GM Content

[Agamemnon]

One of the things that I've been obsessed with during this whole project has been researching GM stuff. It's amazing how many games will start with "What is a roleplaying game" on the assumption you've never heard of such a thing prior to opening this book, but have a GM section that assumes you already have a good idea how GMing works in practice and provide only the most basic advice on how to make things go.

If time and space allow, I'd like to really dig into the how of GMing and how to run this game in particular. I've got some other notes as well, but I thought I'd actually turn the whole thing over to you guys:

What do you want to see in a GMing section? What tends to get overlooked that should be there? What would you as a GM like to see to help run and plan the game?

[thirtythr33]

• How to quickly make NPCs on the fly. Example generic stat arrays that can be mixed to suit.
• How do social skills work on players? How do they work on NPCs?
• What costs do you charge players? eg, do they shell out $$ to buy food and drink at the inn or is it assumed to be rolled into social class profits?
• How do you manage players who walk around armed to the teeth 24/7? Is this even a problem? What if they just go around murdering people? Guards, bounty hunters, trials...
• Advice on how to set up something like a Fronts system.
• Advice on what to prepare before games and what not to. What about the first session?
• Advice on how to use player Flaws and SAs to build plot hooks.
• How to set scenes, and most importantly how to end them and move on to the next instead of playing out every single conversation and stopover between towns.
• How does a player driven game differ from a story driven game?
• Assassination, and a very lethal combat system. Telegraphing, pulling blows etc
• What to do when the players lose a combat. Mercilessly murder them on the spot, rob them, ransom them, sell them into slavery, turn them over to the authorities, or offer them terms of surrender? If a monster or animal, does it eat them, or ignore them after they go limp?
• How NPCs behave in combat.This isn't a meat grinder game. When wounded do NPCs fight to the death, beg for their life, play dead or run the hell away?
• Creating believable characters, cities, cultures. How to set a tone and keep to it. What technology or magic is present? Do you modify the character generation tables to match? eg literacy, swimming, social class.
• How much loot do I hand out? What about magic? Or knightings and such?
• How do I run murder mysteries or investigations? What about puzzles or traps?
• When do I hand out flaws? If they make an enemy, do they get the Enemy Flaw? If players roleplay themselves into gaining an edge or losing a flaw (like killing their Enemy) do they have to play the points or is it "free"?

One thing I very rarely see is a the GM version of the character sheet. I always use one. Here is what I'm use for the Floating City game:



I'm mostly using it to keep reminding myself what the ways the players can earn SAs (so i can reward them when they do) and how I can twist plot hooks to match.

I'm also keeping track of the the main NPCs and the progress on their Fronts, main strengths and weaknesses as well as ideas for twists other things I am going to throw at the party. But I'm not posting that because of spoilers.

[Agamemnon]

Some very cool stuff in that list. A lot of it I already had in my notes, but you do raise a handful more I can add.

I was already working on something similar to your GM's character sheet, though, so we're thinking in the same direction. I have a couple different variations of tracking-sheets that i'm playing with in order to figure out what the most useful/workable setup is.

If I only had more time in the day.

[EinBein]

Aye, really good list.

I'd like to add in general that while playing BoB, it became apparent to us that it inherited one of TRoS's weaknesses:

Especially when the narrative and rules in combat collides somehow (we faced this in skirmish sequence), it becomes a bit difficult to decide what to do. Maybe it was our fault, but it would definitely help to have some guidelines how to kit the gaps between the (relatively) "rules-heavy" combat and the "narrative heavy" other gameplay. This is maybe not the best example, but it's all I have:

[In our playtest, we] tried the skirmish system to establish initiative, but maybe we used it wrongly. I know that chaos is intended, but for me, it wasn't always clear how to proceed [in the following scene]:
1. [PC1] was first (he threw read) and decided to attack the spear-armed [NPC1] with his halberd. As I expected [PC2] to attack the two remaining [NPC2 and 3] (who threw white, in order to receive [PC2]'s charge), I decided to let [PC1] fight a few phrases until he successfully tripped his opponent [NPC1]. Then, it was [PC2]'s turn, and he - deviating from my expectation - decided to join [PC1] against the single opponent. So of course, he had a walk-over, finishing the prone [NPC1] with his longsword. This is where I was really unsure what to make of this. I just let it be. The two [NPC2 and 3] wasted their actions and [PC3], who had hesitated to join (before drawing his sword), had only a move action to catch up.

