There are moments that happen in works of fiction where one character reads another character like a book. A conversation happens, and as the characters separate one explains a whole slew of things they took from the conversation that were never discussed. To the viewer it looks like they discussed a grocery trip. However, from discussing that grocery trip the hero - or sometimes villain - knows that the secret plan kicks off on Tuesday and starts at Steve's house. How do they do that?
One of the challenges you can come across as a GM is how to make a boss character stand out mechanically or feel like a boss in a fight. There are some obvious ways to do it such as the bag of HP and high powered attacks. They're tried and true for a reason, they work, and every boss has to be able to absorb enough damage to feel like a challenge to take down while doing enough damage to feel like a threat. The thing is how does the boss do that, and how can you do it in a way so that a good round doesn't just blow up a player and take them out of the game while starting the death spiral for the encounter?
Quick tip for today. I've seen some people talk about how sometimes they have trouble when running games with certain villains because they like the character too much. They think the character has a lot of mileage and could be good for the game in the longrun, which in turn makes them not want to let the PCs kill them now - even if there is no way to really plausibly save said villain.
I've been toying with an idea in my head I want to try the next time I start a campaign - provided it works for the type of campaign said players want. The idea is a simple one. Better yet, it is work the players will do that will help bring their characters into the game while also helping them with problems they may face in game and the GM with ways to bring them into future adventures or quests. The idea is, like the title of the post suggests, for each player to make 3 "Friends."
One of the most common things a GM has to do when running a game is make rulings. The ability to make rulings is - in my opinion - one of the key things that makes a Table Top RPG infinitely more flexible than any computer game can be. See, every option before you in a computer game has to be specifically programmed for by the designers. If a player wants to do something that the designers didn't account for, well then they're just shit out of luck. But in a table top game, the GM can figure out a way to make it work.
So what should you consider when making a ruling? Let's go over the basic steps.
What Does The Player Want to Do?
The first thing you need to consider is what is it the player is trying to do? When asking yourself - or the player - this question don't just focus on the means by which they hope to bring about the end, but the end as well. There is a big difference between a PC trying to befriend the druid's wolf companions so he's on their good side, and a PC trying to do that in order to convince the local villagers that the wolves aren't something to be afraid of. And if you don't know what the player is going for, you may make the wrong ruling, or one that needlessly complicates things.
Does The System Do Anything Close To That?
The second thing is to check if your system does anything that is close to what the PC is trying to do. If nothing else you should have the system's 'core resolution mechanic' - the basis around how skill checks, combat checks, and all that are determined. But sometimes there is a more specific system or rules around things the player wants to do. If nothing else, a GM handbook may have some quick guidance if not full mechanics of something adjacent to the task.
This is a good idea to check just because why do work that is already done? And you may get ideas from for how you want to handle it for your game.
Can You Steal A Method From Another System?
If you have access to multiple systems, do any of them do the thing the player is looking to do? If so, can those rules be stolen if only for ideas? Taking from other systems is in general just a good idea as a GM. The 5e Legendary Actions mechanic can work in any system to make a boss feel more boss like. Aspects from FATE are easily stolen to give and track penalties and bonuses in a situation or to even tag or invoke on players and scenes as needed.
Is This Ruling Liable To Become A Rule?
The difference between a ruling and a rule, is that a ruling is meant to resolve something in the moment so that normal play can resume and the game can continue. A rule on the other hand is part of the game. It will be referenced again. It will come up again. A player wanting to make a magic sword as a one time thing is a ruling. A player wanting to make magic swords as a thing their character does on the semi-regular? That's a rule (or rule set.)
The more likely something is to be a rule, the more complex you can be with it as needed - provided it works, is fast enough for your needs, and is fun. The less likely it is to come up again? The more I suggest you stray to a simple method that gets the job done and move on.
