you did him during the war? Sure. Pay 2 story points, and the guy is reliable. Pay 1 story point, and there will be complications."
- You could ask the player for his input on the complication. "Yeah, one of the sheriff's deputies is your old card partner Winston. But he doesn't look pleased to see you in town. Why would he be pissed at you?"

farothel
2019-09-30, 11:36 AM
It shouldn't be too difficult to adapt for instance the system in Shadowrun to be used in other systems. And I find it an elegant system that even has in one of the sourcebooks (don't remember which one right now) an extension to have the system also work for group contacts (like: yes, you've been in the city watch in your youth, so you still know quite a lot of people there).

Rynjin
2019-09-30, 01:09 PM
Like I said before: Where do you get this???

First off, in all the games I ever played, I've never had a player with a backstory of 'orphan, doomed town, everyone dead'. Nothing even remotely resembling.

Second off, who said they're not allowed to impact the game??????? PLEASE ... will you please point out to me where I said that?

Third, the game consists of conflict resolution, challenge, and narrative. Giving a player a iWin button removes all of those. And yet I never once indicated I wouldn't let the I Know a Guy thing work. I merely stated it might well lead to unforeseen complications - as in, conflict resolution, challenge, and/or narrative.

So, fourth, you're accusing me of not playing the game. Unsurprisingly, that's not how I see it.

You are pretty much the only person who sees this as an "I win" button, which is "where I get" a lot of the assumptions about your GMng style.

It is also not a "reality altering wish" as someone tried to refer to it upthread.

The problems that this can potentially solve are so limited in scope that it is better to just let it happen, because it makes it more satisfying to the players.

Instead of going down to the docks and asking around for a ship captain willing to take them to another coastal city, the character who grew up in town, or had a sailor for a dad, or whatever says "Oh, hold on, maybe Cap'n Jables is in town, he's a friend of my dad's, we can ask him!".

It literally does not affect the game in any major way, because if the players need to get from point A to point B based on a plot hook you have created, you are already going to be providing them a way to get there; elsewise the players will just drop it. Instead of it being a random schmuck, a player "knows a guy".

There is absolutely no reason to make it adversarial, unless you had already intended for the ship captain they hire to betray them for whatever plot reasons are there. It changes nothing except making the player feel like they have agency and free reign to be creative.

Kaptin Keen
2019-09-30, 02:04 PM
You are pretty much the only person who sees this as an "I win" button, which is "where I get" a lot of the assumptions about your GMng style.

Right. You know absolutely nothing about me, or how I play, or how I do anything. So .. if you feel this topic is worth pursuing, you'll have to ask, rather than make assumptions.

Feel free.

Rynjin
2019-09-30, 02:52 PM
Right. You know absolutely nothing about me, or how I play, or how I do anything. So .. if you feel this topic is worth pursuing, you'll have to ask, rather than make assumptions.

Feel free.

Sure. What does an average GMing session look like for you, and how do you generally do campaign setup?

So this isn't one-sided: I "pants" everything on my end these days as far as plot (beyond a basic outline) and 'mission' structure (I tend to write up a half dozen plot hooks wherever the party goes, and just see what spawns from those interactions, or what they happen to do of their own initiative. I don't really flesh them out until they're 'bitten'). I tend toward being more permissive for that reason, since very little of what a player does can or will mess up what I'm doing.

For this reason I tend to run games in published settings for the most part, as details about where people are traveling to is a keystroke away, or I can more easily make up a location to fill in the gaps as they travel.

Being more permissive tends to make me feel less bad about killing characters, as they have mostly free reign to build whatever character they want (and retrain fairly easily if they are not satisfied), though I do not actively try to make encounters that kill, with the main goal being to exhaust a lot of resources and bring multiple characters to the brink of death without going over it, as sessions can vary wildly between typical dungeon crawls (where each individual encounter is made easier) or extended RP or prep sessions where there is only 1-2 combats per day (so I'll throw something at them that is CR+4 or so).

