All of my experience with RPGs has focused on PCs who are the active instigators of the adventure. They go out, ask questions, and go to where the enemies are to kill them. This has big advantages in terms of perceived "fairness." I write down the contents of the dungeon ahead of time, the PCs can partially discover them ahead of time by scrying or scouting, and since they choose the terms of engagement it's pretty clear that I'm not "cheating" -- if they die, it's their fault.
A lot of great stories, however, don't work this way. Most of my favorite fantasy books are about people being chased by the forces of darkness, and lately I've been wanting to run a game that way. Some of my players have trouble figuring out "what they're supposed to do" and tend to dawdle about getting to the action, then complain that the game is boring--so I'd prefer to bring the action to them.
I'm worried about how to make such a game fair, and appear fair. The big problem is that if you go into a dragon lair and get eaten, you know at least that you could have not gone in there, or run. If a dragon comes to your house and eats you, it feels unfair even if you had a high chance to win. But there's also BEING fair; I don't know how to evaluate the security precautions the PCs take and decide who finds them how quickly.
I'm looking for three kinds of advice here:
1: If you were designing a game to tell stories in which NPCs instigate the action, how would you do it? I'm imagining a point system for tracking "secrecy" with the GM able to spend "exposure points" or something to generate encounters.
2: Do you know any games that handle this especially well?
3: How would you run a reactive adventure in Shadowrun, D&D, or aWoD?
(specifically, I'm imagining an "origin story" that begins with the human PCs observing monster activity, with the game focusing on them being hunted and converted or silenced by said monsters; or, a shadowrun game focusing on a gang of PCs who "protect" a neighborhood, or a covert ops team running form their employers.
Games for reactive PCs
Moderator: Moderators
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
I guess I meant "defensive". How do you sell "people are breaking into your house!" to players as a valid adventure?
EDIT: Also, "the mob wants to fucking kill you, get the hell out of town!"
EDIT: Also, "the mob wants to fucking kill you, get the hell out of town!"
Last edited by Orion on Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's not specifically designed for it, but a lot of D&D games are run this way.
Also, most superhero games - although in those, it's often less "the foes are attacking you", and more "the foes are attacking your town, for reasons not directly related to you". I haven't seen any systems with actual mechanics for how the NPCs act though. Of course, if you're doing four-color / silver age superheroes, then it probably doesn't matter how plausible the villain's plans are.
That said, a system for secrecy / exposure seems like an interesting idea. Maybe something like:
1) The DM decides what spying/preparation methods the NPCs will use, but does not reveal this.
2) The PCs decide what countermeasures they will use, and declares this.
3) Cross-reference the two, determine an abstract amount of Exposure gained, and/or specific knowledge/actions.
One problem is that either:
A) You have a pre-defined list of all the defensive actions PCs could take, which would have to be fairly abstract to cover every possibility.
B) The PCs have to be psychic to predict exactly what defense they will need - Oh, you picked "Check food for poison" and "Check any new items for curses" and "Always have someone on watch", but you didn't pick "Check lantern-oil for slow-acting poison"? Too bad.
And in either case you have the same issue - why wouldn't the PCs just go to ultra-paranoid mode after the first attempt on them and do every single precaution on the list? Sure, in reality, it would be a huge hassle to double-check every single thing and talk in code all the time, but to the players, it's just a checkbox to tick.
So maybe you a preset list of somewhat abstract defenses with a limited reserve of "Vigilance", so that the PCs actually have to pick what they focus on. For example:
* The PCs pick "Poison Testing", "Constantly Battle Ready", and "Basic Scrying Precautions". That uses all their Vigilance, so they can't pick any other defenses (in-game, they could try to implement every defense possible, but the quantity of things would cause them to lose focus and screw some of them up).
* If they were particularly worried about Scry-n-Die tactics, they might swap "Poison Testing" for "Advanced Scrying Precautions".
Also, most superhero games - although in those, it's often less "the foes are attacking you", and more "the foes are attacking your town, for reasons not directly related to you". I haven't seen any systems with actual mechanics for how the NPCs act though. Of course, if you're doing four-color / silver age superheroes, then it probably doesn't matter how plausible the villain's plans are.
