| Pavane |
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some time ago I started DMing again. And, filled with the fervor of the newly converted, would like to share some suggestions and insights. Taking the risk of stating the unbelievably obvious to most of you ... Also, taking the risk of sounding like a selfimportant preacher.
These suggestions are not unique - they draw inspiration from other posts on the Paizo messageboards. And from the excellent "Gamemastering" by Brian Jamison:
A long post. Fair warning.
Here's the thing. Most players want to feel that they are part of something epic. A movie. Where their actions influence the world, and where they are in the center of the story. Easy to say, sometimes hard to create.
I try to do it in two ways:
1.
Every single impulse, suggestion and thought from the players is valuable. Everything should be considered, even the outrageous. Everything should have consequences. I try to never ever say no, just present the possible results. And never scoff at any suggestions. That leads to zero creativity in no time at all. If the players feel that their every idea is taken seriously - the quiet players as much as the loud players - they will keep bringing those ideas to the table.
And, connected to this: everyone should listen to everyone else. One speaker at a time. Enforce it.
Example A: You have planned for an encounter in the woods. A company of bandits, say. And the party druid summons a giant octopus in the center of the clearing. Don't say "An octopus? Really? Well ok ... it falls down and dies. Next." Run with the suggestion. This is an opportunity to create a cinematic, glorious scene. Don't raise an eyebrow, just describe the result. Let it be awesome, if at all possible. I guarantee that the players will remember it. And I really don't think they will abuse your leniency, by summoning a giant octopus every time. They want to keep being creative. It's a drug.
Example B: A player decides she/he wants to "jump into the room, over the top of the goblins and land behind the barrels at the back". This should probably not be possible (unless we're talking about a lvl 20 ninja, perhaps). But it is a player impulse, and therefore gold. Let the person try, and don’t punish her/him with instant dismemberment. Let them fail like in a movie. By, for example, crashing into the barrels, thereby pouring wine out over the fire. Filling the room with smoke and alcohol mist. And then roll initiative.
2.
Every single roll of the dice should have consequences. Even the misses. Especially the misses. Things should always play out. I try to avoid the short "you fail" result, if at all possible. Let every roll be important. This keeps the game from getting technical, or moving too far into an ordinary board game. If you want a board game feeling - absolutely nothing wrong with that. But if you want a cinematic feeling - avoid the empty dice. Don't let the roll be the result. Let the roll suggest the result.
Example A: The PC leans into a room, tries a perception check and rolls a 3. Make up an explanation for it. Smoke in the eyes, afterglow from the recent spell casting. A ringing in the ears from the fighting. Let them see a giant spider, where there is none.
Example B: The PC tries to influence an innkeeper with a diplomacy check. Trying to find some facts about the ruins outside of town. She/he rolls a 1. This doesn’t lead to "the innkeeper doesn’t seem to know anything". It leads to an innkeeper annoyed at the all-too-obvious attempt at sweet talking. And an appropriate consequence that lingers long after the end of the encounter.
Example C: The PC makes a Knowledge: religion check to remember the details about an obscure ritual to please the local river god. She/he rolls a 1. You deliver a made-up, totally wrong answer. The PC seems to remember that the ritual involves the burning of seven different flowers above a waterfall. If the players know about the bad roll (and I think they should), they will know the answer is false. But the PCs will not. And it will lead to interesting things above a waterfall of your choice.
So there it is. It's a mindset if anything. And I can almost guarantee that it will lead to a flood of suggestions, ideas and movie scenes around the table.
| Pavane |
Thanks for the feedback!
Another thing. I wrote about what could happen if the players make bad rolls (or unadvised decisions). The same thing goes for when they do something well, of course. An excellent roll of the dice should always lead to impressive results. Let the players be rewarded for a critical hit. Don't mourn your well thought out monster. There are always more monsters. Describe the result so that the player feels like Aragorn throwing a torch at the ring wraith.
Someone wrote (I think maybe it was the above-mentioned Brian Jamison) that the DM always should look into what the PCs are good at. That's probably what the players want to do in the movie. Give them the chance. Let them excel. And punish them in exciting and fun ways when they fail.
| Vincent Takeda |
This is pretty much how I run things. In my book this is GMing 101. I agree that far too many gms have a hard time waxing poetic or making their world so colorful. The boardgameyness of games these days does stand out to me, and its not the system's fault. I strongly recommend putting as much of this in your campaign as possible, because even if it doesn't turn out well, your campaigns will be more memorable and most players will jump at experiencing that kind of game again and again.