I attempt to weave character goals into the game as needed or relevant, though admittedly sometimes just forget to do so.

Beleriphon
2019-09-30, 03:08 PM
Yeah, that will be a problem if you use the "guy" as a "gotcha" to trick your players like an evil genie perverting a wish. But there are ways to have player buy-in for complications.

- It could be negociated between GM and player. "Your old pal from the army? Yeah, he's part of the city guard, but not that high ranked, okay? Or he's an officier but did some pretty shady stuff to get to that rank?"
- It could be covered by rules or a ruling. "Roll contact, "challenging" difficulty. If you succeed, then your friend Lando's station is nearby. If you lose, the same, but he's going to be tough to convince/there's going to be trouble when you arrive. You still want to roll?"
- You could warn the player. "Captain Wellers? Yeah, you can see his cargo at the dock, but the word of the street is he's been seen in pretty dubious company since you last talked to him."
- They can pay for it. "A cargo captain willing to get you to Wakanda, no question asked, as a way to repay the favor you did him during the war? Sure. Pay 2 story points, and the guy is reliable. Pay 1 story point, and there will be complications."
- You could ask the player for his input on the complication. "Yeah, one of the sheriff's deputies is your old card partner Winston. But he doesn't look pleased to see you in town. Why would he be pissed at you?"

There's a reason I used superheroes and Wakanda, my favourite game is Mutants and Masterminds so scene edits are already a thing, and for the complication I'd give the players all one hero point just so I can ambush them with AIM agents. So, I'd never play gotcha, but I would definitely not let a player just get through that scenario without a hitch, that's not very in genre for superheroes now is it?

And I think that's the thing as well, some of these ideas work better in some genres than others. I can 100% believe Wolverine knows a guy and call him up for a favour to provide light air support when he's infiltrating Madripoor, more so than I can believe Jack the Black can do the same to infiltrate the Blood Tooth Orcs stronghold. Not that either can't work, but the former is certainly more in genre to do.

Kaptin Keen
2019-09-30, 03:11 PM
Sure. What does an average GMing session look like for you, and how do you generally do campaign setup?

So this isn't one-sided: I "pants" everything on my end these days as far as plot (beyond a basic outline) and 'mission' structure (I tend to write up a half dozen plot hooks wherever the party goes, and just see what spawns from those interactions, or what they happen to do of their own initiative. I don't really flesh them out until they're 'bitten'). I tend toward being more permissive for that reason, since very little of what a player does can or will mess up what I'm doing.

For this reason I tend to run games in published settings for the most part, as details about where people are traveling to is a keystroke away, or I can more easily make up a location to fill in the gaps as they travel.

Being more permissive tends to make me feel less bad about killing characters, as they have mostly free reign to build whatever character they want (and retrain fairly easily if they are not satisfied), though I do not actively try to make encounters that kill, with the main goal being to exhaust a lot of resources and bring multiple characters to the brink of death without going over it, as sessions can vary wildly between typical dungeon crawls (where each individual encounter is made easier) or extended RP or prep sessions where there is only 1-2 combats per day (so I'll throw something at them that is CR+4 or so).

I attempt to weave character goals into the game as needed or relevant, though admittedly sometimes just forget to do so.

One-sided would have been fine. But .. sure. This will be wildly off topic, and get us both banned for life, but .. YOLO.

I have a homebrew setting. It's .. simple. There are 4-5 human cities, and civilization is being kept succesfully at bay by the forces of nature (gently guided by druids). In some games (I run a few) the end goal is very clear, and I draw inspiration from the players as to how to navigate to that end goal. So start and finish are defined reasonably clearly, everything in between is improvised - but heavily influenced by the players. They .. don't necessarily realise this, but there it is.

I'm fairly restrictive. This is a good thing. I'm subpar or mediocre at many things GM, and so it's clever of me to keep things within a frame I can work with: Few players, restricted sources, low to medium levels, and so on. I consider religion to be 'there are all the gods you can possibly imagine and more you can't - work out your own'. If anyone asks, I'd say I lean towards Eberron alignments - but that's not really true. I don't really use them at all, and I really like moral grey zones.

