Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 13:10:25
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant
|
AndrewGPaul wrote: I picked Age of Rebellion, because it offers the most opportunity for straightforwardly gunning down hordes of Stormtroopers and general mayhem.
You Rebel Scum.
|
Psienesis wrote:I've... seen things... you people wouldn't believe. Milk cartons on fire off the shoulder of 3rd-hour English; I watched Cheez-beams glitter in the dark near the Admin Parking Gate... All those... moments... will be lost, in time, like tears... in... rain. Time... to die.
"The Emperor points, and we obey,
Through the warp and far away."
-A Guardsman's Ballad |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 13:46:52
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos
|
Psienesis wrote:
You can assign it a higher DC on the crafting roll, to be sure but, and this is a very old adage of RPGs in general: "If it has stats, we can kill it". Players will figure out ways to meet that "high-but-not-insanely-unreasonable" DC. Usually through items that grant Skill/Talent buffs, and/or just by dumping all their Skill Points into the relevant Skills.
Case in point: I've been running Dark Heresy for awhile now. Years, in fact. The group wanted to do something a little less high-powered. I offered a game based on Dark Heresy, but set on "a world much like Earth in the Fallout games, a post-apocalyptic wasteland where the institutions of the Imperium still exist, though in debased form, as people barely remember that there even is an Imperium". The group was cool with it. The group enjoyed having to actually think about whether or not they could afford to fight a given enemy, as they were using a lot of SP weapons or lasguns with fire-cooked cells that held only half the ammo and had, through wear and tear, become Unreliable. Some people in the party had only blackpowder weapons, others bows and arrows. They appreciated that it was now a very viable option to attempt to talk one's way out of confrontations with other survivors in the wastelands.
And then the Tech-Priest decided to start building power weapons. And then rad-grenades. And then salvage a crashed ship (an Arvus Lighter) and make it air-worthy again. And then build himself a suit of TDA out of the hull-plating of a crashed starship. Soon enough, this one character had the firepower to level entire cities at absolutely no risk to himself. Once he put twin-linked lascannons on one arm of the TDA and a powerfist on the other, there was nothing that flew, walked or crawled in the deserts that could pose any significant challenge to him. No town of survivors could hope to match him in battle, because gunpowder cannons and salvaged Tarantula Turrets don't do a lot against Terminator Armor.
Worse? The rest of the party had been just fine with their "regular" guns... but now it began an armsrace in the group to try to out-do one another and reach the same level as the Tech-Priest.
All because I, as the GM, did not say "No."
I'm not sure that the GM should have said no, but clearly an unqualified "yes" turned into a disaster.
You can tell the munchkin in a group in about five minutes. My last gaming group had "that guy" who was obsessed with becoming the powerful character (he played in Warcaster in IKRPG, and a Jedi in a throwback West End Star Wars campaign). In every encounter with the slightest bit of tech, he'd be trying to salvage/steal stuff to kit out his characters. The GM just took it out of random chance, and usually ruled that, for example, cortexes were broken. Over time, the character grow and got what he wanted, but only through questing.
And that's, at least in my understanding, the core of "no, but..." answers. No, a techpriest shouldn't be able to build power weapons from scraps, but maybe after a quest you find the parts to build one.
It's also a fine line between one player wanting to ruin the DM's vision of his world, and one player ruining the rest of the groups vision. If the DM and the rest of the group want to tell one story, and "that guy" wants to tell his own, than I think the DM should be more firm and rein that player in.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 15:09:34
Subject: Re:Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
One of the most important steps in having a good game takes place before it begins: Get everyone on a the same page.
A satisfying experience is one where everyone at the table is on board for the same game. The same level of seriousness, the same style, the same tone, the same content expectations. So many issues occur when you have one player at the table who wants to play a CharOP Dungeon-Crawl, two want a relatively "on the rails" adventure with a clear plot, one guy wants to play sandbox and the GM is looking for a gritty, character-based game with political intrigue.