Lord Snow
|
These suggestions are very veluable for certain kind of games, but in others they are less relevent. My and my groups' games, for example, tend to lean on the "grim and realistic" side, so having people hop over the heads of their foes to just easily land on a barrel and keep on fighting will break versimulitude. Less "crazy and creative" things happen in the game because of that, but when sommething extraordinary happens, it feels all that much more special, and for that I think it's worth it.
| Pavane |
You make a good point, Snow. A dark and realistic setting doesn't lend itself very well to giant squids or ninja-esque leaping across barrels. The examples above are taken from my own way of playing, based on the players in my particular group. In another group it could be totally wrong, and break the illusion.
My point is not the crazy stuff, really (although I do so like it), but the mindset of running with player suggestions and avoiding empty dice. Agreeing upon the kind of mood you and your group want in your game, and then make the players' the center of it. And that works equally well in a darker setting. Your players are of course just as creative, in ways that match the mood of your world.
It is not the craziness that is golden, but the player ideas. If someone suggests a PC will spend a few hours looking through the books in the local archive, that is – without any doubt – just as important as a suggestion to make an attack against the goblin lair.
| Pavane |
I think this brings up an important point. You cannot be expected to think fast and create a great result all the time. Especially if you play after a long day at work, and the mind is tired beyond belief. Sometimes the ideas won't come. And sometimes the extreme result gets old if you use it over and over.
It is often enough to just picture it as if it was a movie (that helps me), and describe the consequences as if they were important. Even if the octopus just falls down and dies. If there always is a real result, the players will come back for more.
Sorry for the rambling. Here's what I would do, I think.
1. Let the player roll a d20. A high result leads to better things. A low roll leads to worse things. This is because the action is unexpected and maybe involves an element of chance. It also gives me a suggestion of direction, and time to think.
2. Describe what happens before the octopus. The hand gestures, the stillness in the air, the sudden smell of the ocean. Static in the air.
3. Let it land. And let the bandits react. Not with combat actions - that happens in their round. But with shouts or laughter or surprise.
4. Let the octopus die. And describe the stillness afterwards. A lonely crow in the distance?
5. Remember that you have a dead octopus in the middle of the clearing for the rest of the fight.
The result is exactly the same, but the player has effected the world.
| Caius |
I have an issue at least with your wording on part 2. Do you mean total result or just he die roll because some of those don't make sense as by RAW you don't necessaryily fail on a 1 for skills. If you roll a 1 for diplomacy but have a +19 to that roll you're still more diplomatic that someone with no points who rolled a 1 but the way you phrase it makes it seems like it's only the die result that matters.
| Pavane |
I'm sure you are right. There are probably other factual errors in my posts above. The examples are meant to illustrate the mindset, nothing else. But I will say this: RAW is the structure that we use to play. It is a tool, not a master.
If the group agrees upon a different interpretation, that is the new rule.
| CourtFool |
One way to help alleviate the 'I have no idea how to respond to your idea' problem is to ask the player flat out what they hope to achieve. Using the octopus example, was it meant as a distraction? An obstacle? Did the player actually expect it to be able to attack the bandits?
Stalling gives you more time to think. Better understanding the player's desire may reveal the idea was not as crazy as originally thought. You may be able to tailor a result similar to the player's desired effect without breaking versimulitude.
The octopuses wild, frantic thrashing knocks down two of the bandits while the others stare in disbelief.
Ninja Boy fails to leap over the heads of his foes, but does manage to careen into two of them, knocking them to the ground.
Also, failure does not necessarily mean failure due to lack of skill. An unexpected variable crops up that causes the failure that otherwise would have been a sure thing.
A skilled climber fails a climbing check because the wind kicks dust into his eyes. An expert juggler fails a Performance check because a small boy accidentally bumps into him.
I do not think poor rolls should necessarily make the PC look foolish. Unless you want comedic relief.
| kmal2t |
I agree with most of this. For the octopus one by RAW: "Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them."
You'd be houseruling it to allow the creature to get summoned there at all. It could lead to abuse if you allow this as players will figure out they can drop whales on top of people.
If you were to allow the octopus I agree that you'd need to describe a flailing, angry octopus that's gasping for oxygen and probably hitting everyone in its desperation.
Assuming the spell duration doesn't expire I'd give the octopus like 2d4 rounds before it exhausts itself and dies from lack of oxygen.