My guideline in games is .. what do I feel is reasonable. I'm totally ok with highly unlikely (by real world standards) heroics, but I don't like it when people try to sell me their overly permissive reading of the rules. Or cheat outright. It's a minor headache for me that I might wind up GM'ing for people who are substantially better at the rules than I am.

But on the other hand, I'm quite receptive to player input, and I invest in creating .. a game for everyone. A place for everyone to shine.

Above and beyond all, I try to have fun - and I sincerely hope my players have fun too.

Oh, important note: I'm subpar or mediocre in many ways. Where I'm good is with story, and with engaging my players. I have campaigns that have run for years.

Quertus
2019-09-30, 06:21 PM
For a lot of people, in a lot of games, the challenge/fun of the game is in taking the existing pieces and figuring out how to use them to beat the game. It's a kind of puzzle solving. A lot of it gets into what I call "gated challenge" structures, where the point of a given 'scene' is to figure out how to 'win' and progress.

Rules like this usually come in systems where scenes are more about what happens, rather than beating the challenge. In those games, 'beating the challenge' is less important, and many of these games have a higher expectation that players will 'lose' more frequently, or to put it better, that things won't go their way.

It's gaming from fairly different first principles.

Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that every game has this rule.

"Hey, GM, I was a soldier in the 23rd Legion. Any chance any of my old buds are here?"
"Maybe. Let's roll.... Sure is!"

vs.

"Okay, I was a soldier in the 23rd Legion. I'm going to see if any of my old buds are here."
"Sounds reasonable. Roll your contacts skill."

The only real difference here is presentation, in that this presentation gives the... for lack of a better word... "right" for the players to do this. As such, it starts to cross the traditional GM/player boundary of "GM says all the things that are true about the world, the players explore the world and say how they react". By giving that authority to the player, this rule can seem very weird to those coming from a mostly traditional background, even though it's really the same thing.

Again, that all sounds very reasonable. Well, except for the implication / association of "my gaming style" and "success" - I'm here to find out what happens, not to win. If I wanted to win, I wouldn't play a sentient potted plant.

But fabricating things into the game in the middle is, IMO, even worse for "finding out what happens" than for "winning" - with "winning" as your goal, it can help you achieve your goal; with "finding out what happens" as your goal, it taints the result.


So, I kind of like the rule, but I get where you’re coming from.
If I have this right, you are saying you prefer stuff to be pre defined, over made up on the spot or very shortly before?

Now, that is a great goal, and thing to aim for in a world, but most GMs, players, etc. are unable to put that kind of detail into the setting (for any number of reasons, be they time, interest, skill, effort, not going to ever come up, etc.), and that in lack of a fully fleshed out setting with NPC write ups for everyone, tools to quickly improvise in logical ways are probably needed, and I feel that this is a great tool for such purposes, used in moderation.

I think you've got me pegged right.

I prefer worlds where the subtler hints are there, that I can piece together. This is more people stomping around the world building. I prefer the subtler interactions of a quiet game of chess; this is 5-year-olds playing tag as they crash through hedges and knock over my chess board, screaming their heads off in comparison.

I'm not saying tag isn't fun, just… not my kind of fun. And rather detrimental to my fun.

Morty
2019-10-01, 08:32 AM
As has been mention already, mechanics for having contacts, allies or informants exist in plenty of systems. Either as abilities you pay XP for, a way to spend meta-currency or something else entirely. I don't think I've ever run or played an nWoD/CofD game where at least one of the players didn't have some dots in Contacts or Allies. But they're not random and they require specifying who those contacts or allies are in advance.

Psyren
2019-10-01, 09:45 AM
Pathfinder (1e) and Starfinder both have guidelines around this for Intrigue-focused campaigns, letting you retroactively set up a contingency to get out of a jam.