That said, a system for secrecy / exposure seems like an interesting idea. Maybe something like:
1) The DM decides what spying/preparation methods the NPCs will use, but does not reveal this.
2) The PCs decide what countermeasures they will use, and declares this.
3) Cross-reference the two, determine an abstract amount of Exposure gained, and/or specific knowledge/actions.
One problem is that either:
A) You have a pre-defined list of all the defensive actions PCs could take, which would have to be fairly abstract to cover every possibility.
B) The PCs have to be psychic to predict exactly what defense they will need - Oh, you picked "Check food for poison" and "Check any new items for curses" and "Always have someone on watch", but you didn't pick "Check lantern-oil for slow-acting poison"? Too bad.
And in either case you have the same issue - why wouldn't the PCs just go to ultra-paranoid mode after the first attempt on them and do every single precaution on the list? Sure, in reality, it would be a huge hassle to double-check every single thing and talk in code all the time, but to the players, it's just a checkbox to tick.
So maybe you a preset list of somewhat abstract defenses with a limited reserve of "Vigilance", so that the PCs actually have to pick what they focus on. For example:
* The PCs pick "Poison Testing", "Constantly Battle Ready", and "Basic Scrying Precautions". That uses all their Vigilance, so they can't pick any other defenses (in-game, they could try to implement every defense possible, but the quantity of things would cause them to lose focus and screw some of them up).
* If they were particularly worried about Scry-n-Die tactics, they might swap "Poison Testing" for "Advanced Scrying Precautions".
Last edited by Ice9 on Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I guess from a practical standpoint, there are two big problems. The first is logitistical. I one tried to run an adventure in an ongoing shadowrun game in which bad guys were after them and they needed to get out of town. There were big problems. First, instead of having one installation to map out, there were at least 5 potentially relevant significant locations (each PC's apartment.) Worse, I couldn't just draw out whatever I wanted because the PCs logically had some input into the layout and security of their homes. Finally, deciding who was at home when a particular apartment got busted into was either a matter of DM fiat, or of REALLY tedious tracking of people's schedules. Should I have made each PC draw out their apartment ahead of time? Made them sign a paper saying I had the right to decide where they lived? How do you negotiate when you say "so two dudes break into your house while you sleep" and the PC shoots back, "the hell they do, I went to stay wit the troll"
The second problem is an issue of fairness that applies to any "mobile" adventure. and that is "how many thugs are in the brute squad." I believe that an adventure is unfair if you decide how many thugs are in any particular encounter based on the desired outcome (whether a PC win or loss). In a set-piece adventure, you don't adjust the number sof goblins in room 2 based on how much damage the PCs took in room 1, because it's already written down in your notes. But if the PCs are wandering around running from various groups, you don't have that check to keep you honest. EITHER
A: you wrote down ahead of time that, no matter what the PCs do, they will be stopped by 4 thugs 3 times during the adventure. This is unfair because it means their precautions are irrelevant.
B: the number of thugs they meet in set by the MC arbitrarily, theoretically in response to how good their precautions are. In this case I don't think i would have the willpower not to adjust the number of enemies to create the desired result.
The second problem is an issue of fairness that applies to any "mobile" adventure. and that is "how many thugs are in the brute squad." I believe that an adventure is unfair if you decide how many thugs are in any particular encounter based on the desired outcome (whether a PC win or loss). In a set-piece adventure, you don't adjust the number sof goblins in room 2 based on how much damage the PCs took in room 1, because it's already written down in your notes. But if the PCs are wandering around running from various groups, you don't have that check to keep you honest. EITHER
A: you wrote down ahead of time that, no matter what the PCs do, they will be stopped by 4 thugs 3 times during the adventure. This is unfair because it means their precautions are irrelevant.
B: the number of thugs they meet in set by the MC arbitrarily, theoretically in response to how good their precautions are. In this case I don't think i would have the willpower not to adjust the number of enemies to create the desired result.
