Seeking advice on GMing

[Silanon]

To start things off, let me note that I am aware that this is not the first topic of its kind. In fact, numerous persons have already posted good guidelines on things like these, for example the ones listed in this thread here: https://www.rpnation.com/topic/260970-how-to-dm/


Furthermore, there are some old threads from before the update that offer good advice - I already had a look at them some time ago, and will certainly dig them up if this turns into an actual project of mine (or, to be precise, before that happens).


So, what is this all about? Lately, I've been looking for a new dice-rp to join, preferably one in a medieval-like setting. Most of the rps I'm participating in as of now are more futuristic-oriented, so I was looking for something different. But while there are a couple of interest checks out there that point into the right direction, they mainly seem to have abandoned the idea of playing by post. Whether this is due to the lack of a decent dice roller on the site or something else should not be important here - the relevant thing is that this makes rping for some of us, including me, rather difficult due to timezones and real-life restrictions. Therefore, the question arose: What if I would try to set up a game myself?


The problem: Neither have I GMed before, nor am I actually experienced with either dnd (5e for me) or Pathfinder, which seem to be the systems of choice for such a setting. I have read through the rules of both of them, and created characters myself, but all the games I joined basically died off before I could experience the whole range of options and decisions. So the first question here probably would be: How much experience should the gm have with the system he is using? Would you strongly advice against using them without having played through at least a short campaign based on the system, or do you think that they are simple enough to jump in (with proper time investment) when restricting to the basic rules? I imagine that things like encounter-balancing and various other challenges are certainly much easier when you already have a certain feeling how these kind of things tend to work out.


The second question is related to the time investment: How much time do you tend to invest in an rp you've created on your own? Of course, the initial planning will be time-consuming - and working out the small details along the way takes time as well. It would help a lot to have a proper estimate on the efforts needed in comparison to an rp where you're just participating as a pc. This question has another background as well: During my time here, I've had rps with both very dedicated and rather inactive gms - the first kind managed to actually revive already dead rps multiple times, creating memorable moments all along the way, while the latter kind managed to have rps with very invested players die off within days. I feel like if you're gming, the first ones are the examples to look at, and therefore I wouldn't like to commit to gming an rp without having enough time to actually make it work.


Thirdly, is there anything you'd advice a new gm in particular to do or not to do? Anything you should leave alone until you have more experience, like too complicated or too simple plot lines etc.? I'd imagine a plot with a major twist after every single encounter might be harder to gm than a rather linear story line.


Lastly, something random and rather specific that just came into mind: What is the usual length of fights you are aiming for? Most rps I've seen are aiming for about three actions of each character until things are done, sometimes a bit more than that. Is that the upper bound for things to stay interesting?


Thanks in advance for any kind of reply, feel free to redirect me to other threads if the questions are already covered there in a sufficient way. I could bet to have read a thread about the second one at some point, but I wasn't able to dig it out - the search function sadly showed no result. If something is incomprehensible, don't hesitate to ask. English is not my first language, so there might be unclear points along the way that I would gladly specify.

 

[Chordling]

I've skimmed over your post.  @Grey will be able to give you a lot of advice.  He's created a few tutorials about GMing as well.

 

[Grey]

Ironically, I actually have an RP that might fit your bill and provide an opportunity to learn a system which I think is more fitting to PBP than the extended D20 family. Although it only has three active players who aren't really aware of each other. I should go tag them and give you a linl.


Meanwhile! Since the thread you linked also has my tutorials linked you should be fine there, but to answer more specific questions:

How much experience should the gm have with the system he is using? Would you strongly advice against using them without having played through at least a short campaign based on the system, or do you think that they are simple enough to jump in (with proper time investment) when restricting to the basic rules?

The answer varies by system and game, really, but I would advise against using a D20 derivative if you've not played it a fair bit. For one, it's a very crunch-heavy system with an emphasis on combat - which is fine if you want dungeon-crawls and sub-Tolkien stories. I think you'd be better off looking at Dungeon World, which is more versatile and streamlined, and almost runs itself.

How much time do you tend to invest in an rp you've created on your own?

I do 90% of the work behind the scenes before launching the RP, which can be upwards of an hour a day, and after that it usually doesn't need more than twenty minutes attention every couple of days (this will vary by player enthusiasm). It can be hard to stay invested, as a GM, when players drop out or stop posting - it can disrupt the plot and pace, and with my horrible memory I sometimes neglect to go back to an RP for a week or so when I've asked a slow player to catch up (but this is mostly down to me running a dozen RPs at any given time). 


Eternity Beckons is a good example - mostly motivated players, some vanished, there was a recovery time to replace them, some came back, the whole thing is stupidly slow because I struggle to keep my mind on something that's ripping itself apart.  It can keep limping on with people like you, Blackadder, and Anomaly, but the musical chairs of the rest of the party mucked it up.


That kind of thing is why I tend to start players are separated from each other - it means once the group stablizes I can bring them together.