As a GM I always put out a description of the game I'll be running, the premise, what appropriate characters will be like and the intended tone and feel when I'm at the "Checking for interest" stage. Before anyone has signed up to play, before anyone starts generating character concepts. Here's an example of some text I might make available while I'm polling my gaming friends to see if anyone would be in:
"It's a D&D 5.0 game, where players will be low-to-mid ranking members in an organization kind of like an adventurers/problem-solvers guild. The intended focus is for players to work their way up in the guild, while doing jobs and dealing with what comes up during them. I'm doing this is a new setting so there will be a fair amount of time spent explore cities, meeting NPCs and contributing ideas to world building. The overall tone is meant to be heroic and more upbeat than "Gritty", though characters need not be saintly something should be compelling them to be in the business for positive reasons.
At the opening of the game, PCs will have known each other and have been working on the same team for at least a year so you have a working relationship. If you can come up with some bullet points on how you interact or some shared events your past that'd be ideal. It's much better to have people who wouldn't like the game you're going to run, not sign up in the first place than to have them sign up and then try and reconcile everyone's preferences after the ball is already rolling.
The part of the setting players are starting in is roughly roman inspired at least in terminology and architecture, though not some of the more unpleasant cultural specifics. Feel free to ask my any questions if you're interested. You can find a calendar for the setting here <link> and my usual house rules here <link>. "
It's just a couple of paragraphs but it means anyone who signs up knows what they're getting into, and knows what everyone else at the table is getting into.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/09/09 15:13:19
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 16:25:22
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Seattle
|
And that's, at least in my understanding, the core of "no, but..." answers. No, a techpriest shouldn't be able to build power weapons from scraps, but maybe after a quest you find the parts to build one.
There are ways to mitigate such issues, yes, but, and to tie it in with something said previously about having all involved "on the same page" before the game begins, there are going to be times where the DM is going to have to say "No, sorry, you just can't do that."
Veteran play-groups, especially, will sometimes want a game that's challenging. Where the level 1 party is consistently facing enemies of 3 or 5 CRs higher than they are (or more), relying more on their own wits and thinking rather than dice-rolling or the special abilities of their characters, or in not having the best armor, the biggest guns.
Such a game is fairly difficult to balance and maintain, because maintaining a sense of character advancement and progression, as well as material rewards, is also important... but if you had set your game on a Feudal World, having an off-world Tech-Priest show up with power weapons and auto-cannons just isn't going to fly.
|
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 16:41:01
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
There really isn't a reason to say "no" if you haven't already let things get away from you. If the player says her character tries to do X and her character has the skill, the materials, the plan, etc, then there just isn't a reason to tell her no except that you just don't want her to succeed. It's called metagaming, even when DMs do it.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 16:51:40
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos
|
Manchu wrote:There really isn't a reason to say "no" if you haven't already let things get away from you. If the player says her character tries to do X and her character has the skill, the materials, the plan, etc, then there just isn't a reason to tell her no except that you just don't want her to succeed. It's called metagaming, even when DMs do it.
And it also depends on player personalities, not just the characters. In my examples, the guy that was most obsessed with being the most special snowflake of an uber-hero was also the guy with the worst job, the worst luck with dating, the weirdest relationship with parents, etc. I wouldn't say that the guy needed one night a week where he was the champion, but I think it helped.
But yes, the DM does need to decide if he wants to be fair and even with loot, or if he's okay with some players benefiting more than others. And if you have a builder/mechanic character, scrap is essentially loot. So having tools, scrap, raw materials readily available is not that much different than scrolls, healing potions, or gold readily available to other characters.