In any RPG, organizations are good for this. You have nothing to lose by asking the GM if you have a mentor, friend or colleague that might be able to help with X or might know more about Y. Worst case scenario they say no and you're back where you started.

Willie the Duck
2019-10-01, 10:23 AM
Again, that all sounds very reasonable. Well, except for the implication / association of "my gaming style" and "success" - I'm here to find out what happens, not to win. If I wanted to win, I wouldn't play a sentient potted plant.

But fabricating things into the game in the middle is, IMO, even worse for "finding out what happens" than for "winning" - with "winning" as your goal, it can help you achieve your goal; with "finding out what happens" as your goal, it taints the result.

Mind you, I prefer to have any character contacts pre-determined and fleshed out rather than in the form of freeform effects waiting to be triggered, however I recognize the potential value of the later. Fabricating contacts (or, more precisely, their nature and location) mid-game mitigates the issue that almost no DM is going to is going to meticulously plot each PC contact (which, honestly speaking, should really be several dozen per PC, if they in any way mirror real life), their motivations, interests, and actions, and determine where each one would be. If my former soldier PC has a active soldier ally in the army, it's very unlikely that the DM would show enough interest in them to realistically determine whether that soldier would be part of the massed army we run into in gameplay. It would end up coming down to an arbitrary decision, or maybe a thrown dice (in which case, it's not different from a player driven mechanic with a random chance of success). So, while I have a preference, I see the value of the opposition.


I think you've got me pegged right.

I prefer worlds where the subtler hints are there, that I can piece together. This is more people stomping around the world building. I prefer the subtler interactions of a quiet game of chess; this is 5-year-olds playing tag as they crash through hedges and knock over my chess board, screaming their heads off in comparison.

I'm not saying tag isn't fun, just… not my kind of fun. And rather detrimental to my fun.

<inappropriate exclamatory>, Quertus, no. There is nothing about what JMS described that is anything like 5-year-olds playing tag (nor anything that makes your position chesslike). This is a prime example of why you get so much pushback and disrespect around here. You are (not so) subtly trying to declare that you and your preferred playstyle are somehow more mature than that of the rest of the people in the discussion. Let me be clear that you have never done anything to convince anyone else in the conversation that you are (and statements like this go a long way of disabusing anyone of that notion). I have tried to be nice to you. I have tried to help you. I, for one, am tired of this. Why do you keep behaving this way?
*over and above anyone else.

Knaight
2019-10-01, 05:09 PM
As has been mention already, mechanics for having contacts, allies or informants exist in plenty of systems. Either as abilities you pay XP for, a way to spend meta-currency or something else entirely. I don't think I've ever run or played an nWoD/CofD game where at least one of the players didn't have some dots in Contacts or Allies. But they're not random and they require specifying who those contacts or allies are in advance.

It varies: nWod/CofD require tight specification, Burning Wheel has both Circles and tight specification, and it's generally not uncommon to have both some sort of general Contacts attribute/skill/resource along with a more specific talent/gift/advantage for someone more specific. It's sufficiently well tread territory to have a lot of different implementations.


<inappropriate exclamatory>, Quertus, no. There is nothing about what JMS described that is anything like 5-year-olds playing tag (nor anything that makes your position chesslike). This is a prime example of why you get so much pushback and disrespect around here. You are (not so) subtly trying to declare that you and your preferred playstyle are somehow more mature than that of the rest of the people in the discussion. Let me be clear that you have never done anything to convince anyone else in the conversation that you are (and statements like this go a long way of disabusing anyone of that notion). I have tried to be nice to you. I have tried to help you. I, for one, am tired of this. Why do you keep behaving this way?
Seconded.

Morty
2019-10-01, 05:33 PM
It varies: nWod/CofD require tight specification, Burning Wheel has both Circles and tight specification, and it's generally not uncommon to have both some sort of general Contacts attribute/skill/resource along with a more specific talent/gift/advantage for someone more specific. It's sufficiently well tread territory to have a lot of different implementations.

Yes, I specifically meant nWoD/CofD because that's what I have direct experience with. Obviously it can work very differently elsewhere.