Thirdly, is there anything you'd advice a new gm in particular to do or not to do?

Try to stick to a single location and no more than three plot threads, the first time, for something like this.


As an example, I've written an 'adventure' about five monster slayers in an isolated town. They can't leave because of a quarantine (thread 1), there seems to be some political unrest (thread 2), and the inkeeper seems to be feuding with the lord's sworn sword (thread 3). Uh, that's threads as in plotlines, not posting threads.


Anyway, this means a GM only has to worry about a single location with defined NPCs, so it's easy to keep them consistent, and the story can wrap up in about three to six hours IRL. PBP, it shouldn't take more than three months depending on player activity.


And then you can always keep the characters but move on to other stories.

What is the usual length of fights you are aiming for? Most rps I've seen are aiming for about three actions of each character until things are done, sometimes a bit more than that. Is that the upper bound for things to stay interesting?

I usually aim for 'however long it takes', but I favour systems with fast, lethal combat systems. D20 variants can take a long time to resolve combat, and you may have to massage the dice or reduce stats on monsters to keep it short. This is even more true if your players aren't very experience and there's a lengthy discussion about how spells or feats work and which ones to use.

 

[Silanon]

First of all, thanks for the tag, @Musician. I've found my way through a few of @Grey's tutorials already, and will certainly have a second read of them when I decide to actually get something up and running. And thanks for the detailed response, @Grey.


I've already heard of Dungeon Worlds at some point, but never had the chance to play it. Just saw that there is a srd around, so I'll have a look at that to get a first impression. It already seemed less complicated than the two systems I suggested above, so it might be a good point to start my experiments of gming. Restricting the plot to one location seems like a good plan - I might have to twist a few of the basic ideas in my mind for that, but it certainly makes things more overseeable. Having an end within a finite time in sight is something useful, too - from my experience, there is only so much time until at least one of the participants of an rp can't keep up anymore and has to leave. In the best case, the rp should be finished before that.


Speaking of the players: How many of them are too few/too many? Most rps seem to settle down at something like 3-4 regulars, if they don't die within the first few days.

 

[Grey]

I like five players, because it gives you a nice spread of archetypes and competencies.  Eight always feels like a good upper limit for PBP.


Three or less takes way more work from everyone. 

 

[Purr]

Heya @Silanon


I saw this post here and thought it was worth me brainstorming over it, so here are a bunch of opinions just off the top of my head.  Enjoy!

Therefore, the question arose: What if I would try to set up a game myself?

I say, hooray!  Another Dungeon Master/Game Master/Storyteller/Referee (take your pick or add one) is born!  =)

How much experience should the gm have with the system he is using? Would you strongly advice against using them without having played through at least a short campaign based on the system, or do you think that they are simple enough to jump in (with proper time investment) when restricting to the basic rules? I imagine that things like encounter-balancing and various other challenges are certainly much easier when you already have a certain feeling how these kind of things tend to work out.

1. None.  But what one lacks in experience, they should make up for with research.  A good Dungeon Master knows their stuff and there are only two ways to make that happen - research and first-hand experience.


2. Depends on the system!  Pathfinder is a thorough D&D system that can be as simple or as complex as everyone at the table wants it to be.  D&D 5E seems to be a simple system that's easy to pick up, but I understand it does not allow for the complexities available in Pathfinder.  

How much time do you tend to invest in an rp you've created on your own?

It varies.  For me, the answer is "until it is good."  When I am investing in a new roleplay, I take into consideration a lot of elements like...  How long is this campaign likely to last (that's a big factor)?  This ties into sub-questions like "How serious are the players about running a long campaign?"  "How much time will they have?" and the like.  


For example, I'm currently designing my second Hosted Project.  Like my first, I want it to go long (years).  How much time am I willing to invest here?  Quite a lot.  That's because making a great roleplay is a lot like making dinner for someone else in Real Life.  Preparation is your best friend.  What does each person like to eat?  Drink?  What kind of atmosphere is appropriate?  Is this a candlelight dinner for two or a holiday dinner for six?  Will background music add or detract?  


Unlike making dinner, roleplaying means asking myself questions like - How will I be handling the dice rolling (if you're doing asking that question at your dinner table, then I know you're with true gamers!  Hah!)?  For me, I have my own dice here and I let the PCs choose the colors.  I roll them because I alone can verify them.  


So time investment is directly proportionate to what you want to do and what you want to make.  Take a page out of Guild Wars 2 (the MMORPG) developers; they didn't release their game until it was ready.  For me, that means the game doesn't have to be perfect, but like everything I attempt, it has to be good.   In other words, I (the first player) have to like it a lot too!  =)

Thirdly, is there anything you'd advice a new gm in particular to do or not to do? Anything you should leave alone until you have more experience, like too complicated or too simple plot lines etc.?

Yes.  