In my gaming group, we were grudgingly okay with our guy trying to collect more Warjacks or build his lightsaber or otherwise power up. But the GM also subtly "said no" because if he never did, he'd lose three players that didn't want this to become one guy's Mary Sue fantasy while he watched.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 16:58:15
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Back when I played weekly ten-hour sessions of 3.X, the archetypal game mastery ruleset, we were all power gaming to some extent -- that's just the unfortunate nature of the edition -- but there was one guy in particular who perfectly fit the munchkin stereotype. He basically wore down the DM (who wholly subscribed to the "just say no" philosophy FWIW) until the munchkin had managed to create this utterly broken character that essentially made the rest of the party totally redundant in combat. So at one point, his character charges into combat and the rest of us just waited in another room. For about ten minutes, he was having a blast killing Diablo-esque waves of monsters. But then it tapered off into two people doing subtraction out loud. And in a few more minutes, the munchkin was like "well this is stupid." It was quite a revelation for him.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/09 16:59:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 17:07:18
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos
|
Manchu wrote:Back when I played weekly ten-hour sessions of 3.X, the archetypal game mastery ruleset, we were all power gaming to some extent -- that's just the unfortunate nature of the edition -- but there was one guy in particular who perfectly fit the munchkin stereotype. He basically wore down the DM (who wholly subscribed to the "just say no" philosophy FWIW) until the munchkin had managed to create this utterly broken character that essentially made the rest of the party totally redundant in combat. So at one point, his character charges into combat and the rest of us just waited in another room. For about ten minutes, he was having a blast killing Diablo-esque waves of monsters. But then it tapered off into two people doing subtraction out loud. And in a few more minutes, the munchkin was like "well this is stupid." It was quite a revelation for him.
There's nothing worse than creating what you wanted, only to realize it sucks!
Having played minis wargames, I really don't see the appeal of combat heavy RPGs anymore. Don't get me wrong, I like the plot possibilities of combat, and there's nothing like the heroism of battle, but so very many different things handle the "kill something, get better at killing, kill something bigger, repeat" type of fun that having a group of adults sit around and do it longhand seems odd to me.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 17:12:28
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Agreed. I like that kind of gaming when we're talking miniatures skirmish (e.g., Frostgrave) but nowadays it is seems a big waste to me in RPGs.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 17:19:05
Subject: Re:Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos
|
Two years ago, I had to be dragged back into table top RPGs. I've since moved away from my group, and now I actually miss role playing...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 17:24:49
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
My group has not done any RPing for a while now and I can tell we are all thinking about starting something up, which I hope will be CoC7E or The One Ring.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 17:25:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 17:42:25
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Seattle
|
Manchu wrote:There really isn't a reason to say "no" if you haven't already let things get away from you. If the player says her character tries to do X and her character has the skill, the materials, the plan, etc, then there just isn't a reason to tell her no except that you just don't want her to succeed. It's called metagaming, even when DMs do it.
Meta-gaming isn't necessarily a bad thing, however, in a table-top RPG that is intended to be basically a cooperative game of story-telling. Like, if your group is playing "core book D&D 3.5" (meaning you use the PHB, DMG and MM 1 & 2 and that's it) and someone wants to roll up a Priest/Rogue who follows Mask with side-devotions to Loviatar from the Forgotten Realms book, and is also a half-dragon Tiefling... well, that's just not meshing with the "meta" of the game.
|
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 17:45:47
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Manchu wrote:There really isn't a reason to say "no" if you haven't already let things get away from you. If the player says her character tries to do X and her character has the skill, the materials, the plan, etc, then there just isn't a reason to tell her no except that you just don't want her to succeed. It's called metagaming, even when DMs do it.
Certainly there is, if whatever that is isn't the game you want to participate in. When a GM runs a game they aren't signing up for "Sit there and go through whatever, even if you don't enjoy it" any more than a player is. That's why setting expectations is important. For example generally in my games torture is off the table, I'm not going to entertain a torture scene. Sure your character may have a knife, and a dude and is perfectly capable of inserting into his eye socket - but no your character doesn't do that. The tone of the game was laid out explicitly when you agreed to join this game and that isn't what we all agreed to.
These issue comes up when the GM wants one game, and one or more players wants a different game. The player isn't "Right" just because they want to do something, you have to find something that works for the GM too. They have us much right to run a game they enjoy as the players do partake in one.
Psienesis wrote: Manchu wrote:There really isn't a reason to say "no" if you haven't already let things get away from you. If the player says her character tries to do X and her character has the skill, the materials, the plan, etc, then there just isn't a reason to tell her no except that you just don't want her to succeed. It's called metagaming, even when DMs do it.
