I really can't stand it when I figure out as a player that the GM has only one prescribed way of running the adventure, and the proof is that some NPC begins trying to course-correct the group on their plans. This NPC seems to the GM to be a helpful addition to the party, but to me such an NPC is obnoxious because the character is the embodiment of inflexibility of the GM. There are some situations in a game that have logical rails. If you are trapped in a garbage smasher then your options are obviously and understandably limited.

But Pre-Made adventures and adventures that the GM lovingly prepped are not given up easily, and therefore the players must find the right frequency across the spectrum in order to succeed. The way that I find a lot of GMs do this is not the good way: by describing that some plan isn't a good option by having them try it. Even better would be if the GM would simply adapt to the players plan and throw wrenches into it without invalidating it. The players are usually very satisfied in that situation because thy felt like their plan was worthy, that their choices not only mattered but were the kinds of choices that heroes might make. If their plan sucks too bad then ok I think they get their consequences, but if they have an ok plan why not make it happen to some degree? Instead they have an NPC simply tell them "go that way," or "I think you should do x."

For other Emergent GMs do you use this NPC much?

For you On-the-rails GMs how do you go about keeping your players on the tracks? Do you use this NPC or try to do other things instead?

If I've got rails—and we all do, it's just a question of how often we use them—I try to make them location-agnostic. Meaning: if I give the players a choice between three planets to start the search for a lucrative bounty, the major encounters I have planned will work for any of them. Some of the details might change, but the major NPCs I need will be there, the conflict I'm envisioning will come to pass, and the rewards/consequences will be almost identical. If I have the time, I'll plan some location-specific minor encounters or draw up alternate versions of certain encounters to take advantage of each planet's uniqueness, but that's just a bonus.

On a smaller scale, when they're infiltrating the Imperial facility and come to a T-intersection, it doesn't matter if they go right or left. Their first choice always leads to the first obstacle I want them to deal with. I'll still reward them for doing prep work ahead of time, like stealing a schematic of the facility... but if I want them to end up in the Dark Trooper lab, then the officer whose code cylinders they want to steal will be in there.

As for NPCs, I try to make sure any given NPC only has one good idea and/or character trait that will help the party, and are otherwise unhelpful. Right now, in one of my campaigns, they're traveling with three NPCs in particular: a spy, a researcher, and an apprentice. The spy can help with stealth and subterfuge, but that's also her answer to everything. She wants to blackmail everybody, even her allies, in order to ensure cooperation. The researcher only wants to do more of his work, so he's constantly trying to drag the PCs to remote locations for him to study ancient ruins, whether or not they have anything to do with the task at hand. And the apprentice is so eager to prove herself that she'll enthusiastically endorse any plan that guarantees glory... and she doesn't care what the group's chances of survival are.

For other supporting NPCs, I just always give them something else to focus on. The group is traveling on a rebel frigate right now, and while the commander has orders to support the PCs to the best of his ability, he's also responsible for making sure his ship and crew get home safely. He's not willing to take undue risks. The guide they hired is secretly a plant by one of their enemies in order to lead them into an ambush. In that case, actually, the guide being weirdly insistent was a tip-off that she wasn't what she appeared to be.

And if they decide to go too far off the rails, then I let them. But that lets the bad guy complete their current project unopposed, which can lead to complications later. I tried to run the group through Mask of the Pirate Queen , but they ultimately decided they didn't want to work for the person who told them to take down the Veiled Sorority—in my game, someone who had a personal tie to the group, rather than the Zann Consortium. That ended up having consequences: not only is their employer now after them for their betrayal, but they also managed to take control of the Sorority anyway and now have those resources at their disposal.

In short, as long as your players' actions have consequences that are readily apparent, even if they're on the railroadiest of rails, they won't complain. (At least, not about the rails.) But that probably means being ready to eject that pre-made adventure module or those carefully crafted plans and go with your gut.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

For other Emergent GMs do you use this NPC much?

For you On-the-rails GMs how do you go about keeping your players on the tracks? Do you use this NPC or try to do other things instead?

Not anymore, no. Instead I use relationship-mapping and give each NPC a list of motives/goals/needs/wants. I don't railroad anything, but if I have an encounter or setpiece that I want to introduce, I make sure it's one that can be put along any path they choose.

I have found in my groups that players tend to be most invested in plots that they stumble onto, and that tie into their own motivations. When adapting Beyond the Rim for my group, I changed up the hook immensely to get their interest. The original backstory involves this cool story about a hyperspace pod being discovered adrift and delivered to the heir of a corporation, and that heir being the hiring party. The hook was "you get hired". Instead, I decided that my players were the ones who bumped into this hyperspace pod in the middle of one of their adventures. When they wrapped that adventure up, they decided they wanted to investigate this hyperspace pod-thing. It lead to it's own adventure of figuring out what it was, and finding the right infochants and slicers to muck about with it, etc. It eventually lead them to the heir of the corp (it required his family's DNA to access, they eventually learned), and they got to decide how (or if) to kick off the treasure hunt. They could negotiate with it, sell it/turn it over, and I was even prepared for them to get a blood sample to unlock it on their own and go after the treasure themselves (all while being shadowed by interested parties, of course). I was also prepared for them to not give a toss about the pod or the treasure hunt, and for them to go explore any other number of dangling threads or character motivations.