To Do List


1. Take notes (especially here on Rp Nation where everyone has their own Private Workshop!  Wooo!)


2. Listen to your players when you "talk shop," but do what is best for everyone at the table, not just one person (I, for one, am not having fun unless everyone is having fun.


 It's our game.)


3. Before posting (in or out of game) reread the posts other folks have made right before you post.  Not only does this act as a reminder, but it may jog new thoughts and ideas.


4. Communicate with your players.  Always have your door open to their thoughts and feelings.  Ask them to send you a private message if the subject matter is touchy.  


5. ABOVE ALL - Do your research into the folks you want to roleplay with and only accept players whom you could see as potential long-term buddies.  


Put another way, add only to the game people with personalities that you genuinely like or admire.  Remember that it's people that make or break any game.  I hand-pick every one of players.  Either I know them or someone else on this site that I count as friend knows them.  And upon consideration for play, I do some research on the player in question.  I'll gladly take twenty minutes or so out of my time to check out a prospective player's profile, posting history, status updates, etc.  


What I'm looking for is - will they fit in well?  Do they seem to be responsible?  Trustworthy?  Respectful?  What's their definition of the word 'fun'?  There's nothing worse than not doing this and then, surprise!  The person your buddy recommended turns out to a big jerk and now you're in a pickle (Oh noes!  DRAMA!)!  Also, there's nothing better than finding someone who just might turn out to be a long-term player you can enjoy roleplaying with.  So, when a player asks me, "Can my buddy join us?"  I immediately think of the good of our game and reply, "What's she or he like?" and go from there.  I could go on and on, but you probably get the picture.  =)


Not-to-do List


1. Don't "railroad" the party unless they really want it.  Railroading is the fine art of making the players follow the exact story you have written with no chance of their doing things their own way (hence railroad tracks).  At worst, if they're really in a bind, give them a hint of what to do, but don't tell them how to do it.  They may surprise you (and, better yet, they may surprise themselves - that's always fun to watch and be a part of).


2. Don't take one person's fun over another.  If one player thinks it's funny, but another seriously doesn't, stop it for the sake everyone's fun.


3. Don't play favorites. 


4. Don't say promise something you're not absolutely willing to follow through with.  Your integrity is your word (not to mention your reputation - word does get around, good and bad, when it comes to PCs and Dungeon Masters).  Be the kind of DM you want to play with.


5. Don't go too deep!  When Real Life comes into play, Real Life Always Comes First.  Other than that, just enjoy the game for what it is and no more than that.  


6. Don't fret!  =)  Sometimes, as the Dungeon Master, you'll be tasked with decisions you didn't see coming.  But remember, this is a game!  We're all here for fun!  If you need an extra day or two to figure something out, tell your players as much.  Be open with them (without spilling what's in your Private Workshop if you get my meaning).  In the long run, you'll be glad you did.  =)

Lastly, something random and rather specific that just came into mind: What is the usual length of fights you are aiming for? Most rps I've seen are aiming for about three actions of each character until things are done, sometimes a bit more than that. Is that the upper bound for things to stay interesting?

1. I avoid thinking of fights in terms of length.  For me, there is no time-clock ticking, say, in a street fight.  Each fight is its own scene and therefore has its own duration.  The last thing I want to be thinking is: "Oh, it's round four!  It's time to put the bad guys away!"  Life isn't like that and roleplaying games shouldn't be either.  


Instead, I go for how much challenge do I think the players should have.  Whether the action lasts one round or ten, I want it to go on as long as it should.  A PC who is playing a 10th level, well-equipped fighter should just mop up half a dozen goblins that are dumb enough to threaten her.  She (the PC) can dispatch them quickly or make a show of it - the point is - give the players some decision over how long the fight lasts.  On the other hand, when that 10th-level Ogre Berserker steps up after having seen the fighter wipe out his minions steps up to the plate, then it's a challenge.  How long will the fight last?  It kind of depends on the dice, their tactics, their morale, and so forth, don't you think?  Again, let each fight last as long (or as short) as it should.  Be true to the players and to the spirit of the fight.  =)

English is not my first language, so there might be unclear points along the way that I would gladly specify.

For someone whose English is not their first language, you sure had me fooled!  Your English is terrific!  If you study the Art of the Dungeon Master the way you studied English, you'll be a terrific Dungeon Master!  =)


Honor and fun,


Dann =)

 

[Purr]

Heya Grey!  Thanks for the like, you!  =)

 

[Silanon]

Thanks for your detailed answers - just had a second read, thanks for the time both of you put in there


A lot of interesting things you mentioned there, @Dannigan. Always great to have a perspective like this one, that's one reason why I love this place. When you consider to start something like this for the first time, you tend to think about plot, planning etc. first - or at least I do, maybe it's just my approach. Thanks for lining out the "basics" (if you want to call them like that - in some sense, these points sound rather fundamental, on the other hand pretty much all of them appear like it'll be quite difficult to get things right the first time). They're definitely a good guide line of what one should keep in mind.

 

[Purr]

Thanks, Silanon!  