Thinking about it, I'm still going to advocate the double-blind measure/countermeasure picking, but there are basically two ways to go about it:
Option #1 - DM Adjudication
1) The DM picks a number of NPCs actions that seems reasonable, given the NPC organization size.
2) The PCs pick some countermeasures, and come to an agreement with the DM on how many countermeasures are reasonable to be doing at once. These are whatever the players say, not off a list.
3) The DM considers the actions and countermeasures, and adjudicates what the results will be.
Advantages: Accounts for any action, may feel more natural, doesn't have edge-cases in the rules.
Disadvantages: The players have to trust the DM, the DM has to be fair, and the players and DM have to be on the same wavelength, which you can't guarantee.
Option #2 - Formalize It
1) The DM picks NPC actions. The number is determined based on the organization size, and the actions are based on a specific set of guidelines, in terms of countermeasure difficulty vs payoff.
2) The PCs pick countermeasures off a list. They get a specific number.
3) Cross-reference the actions and countermeasures to see what happened. This could be encounters, damage, lost items, and/or abstract Exposure (which can be used to boost future NPC actions).
Advantages: Fair enough that it can actually be a fun competition, if the DM uses a reasonable level of opposition. Players don't have to guess whether their countermeasures match what the DM is thinking.
Disadvantages: Either restrictive, abstract, or both. Could end up with weird edge-cases that don't make sense IC.
Incidentally, with #2, you can get as intricate as you want - I'm talking MtG intricate. Or it could be fairly simple. But right now I'm thinking along these lines:
Option #1 - DM Adjudication
1) The DM picks a number of NPCs actions that seems reasonable, given the NPC organization size.
2) The PCs pick some countermeasures, and come to an agreement with the DM on how many countermeasures are reasonable to be doing at once. These are whatever the players say, not off a list.
3) The DM considers the actions and countermeasures, and adjudicates what the results will be.
Advantages: Accounts for any action, may feel more natural, doesn't have edge-cases in the rules.
Disadvantages: The players have to trust the DM, the DM has to be fair, and the players and DM have to be on the same wavelength, which you can't guarantee.
Option #2 - Formalize It
1) The DM picks NPC actions. The number is determined based on the organization size, and the actions are based on a specific set of guidelines, in terms of countermeasure difficulty vs payoff.
2) The PCs pick countermeasures off a list. They get a specific number.
3) Cross-reference the actions and countermeasures to see what happened. This could be encounters, damage, lost items, and/or abstract Exposure (which can be used to boost future NPC actions).
Advantages: Fair enough that it can actually be a fun competition, if the DM uses a reasonable level of opposition. Players don't have to guess whether their countermeasures match what the DM is thinking.
Disadvantages: Either restrictive, abstract, or both. Could end up with weird edge-cases that don't make sense IC.
Incidentally, with #2, you can get as intricate as you want - I'm talking MtG intricate. Or it could be fairly simple. But right now I'm thinking along these lines:
1) For simplicity, all actions cost 1 Manpower/Vigilance. Difficult actions would have prerequisites that have to also be in use. For instance, Advanced Scrying Precautions requires Basic Scrying Precautions. Teleport Ambush requires Pinpoint Location.
2) Some Actions (what the DM makes) provide Exposure if successful. Other Actions cost Exposure if you want them to work. For instance, Daily Surveillance provides Exposure and Ambush Lone PC costs it.
3) Most Defenses (what the PCs do) foil a specific category of Actions. But some of them could do other things. For instance, Randomize Daily Routine doubles the Exposure cost of Actions this cycle.
4) Actions that require a more difficult defense (Advanced Poison Testing vs Basic Poison Testing) should either have less effect or cost more (via prerequisite Actions or Exposure cost).
2) Some Actions (what the DM makes) provide Exposure if successful. Other Actions cost Exposure if you want them to work. For instance, Daily Surveillance provides Exposure and Ambush Lone PC costs it.
3) Most Defenses (what the PCs do) foil a specific category of Actions. But some of them could do other things. For instance, Randomize Daily Routine doubles the Exposure cost of Actions this cycle.