Make Your Ruling
At this point, in most circumstances, you should be able to make your ruling. This may seem like a lot, but in the moment at the table it goes by very quickly. And when given time to make a decision you can more slowly indulge in looking for rules.
Don't get hung up on looking up rules at the table. When in doubt, make a ruling and move on. You can always look it up later and adjust as needed from there. But do consider what you know of the system, and how it works.
Sometimes for a session you find you want to try, or need to try, to handle something that your system of choice just doesn't prepare you for. Perhaps you're running a game and want to have a crafting competition that the PCs are engaged in. Or perhaps your PCs are beginning a business or criminal enterprise. Perhaps the PCs are getting involved in politics and you need a way to manage influence across factions.
I feel like I keep stumbling across stories about this over the past week. RPG Horror stories that frequent the theme of the GM or DM planning on, and in some cases outright saying, that they were going to kill at least one PC in a given scenario or boss fight. If I'm being charitable I can kind of get the idea. They want a boss to be scary. They want it to stand out. They want it to be a fight that the PCs remember or that meets their definition of 'adequate' amounts of cool for the boss. And that means not being a chump who gets wrecked without even taking someone with them.
The problem is that if you have in your notes, or your head, that you're killing a PC you're already doing it wrong. And if you tell the players you are doing this, you've already ruined the encounter - and likely their trust in you as a GM.
Making adventures can be hard. There is a reason all the major RPG producers sell pre-written adventures. There is a reason the DMSguild exists. There is a reason you can barely throw a rock in the RPG side of the internet and not hit any number of adventure idea/seed generators. There is nothing wrong with them. In fact, a lot of them are really good with some amazing adventures I'd imagine the vast majority would never consider let alone be able to pull off unaided.
I am trying something new at the end of my sessions. At least, I am trying to try something new. We'll see how it goes with attempt #2 on Friday. The idea is to change how I am asking for GM feedback at the end of the session.
Most sessions I end with the following: "Any feedback for me? The NPCs? Things you liked? Things you didn't like? Things you want more of? Things you want less of?"
The idea is simple, I'm asking several questions with different possible answers. The idea is to solicit general feedback of the session. Players tend to engage at least somewhat with it telling me something they liked or something I did well, which is good. It gives me stuff to keep up on. However, a lot of times the responses I get are more simple.
In the game on Friday I found myself curious about a couple specific scenes that happened. So I asked to the two players who were directly involved "What did you think of X scene? How could I have done it better? What didn't work for you?" And I got an answer specific to that. I also asked the players who were outside the scene and got a different perspective.
The end result was that the scene went over better than I thought it had. The players understood why things went wrong. But there was still some ideas on what I could have done better to communicate things in the scene.
It worked out well. And I hope to keep doing it.
I guess we'll just see if I can find a specific scene in the next session I want to pull apart and get ideas on.
Open Ended choices are a necessity to come up in RPGs at times. There is simply no avoiding situations where the PCs have a blank slate in front of them - or just a problem - and all the options in the world open to them for how to overcome this obstacle. It is a chance for the Players to show their full creativity. However, it is also prone to bringing the game to a screeching stop if not worse if you, the GM giving the choice, are not ready for what it means when you give an Open Ended Choice to your players.
How We Think It Will Work
The idea is simple. It is the core essence of how RPGs should work. You provide a situation to your PCs, and they tell you what they do and the game goes forward from there. If the obstacle is in the way, the PCs tell you how they try to overcome it. If the choice is more about where they're going, they tell you which way. Easy, right?
Well, kind of...
How It Goes Over
Frequently what happens when an open ended choice is given out - especially in what could be a tense situation - is the game freezes. The Players presented with a simple "what do you do?" either freeze and look around like they were caught not having done their homework, or they start asking all sorts of questions that have at best limited relation to the situation you have in your mind. So what is going on?
In Your Head vs. In Their Head
The first problem, and the reason for all the questions and some of the freezing, is how the picture looks. You likely have the whole scenario in mind and know what everything looks like and what the relevant information is. This is easy for you, because you built the scenario. In the players head it may look completely different. And odds are it is not a complete picture.