To be blunt about it, there is no way get to get all that right the first time.  I get the sense Grey has been GMing for years.  And me?  I've been DMing and RPing for over 2/3rds of my whole life.  We didn't get to this point overnight and neither will you and that's O.K.  Part of the fun of getting there is the journey itself and part of it are the mistakes made along the way!  Sounds like Real Life for minute there, doesn't it?  =)


I didn't get this far without making my share of mistakes, but as good ol' Chuck Norris has been known to say...

So go ahead, try, have fun, and when you goof up, do it here on RP Nation so you can look back on the text 20 years from now and laugh your head off all over again!  =)

 

[Silanon]

Looking at the forums can be a little discouraging from time to time - you see many rps being dead, and those that endure time seem far beyond reach - at least for someone who never did anything like that before. But if you never try to take the hurdle, you'll never know if you can make it, right?


@Grey I had a closer look at Dungeon World - something I found a bit unusual is the experience system used there - maybe it's just the depiction in the srd, but it feels a bit hard to do in a pbp setting. For example, there are bonuses you can gather at the beginning of each session, if I'm not mistaken. Have you played Dungeon World in forums before, and if so, did you use the original experience system?


In general, how do you choose the appropriate system for a setting? Is that just a thing of experience, and knowing enough systems to understand what they are good and bad at? Or just personal preference, taking one system and adapting it until it fits the purpose (certainly not something I'd try as a beginner - I'm just curious)? In theory, things could go the other way around as well, having a system you like in particular and then scrolling through the options it offers, trying to see what kind of plot it could support and going from there...


How do you go about creating encounters for the party? I know that in DnD and Pathfinder, there are formulae to calculate what kind of encounter would be appropriate. So as a beginner, I would assume one would decide what fits the scenario (for example - I really want to let this group run into that goblin berserker in the end), then look at the formulae (damn, that one is rather unimpressive - I probably should add another one and four usual goblins to make it an interesting fight). Do you ever test encounters on your own with a couple of dice and much time to get a feeling how they might play out, or are these kind of numbers usually precise enough to rely on? On the other hand, do you ever have something like an emergency exit in mind in case things turn out way different than expected (goblin berserker number 2 is on fire and mows down the tank in the first round)?


How much of the planning do you do before you start with inviting people (whatever method you use for that - be it pms to friends, interest checks,...)? In the best case, there should be enough known about the setting so that the players can create their characters with that in mind. On the other hand, much of the planning seems to be reliant on the characters - if your party is entirely focused on murdering the authorities, they might not be too eager to go on one of the king's quest and another plot might be more appropriate. Or, as written above, if all the people went for sailing abilities in their character creation, you might not want to send them into the desert to dig out an artifact. Of course, a well-formulated interest check can deal with most of those kind of problems from the beginning - I'm thinking more of the smaller details, just went for the obvious examples.

 

[Grey]

Have you played Dungeon World in forums before, and if so, did you use the original experience system?

Not Dungeon World specifically, but I have played a fair bit of Apocalypse World run by @WlfSamurai. If you treat each thread as a session it works out fine, but it's not a problem to just hand out guaranteed XP at regular intervals - like following major plot points, for example.

In general, how do you choose the appropriate system for a setting?

A majority of people seem to pick the system they know, and if necessary adapt it or find specific spin-offs in other genres.  In practice, this means you will see people trying to use D&D for genres it was not designed to run, and D&D spin-offs such as D20 Modern or the like exist.  I personally do not feel this is best primarily because D&D is not a very versatile or narratively focused system; it is good at D&D, which is more or less a genre unto itself now.  Your later questions effectively illustrate this for me.


I and my broader circle of devs, writers, and friends in Ireland plus a few RPNers prefer to pick systems which have been purposefully designed for different kinds of story.  F'r example, if I want to do sci-fi horror I'll probably use Eclipse Phase, but if I want slightly lighter sci-fi I might use Mindjammer.  If I want to do comedy, I use FATE.  But this also means we'll sometimes look at a system and think 'oh, hey, this would also work shockingly well for this other thing...'


Like the way I once decided Apocalypse World would be good for running something in The Dark Tower setting, or the way the fine folks at Onyx Path thought 'if we tweak these things about Exalted, we get a Street Fighter RPG.'  Another RPNer whose presence I miss felt that hacking Legends of the Wulin to run Exalted would work better than Exalted's own system (it was, at the time, a somewhat rickety edition). 

How do you go about creating encounters for the party?

They emerge naturally from the story, for me.  One of my campaigns went almost a full year of weekly sessions without any violence, because the players kept resolving things with diplomacy, cash, and surreptitious magic.  That is, for me, far more satisfying than arbitrary kobold massacres before the loot room and my players wouldn't like it any other way.


I don't balance encounters so that players can absolutely win - I create situations where the players can win if they act intelligently, if they earn it.  I operate on a combat-as-war paradigm where fighting fair is reserved for the terminally naive.