Meta-gaming isn't necessarily a bad thing, however, in a table-top RPG that is intended to be basically a cooperative game of story-telling. Like, if your group is playing "core book D&D 3.5" (meaning you use the PHB, DMG and MM 1 & 2 and that's it) and someone wants to roll up a Priest/Rogue who follows Mask with side-devotions to Loviatar from the Forgotten Realms book, and is also a half-dragon Tiefling... well, that's just not meshing with the "meta" of the game.
See my post on setting expectations. If you're doing things right, this kind of thing shouldn't come up. Only a big ol jerk is going to go past interest check/player selection if he wants to play something outside the scope of the game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 17:48:16
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Psinesis, seems like you are using "meta" in more of a pseudo-miniatures gamer sense than a RPGer sense. "Meta" in metagaming does not refer to the "done thing" in a certain group or campaign. Metagaming is polluting what happens in-game with out-of-game knowledge/motivations. If there isn't an in-game reason why a character cannot try X, then the DM is metagaming by simply saying, no you can't try X. Whenever I talk about D&D, my perspective is that everyone at the table should have a stake in the game. I totally agree that being on the same page, or at least in the same chapter, is necessary to even play. If this isn't the case, we don't even need to talk about DMing. There's nothing a DM can do to force the game to be possible when the expectations of the players are fundamentally mismatched. The DM "saying no" in such circumstances is useless and, in the example of outright taking over a PC ("no your character does not do what you just described her doing"), play has effectively ceased and now we aren't talking about two players playing a game but rather two people who need to decide whether they are going to play this game together.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/09/09 18:11:09
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 19:12:11
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
Manchu wrote:To quote the Bard, the play's the thing. Whatever you dream up about your setting elements as a DM or your character as a player, it doesn't really matter unless it matters during play.
So its a Bard quoting contest now, you're on.
“All things are ready, if our mind be so.”
You need preparation to make the magicks happen properly. Leave everything to adlib/during play and you aren't really ready.
|
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 19:53:59
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Seattle
|
Manchu wrote:Psinesis, seems like you are using "meta" in more of a pseudo-miniatures gamer sense than a RPGer sense. "Meta" in metagaming does not refer to the "done thing" in a certain group or campaign. Metagaming is polluting what happens in-game with out-of-game knowledge/motivations. If there isn't an in-game reason why a character cannot try X, then the DM is metagaming by simply saying, no you can't try X.
Whenever I talk about D&D, my perspective is that everyone at the table should have a stake in the game. I totally agree that being on the same page, or at least in the same chapter, is necessary to even play. If this isn't the case, we don't even need to talk about DMing. There's nothing a DM can do to force the game to be possible when the expectations of the players are fundamentally mismatched. The DM "saying no" in such circumstances is useless and, in the example of outright taking over a PC ("no your character does not do what you just described her doing"), play has effectively ceased and now we aren't talking about two players playing a game but rather two people who need to decide whether they are going to play this game together.
I know what metagaming in the RPG sense means, and I stand by my usage of it. The OOC knowledge of the player that the group's game is intended to keep the setting (in this case "Planet Fallout") basically the same while navigating their adventures should be used to inform character decisions to do/not do certain things. For example, in this case, the OOC player knowledge that the game is intended to be "low powered" should keep the character from expending the IC time and resources on developing backpack fusion reactors (to produce power armor) and, by extension, sticking them in an armor-plated frame on wheels (called the Corvega Aquila) because the game isn't intended to permit rapid ground transport via armoured cars and tanks and the combat enhancements of powered armor.
This is a point where the player approaches with a plan (to do all of the above) where the GM needs to say "that really doesn't fit the vibe of the campaign" or needs to lay out on the table, with the rest of the group, what introducing such changes entail.
|
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 19:56:31
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Orlanth wrote:Leave everything to adlib/during play and you aren't really ready.
Not everyone can do it, I absolutely agree. It takes a certain amount of skill, which means practice, trial and error, thinking, discussing, etc. Psienesis wrote: in this case, the OOC player knowledge that the game is intended to be "low powered" should keep the character from expending the IC time and resources on developing backpack fusion reactors
If the characters have the knowledge/skill and resources to make "high powered" equipment then the game is not really "low powered."
