Ask a Pro: Question Seven

Thursday, July 9, 2009

7. You are running an Adventure Path, and one of your players is ignoring the obvious hook. Do you gently nudge him in the planned direction, or do you go with the flow and see where this digression might take you?

Lisa Stevens: Basically I try to nudge, or I may come up with a different hook. For example, in Shackled City, there is an adventure where the players need to be convinced to go to an evil plane, and I just knew the hook as written would not work on my players, so instead I had the NPC seek out one of my PCs who was a rogue, and basically had the NPC convince him that great wealth and power were to be had there, and then I just let him convince the rest of the party. But in one of my early D&D groups, my players made me a sign that read "HINT HINT," and they told me to hold it up whenever they were being too dense. So basically I would be like, "The bartender begins telling you about an old abandoned mine..." (holds up sign).

F. Wesley Schneider: I think the most interesting thing about being a GM is the art of getting the players to do exactly what you want but making them think it was their idea. There is nothing more satisfying than having your players come up with this really brilliant and clever idea, and it's exactly what you wanted them to do from the beginning.

James Jacobs: I let the players do their own thing, but they eventually end up where I want them regardless. Basically I just remain flexible and adapt.

Erik Mona: I just let them go wherever. I'm perfectly happy allowing them to dictate the action.

Jason Bulmahn: Depends on the group. Sometimes you'll get a bunch of chaotic players who want to be the embodiment of mayhem. In those situations you have to make a decision: do you keep slapping them with plot hooks or do you just wander off aimlessly into the woods?

Sean K Reynolds: I don't plan too far ahead, so I can remain flexible to my players' actions.

Joshua J. Frost: I try to gently nudge them back, usually with an NPC. But if they insist on running off, I'm pretty good at improv.

James Sutter: It depends on the type of game I'm running. A lot of the time I'll just play a sandbox style of game, where I'll show up with some sticky notes and that's it. If it's an AP, I generally try to weave and nudge them in the right direction. But I also tend to play with big groups; my last campaign had eight players. In those situations, I really feed off of what my players give me, and in a lot of ways depend on that. I'm a big fan of using experienced players to my advantage, too. I rely on the more experienced players to help coach the novices.

Chris Self: If the players are following something that might actually lead somewhere, then I'll let them do whatever, but if they're just sort of spinning their wheels, I'll try to nudge them in the right direction. I actually once played in a campaign that fell apart because the GM gave us too many hooks and not enough of a nudge in any one direction.

I've never minded players wandering off. I'll kill them wherever they go, one way or another.

Hank Woon
Editorial Intern

Ask a Pro: Question Six

Thursday, June 25, 2009

6. Many GMs feel that deus ex machina is cheap, and simply refuse to ever use it. Others feel it is okay if it is properly set up ahead of time. Do you ever use deus ex machina as a storytelling device?

Lisa Stevens: Yeah, but hopefully they didn't know it! (laughs) I think that's the trick for something like that though, right? If you're playing the hand of god, you need to make it feel like a natural part of the story. I think probably every GM has been in this type of situation, unless you're maybe a proponent of the chaos theory and really like everything to be off the cuff, which could be fun, but yeah, I definitely have used it.

F. Wesley Schneider: I don't like to use deus ex machina plots. Most players, I've found, don't like to play the role of the damsel in distress, they like to play heroes. So I usually create a way that gives them a chance to solve the crisis.

James Jacobs: Yes. If it's good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for Pathfinder. (grin)

Jason Bulmahn: I think this is a useful storytelling device that must be used sparingly. It sits in the bag of GM tricks that a Game Master is allowed to pull out exactly once during a campaign. I think it is especially useful early on by giving PCs a forewarning of the kind of powerful enemies that are to come later on. For example, let's say a red dragon attacks their town. Well, at 1st level they're not going to do so well. But then you have the high-level wizard who's their friend show up and drive away the red dragon but is himself killed, and you've just set up a powerful enemy. It allows you to sort of play with a system that is restrictive by CR. In that way it's a useful storytelling device, but again only sparingly.

Sean K Reynolds: Never.

Joshua J. Frost: Only if it's appropriate for a story, never for combat. If I'm doing my job as a DM right, then the combat should already be fair enough.

James Sutter: I think it depends on the situation. I think James Jacobs said it best when he said avoid it when you can, but sometimes it can work well, especially when you realize you've made a mistake. If you send your PCs against a horde of werewolves and they don't have any silver weapons, have the townsguard come in and save them, but then have the players owe the townsguard a favor, so they still have to earn it. I'm totally stealing that from Jacobs, but I think that sums it up rather nicely.

Chris Self: I think it's necessary, but try to keep those sorts of things behind the scenes if possible. There should be a real reason for everything.