...Am I the Dark Souls of GMs?


I do have emergency exits in my convention scenarios, because we're on a time budget, but in campaigns and PBP I expect players to set up their own escape vectors.  And then maybe something unlikely but plausible will come to mind when things go wrong, but I don't plan it out.

How much of the planning do you do before you start with inviting people?

I usually start with a setting, then I move to interesting situations that could transpire within that setting which make me excited to see how players will handle them, and then I flesh out the antagonists and supporting cast.  I will explicitly tell players the broad archetypes of character I need for a scenario (perfect example of the moment - all player characters must work in law enforcement), and then allow as much space within those requirements as I can.  Then I check player-character motivations, histories, and values against my setting in case I see cool opportunities for emergent plots or personal arcs. 


I like situations that would make entertaining short stories even if the player characters never showed up, so there's stuff for them to latch onto, but I only really plan the inciting events and let everything emerge from simulation. 


I dunno if it will help, but I've got a stable of scenarios from conventions for download.  People at Irish cons tends to buy-in to the idea of participating in a three-hour interactive story, so they're willing to ignore a touch of railroading and actively work with the GM towards a good climax - since most PBP players seem to be motivated by storytelling over all you might be able to get away with similar tactics. I've also got post-mortem examinations of how those scenarios went.


https://nutsboltsnarrative.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/post-mortem-the-exorcism-of-logan-spire/


https://nutsboltsnarrative.wordpress.com/convention-scenarios/

 

[Silanon]

Alright - didn't manage to get a proper post done yesterday anymore, thanks for another detailed answer. Giving exp after major plot points would be an option - this also would make a dynamic where it would be irrelevant how you get there story-wise - if through sneaking past the guards, bribing them, etc. - you get the point. Not that this is impossible otherwise, it just makes things quite smooth in that regard. I'll have to look about the timing though, since it should feel like something well-earnt, while still giving a feeling of a somehow constant progress...


I'll probably have to play in a few more different systems to really get a feeling for what they can do - and then be able to pick an appropriate one. So far, I only have insight in about three different ones, and they all feel quite dnd-like. Maybe I'm just too inexperienced to tell the difference, though.


Obviously, solving problems without combat certainly is an interesting way - although you could see these ways as another sort of encounter ("social combat", if you will), it plays out vastly different. I actually considered a scenario where fighting violently will, in the end, have major consequences, but I'll have to see if I can make that in a way that doesn't seem too constructed. One of your scenarios (can't think of the name right now - that one with the two necromancers...) had an approach that I found interesting as a basic idea... thanks for sharing those, it's especially interesting with your remarks how it went later on. Points out another few things you should consider... although, of course, conventions and forum games are different in multiple ways.


So far most of my rps had a character in there that was primarely designed with combat in mind - in the example in your basic gm tutorial, it's the fighter slaying the ogre. For those kind of characters, it might be interesting to have a fight once in a while, or to at least give them the chance to have a fight if they don't wish to solve the problem in another way.


How often do you generally roll for things in the background? For example, do you roll to see how much information the characters might get from an npc, or do you just go with as much as you feel appropriate, based on the posts beforehand?


Unrelated to that, how well do riddles work out in a pbp setting? I've found a few pre-built scenarios that had some basic combinatory riddles in there - those seemed rather complicated to do in a forum game (put those boxes of different colors onto each other in the right order might be a horribly uninspiring example). I would assume that word-based riddles (let's say an old door asking a question) should work out fine, since they don't need to much small interaction by the characters (in the box example, you might have to examine every single one closely to see some kind of color sheme, which doesn't make for interesting posts by anyone). Thought a riddle in general could be a nice way to get people to think and, if not successful, let all those education-based things make a difference. Of course, many riddles do have the problem that they are based on the local lore - you'd have to let the players run into that, without directly telling them: This is the solution to a riddle, please write it down.


The same with traps - do they only work out in a highly detailed setting, where you can drop a hint without being absolutely obvious? Or is it fair to work on the premise "if the rogue does not ask to examine the floor before he enters that suspiciously empty room, he better should roll a high dexterity roll?".


Maybe as a general question: Are there elements of rps that you would have in a tabletop game, but not recommend in forum games, and vice versa?

 

[WlfSamurai]

@Grey tagged me when he mentioned Dungeon World and Apocalypse World. You rang?

I have some thoughts. I'll try to keep them short. And hopefully useful. You can ask me to expand if you're interested.

First, Dungeon World. Like its parent game Apocalypse World, there is one specific way to play/run the game. I like that. I believe in that. There isn't this, "Here's some junk. But none of it matters if you don't like it," garbage. Dungeon World and Apocalypse World and many story games (narrative games, whatever you want to call them) have an opinion. They are DESIGNED to have an opinion. They are designed with specific play at the table in mind.

Gosh this is all such a ball of wax. I'm going to skip the four paragraphs between the one above and this next one and hope it makes sense.