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/09/09 20:00:35
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 20:15:47
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos
|
Yeah, I'm not sure allowing a Techpriest in a low powered campaign is going to work. Either the character is cut off from some of his functionality, or the campaign will change around him.
Now, playing a techpriest with the understanding that there won't be much STC tech to work with could be interesting in a very role heavy campaign.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 20:16:21
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Manchu wrote: Orlanth wrote:Leave everything to adlib/during play and you aren't really ready.
Not everyone can do it, I absolutely agree. It takes a certain amount of skill, which means practice, trial and error, thinking, discussing, etc. Psienesis wrote: in this case, the OOC player knowledge that the game is intended to be "low powered" should keep the character from expending the IC time and resources on developing backpack fusion reactors
If the characters have the knowledge/skill and resources to make "high powered" equipment then the game is not really "low powered."
So..? People just shouldn't try to execute on any game concepts that don't have a perfectly matched game engine to them, or where they're not actively aware of every interaction within the game engine that might break that concept? Wanting to play a "low-powered" game in the 40k universe, using the general framework and as much of the appropriate content of the most available 40k game but with the understanding that the group should stay away from parts of the engine that may have been built with other assumptions is perfectly valid.
Sure it's best if these things are taken care of up front but that's not always possible. My tastes run in such a way that I typically blacklist flight, teleportation and long-distance communication spells in D&D games I run because those aren't things that are conducive to the style of game I enjoy. That I might miss some interaction with a general use spell and the jump rules doesn't suddenly mean I'd be OK with players engineering 40-mile jumps*.
In this case it seems like they had a premise "Low powered crap hole planet, with 40k trappings" which is a fine premise. They used the most immediately obvious 40k engine, with the general expectation people would stick to the premise. That the GM might not have been aware of, or knew how to preemptively patch things (though it would be idea), in the game that would break that premise doesn't invalidate the premise, nor the engine choice.
*and my playerbase wouldn't try because they understand the spirit of the premise and aren't total dicks so it's a non-issue, but whatever.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/09 20:19:22
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 20:56:39
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Seattle
|
Manchu wrote: Orlanth wrote:Leave everything to adlib/during play and you aren't really ready.
Not everyone can do it, I absolutely agree. It takes a certain amount of skill, which means practice, trial and error, thinking, discussing, etc. Psienesis wrote: in this case, the OOC player knowledge that the game is intended to be "low powered" should keep the character from expending the IC time and resources on developing backpack fusion reactors
If the characters have the knowledge/skill and resources to make "high powered" equipment then the game is not really "low powered."
A Tech-priest is perfectly capable of building modifications to pre-existing weapons, performing maintenance and construction and doing the things that Tech-Priests do, like, say, digging a well in the desert to found a new settlement, providing instruction on crop-rotation and fertilizer compounds or, hey, Magos Biologis, have you tried being a freakin' doctor lately?
As to the characters having the skills and knowledge? They don't, really, but that's kind of the point. In an "alternate build" of Dark Heresy like this, certain Skills and Talents simply don't exist or are used in different ways. For example, there is no "Forbidden Lore: Inquisition" because the Inquisition, as a body, doesn't exist on the planet, not like it does in the wider Imperium (yes, there are groups performing the same general role, but not in the same manner or with the same authority). So, the Tech-Priest in question, ICly, actually would know next to nothing about the fabrication of a starship... but in DH, there is no specific Skill that covers such, the Wright skill goes from horse-drawn carts, all ground vehicles, to aerocraft and spaceships. So this is the point the GM steps in and says "While that skill covers those things, here on this planet, which has bombed itself into oblivion, you just don't have that kind of knowledge".... which is the GM answering "No" to the question "Can I build a Valkyrie?".