I think if done incorrectly, deus ex machina can come off as patronizing.

Hank Woon
Editorial Intern

Ask a Pro: Question Five

Monday, June 22, 2009

5. You have a scene where a large orc tribe is attacking a village. You have all of the orcs and various NPCs represented on the map. Do you roll for each and every orc and NPC, or do you, in the interest of saving time, just decide how many of each side dies each round?

Lisa Stevens: Usually the background, especially if it's a bunch of no-named NPCs. But if it's a bunch of NPCs that maybe they know and had invested a little time with, then I'll definitely roll for them. I think it makes it more visceral if you have a situation where the flower shopkeeper is about to get killed and they have to get to him before the bad guys. When I ran the first Rise of the Runelords adventure, and there is the scene with all of the goblins attacking ~~**SPOILER OMITTED**~~, I just sort of told my players that they saw goblins running innocent townsfolk through. I think it lent an air of urgency to the scene, where my players understood they had to hurry because people were dying, and I think that accomplished that dramatic tension well enough.

F. Wesley Schneider: I usually just relegate that to background scenery.

James Jacobs: I just keep it in the background, unless a player gets involved. But if it's an important NPC, I keep track and give the players time to do something about it.

Erik Mona: No, I don't keep track of everything.

Jason Bulmahn: Nothing is more vain and distracting than a GM who has two NPCs having a long conversation between themselves and I feel it's the same with battle. Generally I let the PCs' actions dictate the ebb and flow of the battle: if they are doing well, then their side is doing well.

Sean K Reynolds: The scene reflects how well the players are doing, so the action remains solely focused on the players.

Joshua J. Frost: I roll for everything. It keeps combat fair.

James Sutter: I keep track of as much as they can interact with. There's a good example in Savage Tide, there's the adventure Tides of Dread where the players face an enormous invasion. With situations like that, I think it's best to break things up into more manageable chunks. Because I mean, if you've got 50 characters to keep track of, then a single round would take forever.

Chris Self: I use mini rules for that, and keep things focused on the players.

I'm too lazy to keep track of everything, but I was once in a guy's campaign who kept track of everything; it was kind of cool, in that I felt like there wasn't as much GM fiat.

Hank Woon
Editorial Intern

Ask a Pro: Question Four

Monday, June 8, 2009

4. You have been playing a campaign for many months, and your group suffers a TPK. Do you fudge the rolls, contrive a reason for them to be brought back, have them create new characters and pick up where the others left off, or just scrap the campaign?

Lisa Stevens: I've never had a TPK; it's been close! (laughs) I'm a big believer in creating and building a campaign over time. I've had key NPCs die and had to completely reinvent the story, but I don't think I'd ever allow the PCs to get to the point where they are faced with a TPK. It would ruin the story, and it would ruin my fun as the GM. I mean, it would be like watching a season of CSI and halfway through they replaced all of the characters and actors and never resolved any of the plot threads.

F. Wesley Schneider: Yes, I usually try to save them. I mean, if it's just one or two characters that die, then that's fine, you can pick up your new character at the next town or dungeon. But if it's the entire group, then yeah, I usually contrive some way for them to keep going. I mean, I've fudged dice, I've had them maybe captured instead of killed, and so on.

James Jacobs: Every time I've had a TPK, that's been the end of the campaign. Start over.

Erik Mona: Depends. If... Well, it just depends.

Jason Bulmahn: Sometimes I'll fudge but I try to gauge the group and see if they're interested in continuing. Sometimes I'll start a new group and tackle the same storyline from a different perspective. Like for example let's say they're all soldiers under a warlord and they all decide that he's evil and turn against him but are all TPKed, well the next batch of characters they make might be a bunch of villagers whose village was destroyed by the same warlord.

Sean K Reynolds: What I would probably do is have everyone create secondary characters where it is their sole purpose to rescue the other group. That way the players are still responsible for saving themselves.

Joshua J. Frost: If everyone dies, it's over. A chance to start something new.

James Sutter: If it's my fault, I'm not against saying, "My bad," and resetting the encounter. But in general, this doesn't happen. I do believe that character death is one of the most important parts of the game. Even as a player, having a character die in a very dramatic way adds so much to the experience. In fact, I've had campaigns where one of my PCs would get killed, then create a new character, and for the next several sessions the plot would revolve around their quest for revenge.

Chris Self: I'll actually roll back the last combat and let them retry. I'm the type of GM who pulls punches if necessary. I see roleplaying games as more of a cooperative storytelling, and TPKs are just no fun.

I've never had a TPK in any game I've ran, more's the pity, but I think I would probably figure out a way to continue the campaign if my players were really, really keen on continuing.