Okay, so ... So, these games, these "narrative" or "story" games, they're really nothing more than structured freeform. That's the key. You talk about "systems" and "XP rewards". I find that most systems reward you for using the system. Like a closed loop that keeps the system running and the narrative in the background as a secondary thing. It doesn't reward the play you and your players are creating together. This never made sense to me. Though, I know people who love that.

So, I'm for structured freeform. Reward the play that's happening either using a game that has an opinion you agree with or by creating your own structure that drives the players to say interesting things in-game. I don't think the system should be an end or a means to an end. I think the system should give the players something to say that they wouldn't have come up with on their own. And it should happen naturally in play.

But that's half of it. The freeform part is the other half. Coming to the game with pre-defined encounters and scenes I think robs the players some of the fun and you some of your enjoyment in discovery. Let the play flow. Naturally. Always push using what's natural to what's in play. Use the scene's natural conflicts to drive the players to action.

I think @Grey nailed it. Situations. You start the situation ball rolling and let it go. Play to find out where these emergent situations take you. Enjoy seeing how it turns out.

I've almost deleted these words like five times. I hope you can find something useful in there. I'm not trying to say there's one right way. There isn't. There is no wrong way to RP. But this is my experience for getting the most bang for your buck. Quality play and gaming that gives the players agency to decide what's important to them.

 

[Silanon]

First of all - thanks for taking the time to post here, I really appreciate it


I'm unfamiliar with both systems (Apocalypse and Dungeon Worlds, that is), and for someone more used to rather "dnd-like" systems, the rules read a bit strange. It feels like if you're reading them with the wrong idea of rping in mind (by which I mean an idea that just doesn't go well with the system), you're constantly looking for something that is not supposed to be there. For example, skills or simple things like initiative order etc. - things you are used to, so to say. Therefore, it's great to get a post like yours, basically giving another guideline on how to read the whole thing.


I've been in the situation that a character suddenly got an ability that more or less came from nowhere - a fitting one, but still a bit strange, since I more or less got it just because I happened to have enough exp. to level up. Is that, roughly speaking, what you have in mind when talking about the system? I've seen that Dungeon World seems to give out experience much more for roleplay-based achievements (if you want to call them like that) - the barbarian grabbing experience when talking about his homeland, someone resolving a bound, following your alignment - even failing grants exp, as if the pc would learn from the disaster. For me, that's quite unfamiliar, but if it works out the way it should (and it seems like that, since @Greyprobably wouldn't have suggested it otherwise), it's an approach I certainly could get behind.


As to my approach of creating a game - that might be something you only really know by jumping in and testing things out. It's hard to know how much is enough to be prepared, without railroading the whole thing. As someone who likes to be on the safer side (hence this thread, probably - I would have missed a ton of great advice otherwise), I might think of too many small things already.


Lastly, there is one thing I'm missing out on for now:

Dungeon World and Apocalypse World and many story games (narrative games, whatever you want to call them) have an opinion. They are DESIGNED to have an opinion.

Do you, with this, mean an opinion on how roleplay should happen, as described later in your post, or do you want to say more than that? In the first case, I think I understand the meaning, or if not, I at least wrote down something you could correct, in some sense. If you mean more than that, however, I haven't fully caught it so far, and it would be great if you could elaborate a bit more on that.

 

[WlfSamurai]

First of all - thanks for taking the time to post here, I really appreciate it

Of course. I really like the way you play in Tales of the REF. I'm happy to chat.

I'm unfamiliar with both systems (Apocalypse and Dungeon Worlds, that is), and for someone more used to rather "dnd-like" systems, the rules read a bit strange. It feels like if you're reading them with the wrong idea of rping in mind (by which I mean an idea that just doesn't go well with the system), you're constantly looking for something that is not supposed to be there. For example, skills or simple things like initiative order etc. - things you are used to, so to say. Therefore, it's great to get a post like yours, basically giving another guideline on how to read the whole thing.

Right. These games, as with many newer RPGs, use conflict resolution rather than task resolution. D&D and games like it use task resolution. Example: I swing my sword, Do I hit? Or: I pick the lock. Do I succeed? It's a pass/fail system with the larger goal still in the GM's hands. Something to keep in mind is that task resolution doesn't give the player room to affect the outcome directly. "Do I pick the lock?" says nothing about what's behind the door or why you're picking the lock. This style is where you need the skills to be spelled out for each task that the character is capable of.


Conflict resolution encompasses more than just a single swing of the sword. It's the fight's, or a larger part of the fight's, outcome. Here you're saying "I want to capture the villain" or "I want to break into the vault for the diamonds." See how the focuses shifts to a win/lose rather than a pass/fail? You can succeed but lose, fail but win. It's a subtle shift, but it's so powerful.


So, in a conflict resolution game, does initiative matter? Does meta-gaming? No. The conflict and its stakes are pulled away from the GM and still up for grabs.