|
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 21:01:52
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
I find this false dilemma of "accept my demands" or "be a total dick" ... troubling, to say the least. What is so surprising about someone who's playing a TechPriest building cool stuff? If the resulting tech way outrstrips what should be possible in the setting then ... how did the TechPriest build it in the first place? The DM made a mistake somewhere but it wasn't a failure to say "no." If a player tells me, my character wants to make this cool item, I start thinking things like, - maybe the character needs to find special parts - maybe the character needs to obtain required skill/knowledge - maybe the character needs to join an organization to have access to parts/knowledge - and so on, trying to generate story possibilities Now this is important: my goal here is not to frustrate the player's intentions because what they want to do doesn't suit my vision of the campaign. It is to play off of the player's intentions in a manner that creates more gameplay: getting the player to establish goals for her character and be creative in pursuing them. And to create opportunities for this player's goals and ideas to intertwine with those of the other players. The "setting" or "vision" of the campaign should not be some predetermined, rigid concept; like the characters and the story, the campaign should be allowed to organically develop, too. Psienesis wrote:which is the GM answering "No" to the question "Can I build a Valkyrie?"
Maybe we're talking past each other. To me, this is not an issue of needing to say no. My response to that question would be, your character can try, assuming the character even knows what a Valkyrie is, followed up by, how is your character attempting it? Full disclosure, I do not accept invocation of mechanics as roleplaying. "I use my X skill" doesn't fly at my tables. The player needs to describe what they are attempting and it is my job as the DM to tell them what to roll.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/09/09 21:07:46
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 21:17:48
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Seattle
|
The difficulty in this situation for me is the player of said Tech-Priest is, IRL, a heavy vehicle mechanic and will, if you ask him, draw you working designs for a tank. Or an aircraft.
So he has ready answers to such questions and, since he and I have been gaming together for almost 20 years now, will come prepared with said drawings, done in an in-universe style, to indicate what salvaged crap from the Wastelands he's going to use to build, say, a Grav Cannon. And I'm like "well, it could work... but do I really want to give someone a Grav Cannon in a game where a standard hunting rifle is considered powerful?"
|
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 21:25:29
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Okay just playing along*, that takes us back to square one: if the character has the knowledge and the skill and the plan to undertake his intentions then the DM saying "no" boils down to that particularly tyrannical form of metagaming known as fiat.
* No amount of IRL knowledge is sufficient to build fictional technology. As the GM in a DH game, it is within your purview to tell any player, regardless of their IRL occupation, that irreducible fictional component X is necessary to assemble fictional device Y and can only be obtained by means Z.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 21:32:46
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Manchu wrote:Okay just playing along*, that takes us back to square one: if the character has the knowledge and the skill and the plan to undertake his intentions then the DM saying "no" boils down to that particularly tyrannical form of metagaming known as fiat.
* No amount of IRL knowledge is sufficient to build fictional technology. As the GM in a DH game, it is within your purview to tell any player, regardless of their IRL occupation, that irreducible fictional component X is necessary to assemble fictional device Y and can only be obtained by means Z.
I'm still not entirely sure I understand your perspective or not. In these cases would say a flat out:
"I'm looking to maintain a low-tech feel in this game, so players will be unable to build advanced energy weapon or vehicles. Skills related to these will still be available, where they may represent knowledge of these things in a general sense or the ability to do limited repairs on examples that might be found (but only to the extent that they won't become permanent fixtures). Players should create characters with this restriction in mind and are asked to respect any oversights that might result in a situation where creating such things would be theoretical possible in the interests of keeping the feel of the game intact"
Before any character generation place, or even player selection takes place be acceptable terms on which to start a game?
If so, would enforcing the last clause be considered "Tyrannical", since it is by definition a form of DM fiat and in your framework all fiat is Tyrannical Metagaming?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/09 21:38:58
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 21:51:29
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos
|
Unless I'm misreading, what Manchu is saying is that having a Techpriest player ask "can I build a power sword" is an opportunity to build on a characters goals.
What the GM shouldn't do is just say "well, you need to roll a 15." What he should do is figure out roughly how complicated such a bit of tech would be, how powerful it would be, and make it a quest goal.