Hank Woon
Editorial Intern

Ask a Pro: Question Three

Friday, June 5, 2009

3. Do you encourage your players to create well-thought-out backgrounds complete with hooks that you can insert into your campaign?

Lisa Stevens: I do, but don't reward. I basically tell my players that if they come up with interesting backgrounds, then they'll get more out of my campaign; it will be more personal for them, as I'll take their hooks and use them in the plot. If you don't create a background, then you'll still have fun, but maybe the story won't be as personal for you. Either is fine; I let the players decide what they want out of the campaign.

F. Wesley Schneider: Yes. They don't have to write up elaborate histories, but I usually ask them to at least provide me with their characters' shticks.

James Jacobs: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely.

Erik Mona: Doesn't matter. If a player is really into that, then I'll take the hooks and weave them back into the campaign, but if a player doesn't care then neither do I.

Jason Bulmahn: I'll ask but won't mandate it. I leave it to player discretion. I'll definitely reward the effort, in that the story will be tied to their history and generally benefit them in some way and be more personal.

Sean K Reynolds: Encourage.

Joshua J. Frost: Yes, I encourage.

James Sutter: Once their concepts are made I like to work with them to get them all together, but there are some players who just like to show up and go, and that's fine. I think well thought out is more fun, but of course sometimes my problem is that I'll create a really long and detailed history and then die after one session. (laughs)

Chris Self: Absolutely.

I've always thought this was one of the best parts of running a campaign!

Hank Woon
Editorial Intern

Ask a Pro: Question Two

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

We continue our Ask a Pro series with what is either the most important part of NPC interaction or the silliest part of a roleplaying game, depending with whom you speak.

2. When delivering the lines of NPCs, do you prefer in-character or third person?

Lisa Stevens: In character.

F. Wesley Schneider: Depends... Important, named characters usually have a voice of their own, but if someone is just going to the blacksmith for a quick purchase, then I will usually just say that costs so much gold or whatever.

James Jacobs: In character. Maybe not always with a voice, but definitely always in character.

Erik Mona: In character.

Jason Bulmahn: Depends. If it's an important NPC then I'll do it in character, but it's Joe Schmoe guard I'll generally cut through it.

Sean K Reynolds: Mix.

Joshua J. Frost: Always play the character.

James Sutter: Totally the voices. I think that if you can find a really funny or interesting voice, it's the best part of a character.

Chris Self: I do third person. I'm bad at voices. Generally whenever I use funny voices, my players ask me to stop. (laughs)

I've never used the voices... I'm just not much of a character actor!

Hank Woon
Editorial Intern

Ask a Pro: Question One

Friday, May 22, 2009

After I started my internship at Paizo, one of the things I found really intriguing was seeing how the pros did things—little things, really, like how they pronounce tarrasque, for example. Then it occurred to me that most people who roleplay often never experience anything outside of their own group of players, so I figured maybe some of you might be as interested as I am in knowing how the pros GM, so I whipped up some questions for the folks here at Paizo.

1. When you call for your players to roll Perception checks, do you pull those who succeed aside, or do you simply look at them and say, "You see/hear...?"

Lisa Stevens: I just do it in front of everybody. I trust my players, they're all pros. But sometimes I might do it just to see how someone will react or to see how someone might attempt to convey the same message to the rest of the group. It becomes really interesting when two players' characters are a bit antagonistic with each other; it's fun if one player makes the roll, but the other doesn't. I like to give that player the info just to see if he'll share the info, and if he doesn't, how the other player might react.

F. Wesley Schneider: Depends on the situation. If it's something more epic, I've found that it is much more exciting and suspenseful when a player reveals the information than the Game Master.

James Jacobs: I just say it in front of everyone.

Erik Mona: That really depends on the dramatic tension. If it isn't very important, or it will just slow the game down, then no. But if a player has a different agenda than the rest of the group, then certainly.

Jason Bulmahn: Depends. If it's a situation where the results aren't immediately obvious I might, but if it's a situation where a monster is about to jump out and attack and everyone will know in just a few seconds anyway, then I just say it.

Sean K Reynolds: Tell everyone and trust people not to metagame.

Joshua J. Frost: I just say it in front of everybody.

James Sutter: In front of everybody; I trust my players and depend on player honesty.

Chris Self: Everyone. I trust my players to keep player knowledge and character knowledge separate. Besides, with things like Perception checks, everyone will know it within moments anyway.

This first question is something I've often wondered how other groups handled. For me, I've often just said, "All right, you two see...," but after a while, I started to think, "Man... this is almost a waste of time having them roll at all, since at least one person always succeeds! It's good to know I'm not the only one who plays this way.

Hank Woon
Editorial Intern