Quertus
2019-10-01, 06:02 PM
<inappropriate exclamatory>, Quertus, no. There is nothing about what JMS described that is anything like 5-year-olds playing tag (nor anything that makes your position chesslike). This is a prime example of why you get so much pushback and disrespect around here. You are (not so) subtly trying to declare that you and your preferred playstyle are somehow more mature than that of the rest of the people in the discussion. Let me be clear that you have never done anything to convince anyone else in the conversation that you are (and statements like this go a long way of disabusing anyone of that notion). I have tried to be nice to you. I have tried to help you. I, for one, am tired of this. Why do you keep behaving this way?
*over and above anyone else.


Seconded.

Mature? Hmmm… I suppose I can see how you'd read it that way. I was trying to emphasize more, you know, "taking time to pull off" vs "spontaneous and Chaotic", alongside how the "spontaneous and Chaotic" ruins the "takes time" bits, by having the kids crash through the chess board.

Now, if that happens to be the definition of "mature", then I guess I am, by definition, saying that. If not, then, no, that's just you reading that into my example. Which might mean that my example could have been better.

So, is my preference for more subtle, longer-building clues and relationships a more "mature" play style? Is waiting to build things until they're needed, so that these subtle connections cannot have been created beforehand, an "immature" play style? Because that's what I was intending to convey, with the first examples of games with "involved setup" and "spontaneous chaos" that came to mind.

Tvtyrant
2019-10-01, 06:38 PM
I saw this on Instagram. I am wondering how others feel about it. This is how it goes...in an *appropriate* situation a PC can declare “I know a guy.” Then the following occurs:

1) PC sketches out a backstory and their relationship. Fewer details are better.
2) The NPC now exists in the universe and when it is time the player who created said npc makes a charisma role.
3) Said role has advantage/disadvantage at DM discretion.

I like it. I think it really does add some player participation. As a DM, I’d limit the use by players. But it would really make things interesting. So. How do you feel?

There are several threads about this in the last few months, some trying to use it for mundanes only as a counter to magic.

I would probably give each player a set number of favors that can be called on during a campaign. Favors are the equivalent of a good or service delivered within a day, and you refresh them each time you level. So for instance someone could be cousins with the pirate that captured them, or find an old friend among the slaves they freed who will heal them. Belonging to an organization would give you additional favors as people in the organization do the same things for you.

Tajerio
2019-10-01, 10:38 PM
Mature? Hmmm… I suppose I can see how you'd read it that way. I was trying to emphasize more, you know, "taking time to pull off" vs "spontaneous and Chaotic", alongside how the "spontaneous and Chaotic" ruins the "takes time" bits, by having the kids crash through the chess board.

Now, if that happens to be the definition of "mature", then I guess I am, by definition, saying that. If not, then, no, that's just you reading that into my example. Which might mean that my example could have been better.

So, is my preference for more subtle, longer-building clues and relationships a more "mature" play style? Is waiting to build things until they're needed, so that these subtle connections cannot have been created beforehand, an "immature" play style? Because that's what I was intending to convey, with the first examples of games with "involved setup" and "spontaneous chaos" that came to mind.

It's such an obviously obnoxious and condescending example, though, that it's really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. That disinclination is only strengthened by the fact that as Willie says, you have previous. And it is reinforced by the fact that you always employ the above strategy when you get caught out, which is to meander around with words and suggest that it's all down to periodic ineptitude in articulation.

As to the main point of the thread, I love the "I know a guy" rule. I can't model a world with anything close to every detail that a real world would have, and I also like letting my players take the creative reins every now and then. So if they can think of somebody their character would plausibly know who's likely to have relevant skills or information, I cheerfully run with it. Even though some people have said it makes the world feel maybe a little more artificial, I find the opposite. "I know a guy" reminds us that this world is created for the table, but that's more than made up for by the verisimilitude it brings in fleshing out the social ties of the PCs.