Option Paralysis
The second problem is option paralysis. With every option open to the players (perhaps hyperbolically but you get the idea) choosing one option can be near impossible. This is especially true when there is a feeling of a choice being potentially wrong. If your players are creeping around and come upon a strange box in the middle of the road there are potential wrong answers. Which means the obvious choices - go and check it out - could lead to potentially bad results. Very often the players are frozen because they fear a wrong choice could cost them their character - or someone else's character. Other players are afraid of being ridiculed or mocked by their fellow players for doing the "stupid thing" that triggered an obvious trap.
Players Are Not As 'In Game' As They Should Be
Sessions tend to be 4 hours long. That is a long time to be in game, and frequently players will fall in and out of game as a session goes on. If one person is talking for a long time - especially if there is no change in the tone of voice - some people will check out. Even if they're completely interested in the game, the constant stimulus in unchanging tone/pitch from one person just turns into noise and their brain goes to check other things. It is essentially the 'falling asleep in class' problem, just for fantasy pretend games.
How is this a problem? Because the player knows they're supposed to do something, but they don't know what, and they don't fully understand the situation. Only they don't want to ask questions or clarify because they're worried they'll come across as uninterested in the game or otherwise not engaged because their brain slipped out.
How To Be Ready?
So three problems, how can we be ready for this? First, be ready to answer questions, and when answering your questions keep in mind that your players don't have the benefit of picturing the scene in their head with the same clarity you do. Be kind to questions and give full answers. Point out what the important information is. And when players ask about doing potential actions, ask them what their hoped for results will be and work with them on achieving those.
Whenever possible be able and ready to summarize the situation in short, distinct points as a sort of summary. "In summary, there is a gift wrapped box in the middle of the road sitting there. You don't think this is a good place for an ambush. It is definitely strange. There is no way to continue forward without going past the box, or backtracking a third of a day to go the long way adding 2 more days to your trip." This loses a lot of the drama of the narration you did, but it sums up the situation into digestable bites your players can work with. It also helps bring anyone who may have missed something up to speed when their brain goes "shit, he asked a question. Pay attention!"
Better: Provide Options
An even better idea though is to never just drop an open ended question on your players. Instead, give them options with one of those options being room to go their own way. For example, with our gift box scenario you could present it as "Would you like to go forward as a group to investigate, have just the rogue go forward to check for traps, try to scan it from a distance, or do something else?"
This doesn't cure the above problems, but by giving options and ideas you give people something to latch onto and work with. You show routes forward that they can take and ways they can deal with the problem.
Don't Open Session With An Open Choice
Finally, as a word of advice, try not to open session with an open choice. Your players aren't fully in their characters yet. The game isn't fully in mind. The session has no momentum. An Open choice starting things off can be a painful, grating experience and in some cases can kill a session dead because everyone will want to do something else, or won't know what to do, and then that is your session.
A closed choice however works well here. A few limited options to get things moving. Build up some momentum. And once the game is going and people are fully in character, you can open up the choices more and more.
Intrigue and political navigation can be hard to run. There are a lot of moving pieces, and it is a game more about subtlety and reading people than it is about killing and fighting. Most systems aren't built to handle intrigue, and even games that purport to have 'social interaction' as one of their pillars of play don't actually provide mechanics or much in the way of suggestions for playing this out.
For my own uses, when needing to prepare multiple NPCs for an intrigue attempt, I've found there are three things that can be good to have on hand - in addition to whatever normal stuff I prepare to be able to play the character. This does make an intrigue NPC more work, but you knew that by default when you chose to make a path of adventure for intrigue. Consider it this way though, you're choosing social mechanics and spygames over combat. So really this is just your combat prep time put to a different use.