4) Actions that require a more difficult defense (Advanced Poison Testing vs Basic Poison Testing) should either have less effect or cost more (via prerequisite Actions or Exposure cost).
Last edited by Ice9 on Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Nebuchadnezzar
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 723
- Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:23 am
A balance has to be struck when playing a siege scenario. One on hand the DM can't appear as if they are listening to the players' exhaustive list of defenses solely to find weak points which might not be found from less than an omniscient view. However, throwing assaults that the players can tell are doomed to fail quickly wears thin.
I'm working on something akin to this, as mentioned in the Conan thread, wherein the players are a group of occultists holed up in a compound preparing for a syzygy to let the Old Ones out or some such. I'm debating using for that some sort of randomization of defense failure, so while the animate hedge maze might still be online digesting fools, a solar flare is wreaking havoc with the undead in subbasement 2.
The secrecy/exposure idea sounds great as a way to abstract intrigue. It does seem like it would be hard to have a comprehensive list of possible actions.
I'm working on something akin to this, as mentioned in the Conan thread, wherein the players are a group of occultists holed up in a compound preparing for a syzygy to let the Old Ones out or some such. I'm debating using for that some sort of randomization of defense failure, so while the animate hedge maze might still be online digesting fools, a solar flare is wreaking havoc with the undead in subbasement 2.
The secrecy/exposure idea sounds great as a way to abstract intrigue. It does seem like it would be hard to have a comprehensive list of possible actions.
Re: Games for reactive PCs
Having the players being hunted by bad guys will not solve this problem, I suspect. In fact, it may make it worse.Orion wrote:A lot of great stories, however, don't work this way. Most of my favorite fantasy books are about people being chased by the forces of darkness, and lately I've been wanting to run a game that way. Some of my players have trouble figuring out "what they're supposed to do" and tend to dawdle about getting to the action, then complain that the game is boring--so I'd prefer to bring the action to them.
My experience with "bad guys are hunting you" games is that the players start to overthink every little action to make sure that they won't be detected, coming up with dozens of possible scenarios that they have to avoid, resulting in option paralysis. Maybe your game will be different, though.
Re: Games for reactive PCs
you have opposite experience than me. most people i tried to explain AD&D2E too had no clue what to do next, and carried that on to 3rd edition.Orion wrote:All of my experience with RPGs has focused on PCs who are the active instigators of the adventure. They go out, ask questions, and go to where the enemies are to kill them. This has big advantages in terms of perceived "fairness." I write down the contents of the dungeon ahead of time, the PCs can partially discover them ahead of time by scrying or scouting, and since they choose the terms of engagement it's pretty clear that I'm not "cheating" -- if they die, it's their fault.
no game can really "bring the action to them", either they have an idea they want to do, or they want you to railroad them...that is all there is. you have to lead them by their ear through the game, then you have to ask if they are really interested?A lot of great stories, however, don't work this way. Most of my favorite fantasy books are about people being chased by the forces of darkness, and lately I've been wanting to run a game that way. Some of my players have trouble figuring out "what they're supposed to do" and tend to dawdle about getting to the action, then complain that the game is boring--so I'd prefer to bring the action to them.
the simplest answer would be "what do you want to do?". you have the world made and are ready to let them try anything they want (no stupidity here) all they have to do is guide themselves rather than have you lead them. "experienced" players needing to be led are not really RPG players, just seat warmers. they need to learn the game is simply about deciding what you want to do and do it.
if you tell them in advance that your world has things happening outside of their direct influence, and the world is living and they happen to choose to be at home while a dragon visits...then it is there fault...what isnt fair about it? unles you are always trying to TPK them...I'm worried about how to make such a game fair, and appear fair. The big problem is that if you go into a dragon lair and get eaten, you know at least that you could have not gone in there, or run. If a dragon comes to your house and eats you, it feels unfair even if you had a high chance to win. But there's also BEING fair; I don't know how to evaluate the security precautions the PCs take and decide who finds them how quickly.