In short, having a Techpriest "build" a powersword isn't all that different from having a Fighter character "loot" a powerful weapon, or having a rogue character "steal" a powerful artifact.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think it's a great way to build a character's arc to have them decide what they really want their character to do, and then go out and do it. That might mean one or more sessions of questing, it might mean sacrificing something, but a good GM should discern what the player wants to do in game, and then explain what the character needs to do to accomplish it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 21:53:25
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 22:28:54
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Correct Polonius. If the character wants to build something that is Tech Level 7 in a setting that is Tech Level 4, I would not simply say No. To me, this sounds like an opportunity for characterization and story generation. Maybe this will be a quest that the character will need to work on over the course of the entire campaign, such that the Tech Level 7 item is achieved just in time to be part of the climax. Chongara, I think what you are talking about is part of what makes the game possible or impossible in the first place rather than a GMing issue. If someone agrees to join a 1920s CoC game but then insists on playing Mikey from TMNT, the issue is not the GM saying no to the player but rather a person saying to another person, we can't even play together in those circumstances.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 22:32:16
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 23:20:51
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Seattle
|
Chongara seems to be grokking what I'm saying because it is still me, the GM, telling the player of the character "you can't do that", whether it's Fallout: Dark Heresy or Teenage Mutant Ninja Cultists.
The GM is still going to be earning their Dreamcrusher perk in either case, because the GM still needs to tell the player that what they want to do is either a) not feasible, b) not in keeping with the spirit of the game, or c) going to require a whole lot of time and effort that may only matter in 1 battle (the actual compromise on the TDA... the rest of the party got tired of waiting for his Slow & Purposeful ass to catch up to them) and major side-quests of this nature are either going to need to be handled "off-table" or require the player to get the rest of the party involved, because otherwise they're stuck sitting there while the GM and one player work through it.
|
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 23:24:16
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos
|
Psienesis wrote:Chongara seems to be grokking what I'm saying because it is still me, the GM, telling the player of the character "you can't do that", whether it's Fallout: Dark Heresy or Teenage Mutant Ninja Cultists.
The GM is still going to be earning their Dreamcrusher perk in either case, because the GM still needs to tell the player that what they want to do is either a) not feasible, b) not in keeping with the spirit of the game, or c) going to require a whole lot of time and effort that may only matter in 1 battle (the actual compromise on the TDA... the rest of the party got tired of waiting for his Slow & Purposeful ass to catch up to them) and major side-quests of this nature are either going to need to be handled "off-table" or require the player to get the rest of the party involved, because otherwise they're stuck sitting there while the GM and one player work through it.
Well, that's when you find out if you're gaming with adults or overgrown children. An adult might realize that the effort isn't worth it, and focus on something more attainable. Or, they decide to shift their goal to something equally time consuming, but more rewarding.
If you are told you can have what you want, but it takes time and the cooperation of your friends, then its up to you to decide if you really want it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/09 23:52:31
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Very true Polonius and that decision is a great example of opportunity for characterization.
Deciding what kind of game you want to play doesnt involve the role of the DM at all. Each player wants to play in a game or not. This is completely different from a GM telling someone who is playing a TechPriest in a 40k RPG that they are not allowed to build cool tech period end of.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 23:54:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/10 00:40:59
Subject: Advice for a new DM -
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Manchu wrote:Very true Polonius and that decision is a great example of opportunity for characterization.
Deciding what kind of game you want to play doesnt involve the role of the DM at all. Each player wants to play in a game or not. This is completely different from a GM telling someone who is playing a TechPriest in a 40k RPG that they are not allowed to build cool tech period end of.
Except it's exactly the same, and your example at the end in the context of Psienesis campaign is barely different than your mikey in TMNT game only later.
"We're playing 1920s CoC"
"I want to play the Orange ninja turtle"
"No. This isn't this kind of game"
(not tyranny?)
is one step removed from
"We're playing a low-tech 40k game. All the emperor stuff, none of the sword-guns and plasma rifles or tanks."
"I want to play a tech priest"
"OK, but it's a low-tech game. With none of the sword-guns and plasma rifles or tanks."
"OK. I'll play in that low tech game, with none of the sword-guns and plasma rifles or tanks."
*10 sessions later*
"I want to build sword-guns, and plasma rifles and giant tanks now"
"No. This isn't that kind of game"
TYRANNY!!!!111!!
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/09/10 00:43:59
|
|
 |
 |
|
|