[Benedict]

Especially when the narrative and rules in combat collides somehow (we faced this in skirmish sequence), it becomes a bit difficult to decide what to do. Maybe it was our fault, but it would definitely help to have some guidelines how to kit the gaps between the (relatively) "rules-heavy" combat and the "narrative heavy" other gameplay. This is maybe not the best example, but it's all I have:

[In our playtest, we] tried the skirmish system to establish initiative, but maybe we used it wrongly. I know that chaos is intended, but for me, it wasn't always clear how to proceed [in the following scene]:
1. [PC1] was first (he threw read) and decided to attack the spear-armed [NPC1] with his halberd. As I expected [PC2] to attack the two remaining [NPC2 and 3] (who threw white, in order to receive [PC2]'s charge), I decided to let [PC1] fight a few phrases until he successfully tripped his opponent [NPC1]. Then, it was [PC2]'s turn, and he - deviating from my expectation - decided to join [PC1] against the single opponent. So of course, he had a walk-over, finishing the prone [NPC1] with his longsword. This is where I was really unsure what to make of this. I just let it be.

The PCs and NPC should be making a 2v1 Melee in that case. Everyone gets full CPs, roll for Positioning (downed NPC rolls at Disadvantage), and resolve from there the 2v1 situation. PC2 could not "have a walk-over". Even if things are looking grim for the downed guy.

RAW there are two issues the way I see it:

• The 2v1 Melee is resolved during the ongoing Round and starts at PC2 Sequence, or PC2 expends his action for that Round by joining the ongoing Melee and must wait for Round 2 to resolve the 2v1 Melee?
• The downed NPC is at Disadvantage until he beats them on Positioning. Initiative in 2v1 is determined with Positioning. How does the bloke gets up? He must make 2 Positioning Rolls (one for Initiative and one for getting up)? Or if he beats them on the Positioning that determines Initiative he gets up?

[EinBein]

Especially when the narrative and rules in combat collides somehow (we faced this in skirmish sequence), it becomes a bit difficult to decide what to do. Maybe it was our fault, but it would definitely help to have some guidelines how to kit the gaps between the (relatively) "rules-heavy" combat and the "narrative heavy" other gameplay. This is maybe not the best example, but it's all I have:

[In our playtest, we] tried the skirmish system to establish initiative, but maybe we used it wrongly. I know that chaos is intended, but for me, it wasn't always clear how to proceed [in the following scene]:
1. [PC1] was first (he threw read) and decided to attack the spear-armed [NPC1] with his halberd. As I expected [PC2] to attack the two remaining [NPC2 and 3] (who threw white, in order to receive [PC2]'s charge), I decided to let [PC1] fight a few phrases until he successfully tripped his opponent [NPC1]. Then, it was [PC2]'s turn, and he - deviating from my expectation - decided to join [PC1] against the single opponent. So of course, he had a walk-over, finishing the prone [NPC1] with his longsword. This is where I was really unsure what to make of this. I just let it be.

The PCs and NPC should be making a 2v1 Melee in that case. Everyone gets full CPs, roll for Positioning (downed NPC rolls at Disadvantage), and resolve from there the 2v1 situation. PC2 could not "have a walk-over". Even if things are looking grim for the downed guy.

RAW there are two issues the way I see it:

• The 2v1 Melee is resolved during the ongoing Round and starts at PC2 Sequence, or PC2 expends his action for that Round by joining the ongoing Melee and must wait for Round 2 to resolve the 2v1 Melee?
• The downed NPC is at Disadvantage until he beats them on Positioning. Initiative in 2v1 is determined with Positioning. How does the bloke gets up? He must make 2 Positioning Rolls (one for Initiative and one for getting up)? Or if he beats them on the Positioning that determines Initiative he gets up?

As you see, it doesn't seem easy to handle rules-wise. The walk-over was referring to PC2 being a competent fighter anyways against a weak foe on the ground, while PC1 was the exact opposite of a competent fighter and it took some time to even trip his foe. Yes, of course, I could have made it a 2v1 situation and let PC1 join again, but this would have made it even worse for NPC1?

And I still doubt whether this is the official way to go. Personally, when reading the rules again, I think it is not intended to have an NPC and a PC act twice within one round, just because another PC joined the fight. I though it would be prohibited for any other character to join the ongoing fight, that has been resolved in the same round. But this would force me to ask all players about their intentions before starting an exchange, because maybe another character wants to join the same battle at a later sequence...