1. i wouldnt make a game of being chased by the BBEG, but if i were to use this plot element, i would probably have a premise that the players can buy into...and try best not to be...they are jsut out to kill you. there should be a reason and an escape clause that would let the players be able to avoid the chase, and then turn the tables. maybe once they have decided they need to do something and arent needing to be led through the game, they will decide to become the hunter instead of the hunted.I'm looking for three kinds of advice here:
1: If you were designing a game to tell stories in which NPCs instigate the action, how would you do it? I'm imagining a point system for tracking "secrecy" with the GM able to spend "exposure points" or something to generate encounters.
2: Do you know any games that handle this especially well?
3: How would you run a reactive adventure in Shadowrun, D&D, or aWoD?
(specifically, I'm imagining an "origin story" that begins with the human PCs observing monster activity, with the game focusing on them being hunted and converted or silenced by said monsters; or, a shadowrun game focusing on a gang of PCs who "protect" a neighborhood, or a covert ops team running form their employers.
2. D&D can do just about anything put to it..it is why the name is all that matters to some as a brand rather than a game...i mean it is VERY flexible. you can put ANY story type into it you want to.
3. ok so the object is to make the players do things instead of questions "what do i do now/next?" so we want them to actual INTERACT with their surroundings (roleplay) by reacting to situations?
take the beginning of a game of D&D. "You all meet in a tavern and...", who hasnt heard or used that? i always ask...why are we all here? for gamist..it is just to get the game going...but my character still is an entity wanting to know what reason he was at this tavern and ended up with these people...he must want to be with them. one good thing i found out for that is a bar fight breaks out...someone gets ticked off, they are a member of some organization that isnt all that good, and the one guy uses that organization and its ties to get even with the players. doesnt matter if it was the players fault or the NPCs fault the fight started involving the players, jsut the fact the NPC wants to seek revenge on them, even if he is an asshole and started it.
another favorite is give a reason why the players are together and let them meet along the way. this way their backgrounds (those things most nobody uses or makes for their playing pieces [characters] anymore) can come into play where a slighted person in one of their pasts has come to power and wants to pay them back including their friends/relatives....
you really just need a reason for an NPC or group to want to seek out and "hunt" the player party in order to keep the players focused and on their toes and playing the game.
these examples are some i have used to help turn "reactive" players into "active" players, rather than them just sitting there to be there having no idea what they are supposed to do...simply yo learn that the game is theirs to do with.
general plot hook ideas:
-the players need a reason to be chased...someone has to have been or feel as though they were wronged by one of the players.
someone whose treasure they "collected" wants to retrieve it...sort of like the aztec gold in curse of the black pearl has to be returned so the players must seek it out...the players are sought instead and tracked for where they are spending their ill-gotten gains.
it really is a one-way street when i think about it...for the players to be chased, only needs that one simple reason. this will cause them to have to react and be on watch and trying to find out who might be after them and why.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Yeah, Paranoia leads to option paralysis pretty thoroughly and fast. I can recall some great Shadowrun sessions that were basically entirely spent second guessing possible corporate responses and planning ways to circumvent them. Great roleplaying, and some deep tactical thinking. But I'll be the first to admit that not much actually got done.
The players being "chased" works a lot better than the players being "hunted for" if you want to push the game forward. People understand "there is a Nazgul, I must make haste", but "there are people looking at credit reports trying to find evidence of my whereabouts" really does lead to people just holing up in an actual hole and waiting for things to blow over.
Players need definitive goals. Sometimes you're lucky and the players will provide them on their own. The rest of the time, Mister Cavern has to provide them himself. Pregenerated characters, or at least pregenerated goals do work pretty well. Arkham Horror has some rock solid characters in it and people know what they want to/have to do pretty much right away.
-Username17
The players being "chased" works a lot better than the players being "hunted for" if you want to push the game forward. People understand "there is a Nazgul, I must make haste", but "there are people looking at credit reports trying to find evidence of my whereabouts" really does lead to people just holing up in an actual hole and waiting for things to blow over.
Players need definitive goals. Sometimes you're lucky and the players will provide them on their own. The rest of the time, Mister Cavern has to provide them himself. Pregenerated characters, or at least pregenerated goals do work pretty well. Arkham Horror has some rock solid characters in it and people know what they want to/have to do pretty much right away.