Anymage
2019-10-01, 11:39 PM
There are several threads about this in the last few months, some trying to use it for mundanes only as a counter to magic.

If you're talking about the one I think you're talking about, that was about a different if related idea.

To move away from contacts, let's imagine that a PC wants to swing from a balcony on one side of a room to a balcony on the other side. The DM didn't say anything about there being tapestries or support ropes or anything that the PC could use to swing across, but the DM also didn't say that the room was entirely bare. It isn't a magical wish, a revision of established facts, or looking for an outside force to come and fix everything. It's a question of if an unstated but plausible element is there, and the attitude that it should err on the side of coolness.

The other thread was about if super-smart characters should have some degree of retcon power, to highlight that they would've been smart enough to plan for contingencies that the player didn't foresee. (Similar to how a super charismatic character doesn't require the player to be the epitome of smoothness.) Which is still less of an in-universe retcon and more of a way that the character should've plausibly had better planning skills.

Ultimately, I think it gets down to an old gaming attitude that's on the way out. It makes a certain intuitive sense that things should only exist if explicitly mentioned, but in practice that gets ridiculous fast. Allowing the player to reify something plausible but unstated is more in line with today's thinking.

Bjarkmundur
2019-10-02, 02:40 AM
I added this to my game, but as an additional use for inspiration. Players are more likely to remember using an 'ability' like this if it is tied to a resource.

Inspiration
Inspiration is a resource gifted by players for creativity, prioritizing roleplay, and generally being an upstanding player. For example, inspiration can be given for something that yield no mechanical benefit (or even grants a penalty) in order to better portray your character, serve the story or immerse the players. As such, Inspiration is a method to move away from metagaming in order to focus on better overall storytelling.
A player starts each session with one inspiration tokens, and can have a maximum of two unused tokens at any given time. Inspiration can be used in one of three different ways:


Healing Surge: You can use one Inspiration token to restore your vigor. You regain 7 (2d4+2) hit points.
Reroll: You can use one Inspiration token to reroll one d20, or have the DM reroll a saving throw, but you must use the second result.
Make a narrative declaration: You can use one Inspiration token to either add or remove details regarding the current narrative, within reason

Quertus
2019-10-02, 08:50 AM
It's such an obviously obnoxious and condescending example, though, that it's really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. That disinclination is only strengthened by the fact that as Willie says, you have previous. And it is reinforced by the fact that you always employ the above strategy when you get caught out, which is to meander around with words and suggest that it's all down to periodic ineptitude in articulation.

Even though some people have said it makes the world feel maybe a little more artificial, I find the opposite. "I know a guy" reminds us that this world is created for the table, but that's more than made up for by the verisimilitude it brings in fleshing out the social ties of the PCs.

Where I live, kids play tag outside all the time. One of my prized possessions is a chess set. These heavily influenced my choices.

For how the past is handled, one kind of fun damages my enjoyment of the other kind of fun. And I tried to articulate that in my example. And clearly failed.

Yes, I often word things poorly. Rather than view it as a carefully crafted lie, why not consider that it could be true? If I had the conversational skills to craft myself these back doors, or to improvise them when called out, would it not make more sense for me to, I don't know, communicate better in the first place?

Still, if there is a pattern to the *types* of communication failures I produce, it might behoove me to investigate improving in that area. So, you've spoken of patterns of mine (my frequent miscommunication, and attempts at disambiguation) - have you noticed any pattern in the types of communication errors I make, that might lead to actionable items for self improvement?

-----

For your stance on the topic… I would simply say that, for some (such as myself) they are different, and one cannot make up for the lack of one by adding more of the other. So, while that works for you, it wouldn't for me.

EDIT: this has been bothering me, because my subconscious realized I hasn't addressed everything I normally might.

Yes, when someone attributes to me a stance that I do not hold, you're going to see a pattern of me evaluating how they could hold that belief, and explaining what I actually meant by those words.

Further, I've never claimed "periodic" ineptitude in articulation. In fact, some Playgrounders have described me as a mediocre communicator at best.