In a couple of the games I run I have had PCs look to have pets for their characters. Pets are a weird things when it comes to RPGs - especially combat heavy ones like D&D. Why are they weird? Because animals tend to be fairly squishy and easily killed, especially as PCs get stronger. This isn't normally a problem, except that the idea of a pet also implies an emotional attachment.
After an adventure or two odds are your PCs have done something worth talking about. The exact story may not get out, but that a villain was defeated or a scheme was disrupted will get out and around. People will take those stories. They will embellish them. They will run with them and tell them all over the place. And by the time your PCs catch up with a version of their story they may not even recognize it.
But do you?
Sometimes PCs take the wrong approach with an NPC. Sometimes the approach is so bad it is hard to conceive of a way for the NPC to do anything but give a hard no and shut off an avenue of inquiry. Doing so doesn't even violate the normal advice for GM's to not say no, because this isn't the GM saying no but the NPC. Still, it is something I find that you want to be really careful with - and if possible find a way to warn the players before it happens.
The youtube algorithm brought this video across my feed the other day. Being as Charisma in games is something I am always interested in seeing I clicked it. I am not going to say this person is right or wrong, their advice - like all advice - should be listened to, considered, measured for usefulness in the unique situation for you, and then used or discarded. I will say however that I feel this is an incomplete argument for both how to handle Charisma, and how you can handle shy players with High Charisma characters - and high charisma players with low charisma characters.
If I had to distill down what makes a game fun and engaging for me - and what people have told me is fun about my games - it really boils down to two concepts that I try to always keep present in my games. Those concepts: Player Agency and Consequences.
How does your villain feel about the PCs? Do they even know they exist? Are they aware of who is thwarting their plans and killing their lieutenants? Are they trying to stop them? Adjust for them? Recruit them? Do they think of them at all?
If not, maybe they should.
Most fights in RPGs are small skirmishes. The 4-6 PCs versus maybe up to 10 or so enemies. The fight can go through quickly, as the system is built around making those types of fight happen. However, sometimes you want to do a bigger fight. Sometimes you want a mass combat with armies, or you want something like the Siege of Helms Deep from the Two Towers. A prolonged battle with a massive enemy force and plenty of time for thrilling heroics from the PCs to keep the light of hope alive.
The problem is when it comes to those fights, the combat system as presented in the book isn't meant to handle that. Your choice then being to take multiple sessions doing a fight round by round such that you'll likely spend several sessions getting through just the opening moments of the fight. Or to mix things up, change up the rules, and rely on some more abstract representation to move things along. Today I have some ideas to help with doing that.
One of the fastest ways to get in an argument on the internet is to talk about alignment. A lot of people have very strong opinions on the subject, and if you're playing in a game with those people - especially if they're the GM - it can be good to ask for their guidelines for how each of the alignments work. Just remember that guidelines are exactly that, they are guidelines. In fact, with that in mind, let's get into it.
As a disclaimer, for ease and breadth of use the alignment system I am going to talk about most here is the classic D&D Lawful Good -> Chaotic Evil alignment matrix. This is not only the system used by two of the largest games (D&D and Pathfinder) but also the one most found in memes. It also gives us a system to talk about alignment as a whole and what it means.
When watching a movie or otherwise enjoying a story, it is easy for the work to cut away and show what is going on with the villain. We can get a grand reveal of the villain's whole plan as they are preparing it. This can even be used to set up tension if we know the villain is laying a trap, but don't know when the trap will spring on the hero - who we want to win.
In a RPG though it is harder to do this. Sure you can do a cutscene showing what is going on with the villain, but a lot of GMs feel silly playing with themselves (phrasing!) in that way. And sometimes players don't keep up or catch on. More often, the PCs are only getting half the story - the story they are present for - which means they don't get to see the nuance to the villains plans. This also means that sometimes a plot needs to be kept simpler because without the foreknowledge of seeing the setup, the twist feels silly and off - coming out of left field to to say - or worse, as a cheap trick to screw over the players.