-Username17
Speaking of boardgames like Arkham Horror, have you also tried Defenders of the Realm?
The board pretty much generates monstrous threats on its own - and the players are heroes who must make sure these threats are nipped in the bud before the bad guys reach critical mass and cause the good guys to lose.
It also sounds a bit like what you're trying to achieve.
The board pretty much generates monstrous threats on its own - and the players are heroes who must make sure these threats are nipped in the bud before the bad guys reach critical mass and cause the good guys to lose.
It also sounds a bit like what you're trying to achieve.
Last edited by Zinegata on Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'd agree with Frank on this one. Hiding leads to massive option paralysis, running like hell doesn't.
DSMatticus wrote:It's not just that everything you say is stupid, but that they are Gordian knots of stupid that leave me completely bewildered as to where to even begin. After hearing you speak Alexander the Great would stab you and triumphantly declare the puzzle solved.
We never bothered to use maps for something like a 2 bedroom apartment. Grab some random apartment plans off the internet. There just isn't that much variation.Orion wrote: There were big problems. First, instead of having one installation to map out, there were at least 5 potentially relevant significant locations (each PC's apartment.) Worse, I couldn't just draw out whatever I wanted because the PCs logically had some input into the layout and security of their homes. Finally, deciding who was at home when a particular apartment got busted into was either a matter of DM fiat, or of REALLY tedious tracking of people's schedules.
If you want more detailed plans this is what I'd do. Ask the PCs to provide something in writing about where they live, and you make sure it fits the neigberhood and how much they are paying. If they don't then use a random apartment floor plan you downloaded for the internet and put them somewhere.
If they do crap like claim they are staying with other people after the scenario starts then say, ok, never mind. At which point the guys who broke in trash their place. Have them steal all the really cool crap they have and maybe call the Star over the stash of explosives they have.
Or have the scenario start when their girlfriend doesn't come home.
Because one of them is a lot more active than the other. In a "running" campaign, you'll be trying to avoid notice while moving to the airport in between shooting squads of dudes right in the head, and in a "hiding" campaign you'll be sitting in a hole most of the time.
DSMatticus wrote:It's not just that everything you say is stupid, but that they are Gordian knots of stupid that leave me completely bewildered as to where to even begin. After hearing you speak Alexander the Great would stab you and triumphantly declare the puzzle solved.
If he didn't buy the bot it isn't there. If he doesn't tell you he summons a watcher at dawn and dusk to cover his apt (or binds one) he doesn't. Anyone who wants to put deadly traps in the place that he comes home tired and drunk to is welcome to do so, but it likely to not work out well. Particularly if they lack the skills. But again, if they don't tell you they did it, they didn't.Orion wrote:For Shadowrunners it's less the layout I'm worried about and more the number of traps, watchers, and bots a typical runner's crashpad probably sports.
Last edited by kzt on Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think you could make a fun RPG that was entirely chart-based. So for example, you could have charts for various plots and subtables for strategies for those plots.
So you might roll "HQ Attack!" and have the adventure start with various people trying the kill the heroes, then roll up the source of the threat (Lich Rising!) and his preferred tactics and some plot points (Nightmare riding skeleton warriors, Ancient Graveyards with summoning oblisks that need to be destroyed).
It takes a lot of the DM out of the game, so I don't really know how it would fly.
So you might roll "HQ Attack!" and have the adventure start with various people trying the kill the heroes, then roll up the source of the threat (Lich Rising!) and his preferred tactics and some plot points (Nightmare riding skeleton warriors, Ancient Graveyards with summoning oblisks that need to be destroyed).
It takes a lot of the DM out of the game, so I don't really know how it would fly.
http://www.squaremans.com/?p=19
I don't know if these boards have kicked that around before, search says no. It's far better than I could ever say on this topic. Up a tree is where they need to be.
I don't know if these boards have kicked that around before, search says no. It's far better than I could ever say on this topic. Up a tree is where they need to be.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.