For me, this was the hardest to wrap my brain around. My mind, stuck in task resolution mode from years of other games, kept trying to apply task resolution to the rules I was reading. For me, that's where the questions came in. "Okay, but where's the initiative? The turns? The rounds? The actions? etc." It's a rough shift, one I still to this day have trouble with my brain's habit.


A better explanation of task vs conflict resolution is here.

I've been in the situation that a character suddenly got an ability that more or less came from nowhere - a fitting one, but still a bit strange, since I more or less got it just because I happened to have enough exp. to level up. Is that, roughly speaking, what you have in mind when talking about the system? I've seen that Dungeon World seems to give out experience much more for roleplay-based achievements (if you want to call them like that) - the barbarian grabbing experience when talking about his homeland, someone resolving a bound, following your alignment - even failing grants exp, as if the pc would learn from the disaster. For me, that's quite unfamiliar, but if it works out the way it should (and it seems like that, since @Greyprobably wouldn't have suggested it otherwise), it's an approach I certainly could get behind.

Dungeon World gives you XP when you fail a roll or you resolve a bond you have with another character. Apocalypse World gives you XP for rolling the stats that have been "highlighted" and for working together with the other characters. "Highlighted" stats are chosen by a player/character who knows yo best and the MC (GM). Both are designed to incentivize specific parts of rules and drive the game.

Lastly, there is one thing I'm missing out on for now:

Dungeon World and Apocalypse World and many story games (narrative games, whatever you want to call them) have an opinion. They are DESIGNED to have an opinion.

Do you, with this, mean an opinion on how roleplay should happen, as described later in your post, or do you want to say more than that? In the first case, I think I understand the meaning, or if not, I at least wrote down something you could correct, in some sense. If you mean more than that, however, I haven't fully caught it so far, and it would be great if you could elaborate a bit more on that.

What I meant, and said poorly, is that the game has an opinion on how things look and feel when you're engaging the rules. As an example, in an all out fight in Apocalypse World, both sides exchange harm as established by the weapons and armor used. The rolling decides the outcome when the dust settles. That means the game's opinion is that direct combat is extremely dangerous and very easy to hurt each other. It says a lot about the world and the danger therein. The only way to directly fight is to accept harm to yourself. That's how the game is designed, whether or not the player agrees with it.


I hope this helps. Let me know. 

 

[Silanon]

Thanks again for the answer! Glad to hear that Shykrad seems to work out - wasn't always the case, it's rather the new situation that gave me a chance to refocus him a bit. Which brings us back to the topic: gming.


Conflict vs task resolution: It was interesting to see both your post and the linked article - really lines out the different mind sets of the systems from what I've seen so far.


For the exp: I've had the chance to watch a Dungeon World One-Shot on Youtube yesterday evening when I couldn't find sleep - and I have to say, I really like the way this worked out there. It felt like you were getting the exp for something that developed the character further, instead of for killing something along the way or disabling a trap. It's different, but seems to be much more focused on the characters.


As for the "opinion" - thanks for clarifying. It's subtle in some points, and it's nothing I would have thought about in this way, but it's certainly within the rules. With every attack, you automatically risk to be wounded on the back swing; a spell that doesn't quite work out doesn't just end in emptyness and having one spell slot less, instead it might work out at a cost that you rather would have avoided - and most likely many other things I haven't found yet.


I'd like to come back to that One-Shot once more, since it showed a few interesting things. Basically, the GM had prepared nothing at all - they started with creating their three characters, built the world around them on the fly, and came up with a plot just from looking at one of the characters, wondering why she had left her home land, and going from there. They made the bonds right after the creation, already giving them well-established connections to work with from the beginning. I found it quite impressive, and it seems to fit really well with what you called the "flow" of the game earlier.


Now I don't expect this to work on a forum basis - at least not on the first try. So what I'm planniing to do is to have a basic world set up - with enough space to fit in the character's different backgrounds, whatever they might want to come up with (in that particular case: swamp-elven druidess - no problem if you leave enough space on the map to fit a swamp in somewhere where it seems appropriate) and have a limited area where the characters are supposed to end up in the end. I thought of an island with a basic settlement on there, a few points of interest and a major plot line with an antagonist laid out - to be used as appropriate, or totally be dismissed if something else comes up instead. That would require the players to create a character with a reason to go there, and also would restrict the area - while orders from outside might change things and give an opportunity to direct the plot in a direction if necessary, it would limit the options that could come up a bit, making sure that things don't completely spiral out of control - as Grey wrote in his first post, restricting the location to something controllable might be a good idea when attempting gming for the first time. Does that seem like a basic foundation I could work with? Or is setting things up on an island too restrictive? Or not restricive enough?


Now, another point I'm unsure about is how to do the character creation, then. Would you let the players set uf the bonds etc before starting? I could see how that could end up in a problem, seeing that at that point, noone knows how each other person plans to play out their character. Only a few games I've joined featured already interwoven background stories, and that were usually just two people out of a bigger group knowing each other. This might go back on Dannigan's advice to choose the players carefully - but I would imagine that the group of people interested in the particular plot, playing Dungeon World and bearing a new GM might not be that big to choose from.