(I may have confused phrases, rounds, or any other terms in my confusion...)

My point in regards to the GM section was: Any guidelines that help to smooth the transition from combat sequence to narrative sequence - like in my example - are most welcome. But maybe they're more appropriate in the skirmish section...

[higgins]

[In our playtest, we] tried the skirmish system to establish initiative, but maybe we used it wrongly. I know that chaos is intended, but for me, it wasn't always clear how to proceed [in the following scene]:
1. [PC1] was first (he threw read) and decided to attack the spear-armed [NPC1] with his halberd. As I expected [PC2] to attack the two remaining [NPC2 and 3] (who threw white, in order to receive [PC2]'s charge), I decided to let [PC1] fight a few phrases until he successfully tripped his opponent [NPC1]. Then, it was [PC2]'s turn, and he - deviating from my expectation - decided to join [PC1] against the single opponent. So of course, he had a walk-over, finishing the prone [NPC1] with his longsword. This is where I was really unsure what to make of this. I just let it be. The two [NPC2 and 3] wasted their actions and [PC3], who had hesitated to join (before drawing his sword), had only a move action to catch up.

This just sounds like you somehow determined what some of the characters were doing in advance and let their opponents know. That should never be the case.

In a skirmish, everyone decides the type of their action (attack, move or slow) and then throws a relevant die. Then the results determine who is first. So, the PC1 couldn't really be first an then throw a die. He would decide that he wants to attack, then throw a red d6 to do so, and then he MIGHT be first if that red d6 shows the lowest number.

In melee, the other guys wouldn't know what the others would be throwing either. As the throws are still simultaneous.

If in a skirmish, someone throws a red and attacks another, he gains automatic initiative and there's no need for a separate melee dice throw. Same is true when the initiative is clear from the narrative (ambush, etc).

The melee dice throw is mainly for duels and such. Personally, I wanted to cut it altogether, but Agamemnon argued that it was too important in dueling, so, we kept it.

[Benedict]

This just sounds like you somehow determined what some of the characters were doing in advance and let their opponents know. That should never be the case.

In a skirmish, everyone decides the type of their action (attack, move or slow) and then throws a relevant die. Then the results determine who is first. So, the PC1 couldn't really be first an then throw a die. He would decide that he wants to attack, then throw a red d6 to do so, and then he MIGHT be first if that red d6 shows the lowest number.

Exaclty.

What is unclear though is this. PC1 declares Attack throws RED1, NPC1 declares Movement throws WHITE2, PC2 declares Attack throws RED4, there are other guys on both sides doing various stuff* (moving, shooting, fighting, etc), but lets concentrate on those three.

*If it were only 2 PCs vs 1 NPC its simple. If its many PCs vs many NPCs who all attack or defend/move its also simple. When some want to do other things (Ranged attacks, initiate Full Contests, etc) it gets complicated.

1: PC1 attacks NPC1. Resolve Melee.
2: NPC1 would move, already engaged in Melee.
4: PC2 wants to attack NPC1 who is already engaged in Melee with PC1.

The question is when does PC2 gets to join that particular Melee, this Round or the following Round?

I had this situation at the gaming table with those exact numbers. I had those three locked in a 2v1 Melee at Sequence 1 with Positioning rolls for everyone and played the Melee out till one was wounded at Phrase Two. Unsure if my ruling was how the game is actually written though.



But enough with sidetrecking this thread. Things I'd really want to see in GM section, apart from those really interesting points thirty33 raised.

• Poison, Disease, and other forms of damage (fire, drowning, electricity/lightning, environmental hazards)
• Animals and monsters.
• Tips on how to deal with troublesome players (rules lawyers, minmaxers, douchebags, etc).

[thirtythr33]

I believe he more or less has to "sit out" until the start of the next round, when he will be forced to roll a red d6 along with the other two and they do a normal 2v1 from there. It isn't spelled out in the rules, but it is the only interpretation that makes sense. If he doesn't want to sit out, he can instead engage on someone who has not yet partaken in a melee combat that round.

Back to GMing stuff:
Balance. Should the GM try to scale and balance encounters? If so, how? Is it the GMs responsibility to try to keep the player's characters of roughly the same power level? If so, how?

[higgins]

The question is when does PC2 gets to join that particular Melee, this Round or the following Round?

Replied here: http://www.grandheresyforums.com/viewto ... 6379#p6379