 

[WlfSamurai]

I have always run games on the fly. For better and worse. It's just something I've always been passionate about. With that said, I do it better than I did as a teenager. Then it was out of sheer laziness. Now, I get a lot of joy out of the discovery and emergent play that happens.

But, like you and Grey have underlined, on the fly or emergent doesn't have to be unprepared. Personally, I LOVE laying out a game in broad strokes. This is one of the many things that @Grey is a master at. He has a knack for giving fantastic, evocative, savory information without it being expository or a brain dump. I would look to his games to see how he does that.

But you need to consider how far you take it. I think "broad strokes" is the best way I can put how I do it. For me, that includes general setting (island or space colony or city, etc.), general resources, look, feel, and time period. Even with those I make it a conversation with the players.

Example: "So, this island. Why isn't it inhabited? You said it was off the coast and close."

Things my "broad strokes" never include: antagonists, plot, or even NPCs. These form naturally out of play for me. I'm in the minority on this site for that, though. So, I won't say more on that unless asked.

I agree on limiting the location in some way. This keeps the game contained and focused, like Grey said. It's not only a great way to start out, but is a blast to do when you have a bunch of games under you belt.

The bonds in a forum game, I think, work best when the characters are built already. Have them create their characters. While they do, just float the expectation that when they're finished, you'll have them work out their tie to each other. When it's time, have the players talk about their ties and decide.

One thing about RPNation, we have so much creativity here. I really don't think you'll have a problem finding players able to play the game inventing character ties.

 

[Grey]

Thanks for that refresher on conflict vs. task - that has actually jerked me out of a bit of a fog and given me some ideas.


I think conflict resolution is a model that works more naturally in a PBP context, but it also means the kinds of conflict are defined, giving a distinct tonal, thematic, and stylistic shape to the story.


AW is a good example of that - like Wlf says, if you get into combat you are going to get hurt.  But the conflicts for which it has rules limit the kinds of story it can tell; there's a seize by force roll with a list of outcomes you can choose, but there's no seize by guile. 


This isn't a bad thing, mind you; just pointing out there is a compromise in choosing that model of task resolution. 


I'll have a lengthier post up after I do my errands for the day just rambling about some of this stuff now it's in my head.

 

[WlfSamurai]

Thanks for that refresher on conflict vs. task - that has actually jerked me out of a bit of a fog and given me some ideas.


I think conflict resolution is a model that works more naturally in a PBP context, but it also means the kinds of conflict are defined, giving a distinct tonal, thematic, and stylistic shape to the story.


AW is a good example of that - like Wlf says, if you get into combat you are going to get hurt.  But the conflicts for which it has rules limit the kinds of story it can tell; there's a seize by force roll with a list of outcomes you can choose, but there's no seize by guile. 


This isn't a bad thing, mind you; just pointing out there is a compromise in choosing that model of task resolution. 


I'll have a lengthier post up after I do my errands for the day just rambling about some of this stuff now it's in my head.

Yes! Exactly. Though, as with everything there are exceptions. Burning Wheel has a conflict resolution system rather than task, but it uses skills and attributes that can be used for any conflict and the conflicts aren't pre-defined.


But a rare exception. 

 

[Silanon]

First of all, thanks for another round of responses.


Jumping in without at least a basic plot in mind is interesting - it's certainly a good start to not railroad the whole thing right from the beginning. I'll probably try to go for a broader interest check, outlining the main theme - then have a look what kind of characters show up to see if my basic plot idea would fit or if something else makes more sense - no point to tell a story of chivalry when the group consists of rogues, thieves and witches who don't care for anything else than their own sake (well, there is a point to tell such a story - and maybe it actually fits. Just wanted to say there might be something better, and it's not a good idea to force a plot onto a group that doesn't work well with it, I'd assume).


From what you wrote so far, there doesn't seem to be a system that covers everything - instead, you have to choose one that highlights those things that you feel are important, while leaving those aside that most likely won't matter all that much.


I got another question: How does the rolling work best for Dungeon World in a pbp setting? I think Dannigan wrote that he rolls all the things needed above, and with the lack of a on-site dice roller for now, that seems quite convenient. However, this doesn't seem to fit well with the system, seeing that many rolls require a choice to be made when rolling 7-9, or sometimes in other cases as well. Would you just try to interpret their post what their main focus is (for example, someone asks a few questions that require a roll - he gets one answer out of four or five questions when rolling his 8. Do you give him the most urgent answer, or do you let him make the choice himself?)? In some cases, that doesn't work out that way - if a spell barely makes it, it's a tactical decision by the player if he wants to forget the spell or rather get the attention of something else. Would you just put these questions in the OOC/a separate thread/in spoilers in the main thread so that they can then include their decision in their next post? In DnD, things are simpler since a roll is a roll - it doesn't require more decisions after that...