The Beyond the Rim adventure book stopped being an adventure on rails, and became a treasure map of setpieces and NPC's with their own motivations. My players loved it, and I had a blast adapting it for our table.

7 hours ago, Archlyte said:

For other Emergent GMs do you use this NPC much?

Nope. I write situations instead of stories, so there's no real tracks to go off of. If they're completely disinterested in a given hook, then I obviously didn't bait it properly; so I'll just move on to the next thing and either rehook it later or recycle the material into something else.

The only time I use that kind of NPC is when I'm pretty sure that the players have forgotten something important.

6 hours ago, Vorzakk said:

Nope. I write situations instead of stories, so there's no real tracks to go off of.

The best bit about doing things this way is that you, as a GM, don't become attached to the really clever/cool way you thought of to solve a problem.
I had a GM who was fell in to this trap, and didn't realise that it made his games less fun because he thought we'd really enjoy the great solution to the problem. It didn't occur to him that it made the adventures feel like an old text adventure or a guessing game, rather than our own story where we lived or died by our own ingenuity/luck.

I think most of us use the GM NPC PARTY MEMBER crutch as new GMs. As with most things, the more experience you have in practicing a skill the easier and more fluid using that skill becomes.

I never write material in detail. I design broad themes that involve key NPCs. Research background material on places that may crop up and drop story arc material into the universe as my players explore it.

The key to telling a successful story is never say no to anything out of hand, it is fine to deny a request with 'no, but...' If the players try to do something, roll with it and give it a believable outcome for why something can or cant be done.

React to player situations but weave the direction the players are going with the story that your campaign is telling. The bones of your story arc support the flesh that the players grow upon it.

A common mistake is to make very rigid set pieces that have no storytelling flexibility, railroading players or taking away player agency is the fastest way to upset your group. The best experiences come from making the players go where you want them to whilst thinking it was their idea in the first place.

Most of all have fun.

6 hours ago, Urbane Spaceman said:

The best bit about doing things this way is that you, as a GM, don't become attached to the really clever/cool way you thought of to solve a problem.
I had a GM who was fell in to this trap, and didn't realise that it made his games less fun because he thought we'd really enjoy the great solution to the problem. It didn't occur to him that it made the adventures feel like an old text adventure or a guessing game, rather than our own story where we lived or died by our own ingenuity/luck.

This! Yes I feel like the solitary GM-sponsored solution is the issue. It has to be that way some times because of logic, but more often it seems like the GM is invested in the adventure resolving as envisioned and trying to keep the players from exercising ingenuity from their vantage point. I find it really frustrating when the GM does this and decides that we have to simply find that one right answer and anything else we find to be fun is cut.

20 hours ago, CaptainRaspberry said:

If I've got rails—and we all do, it's just a question of how often we use them—I try to make them location-agnostic. Meaning: if I give the players a choice between three planets to start the search for a lucrative bounty, the major encounters I have planned will work for any of them. Some of the details might change, but the major NPCs I need will be there, the conflict I'm envisioning will come to pass, and the rewards/consequences will be almost identical. If I have the time, I'll plan some location-specific minor encounters or draw up alternate versions of certain encounters to take advantage of each planet's uniqueness, but that's just a bonus.

On a smaller scale, when they're infiltrating the Imperial facility and come to a T-intersection, it doesn't matter if they go right or left. Their first choice always leads to the first obstacle I want them to deal with . I'll still reward them for doing prep work ahead of time, like stealing a schematic of the facility... but if I want them to end up in the Dark Trooper lab, then the officer whose code cylinders they want to steal will be in there.

As for NPCs, I try to make sure any given NPC only has one good idea and/or character trait that will help the party, and are otherwise unhelpful. Right now, in one of my campaigns, they're traveling with three NPCs in particular: a spy, a researcher, and an apprentice. The spy can help with stealth and subterfuge, but that's also her answer to everything. She wants to blackmail everybody, even her allies, in order to ensure cooperation. The researcher only wants to do more of his work, so he's constantly trying to drag the PCs to remote locations for him to study ancient ruins, whether or not they have anything to do with the task at hand. And the apprentice is so eager to prove herself that she'll enthusiastically endorse any plan that guarantees glory... and she doesn't care what the group's chances of survival are.

For other supporting NPCs, I just always give them something else to focus on. The group is traveling on a rebel frigate right now, and while the commander has orders to support the PCs to the best of his ability, he's also responsible for making sure his ship and crew get home safely. He's not willing to take undue risks. The guide they hired is secretly a plant by one of their enemies in order to lead them into an ambush. In that case, actually, the guide being weirdly insistent was a tip-off that she wasn't what she appeared to be.

And if they decide to go too far off the rails, then I let them. But that lets the bad guy complete their current project unopposed, which can lead to complications later. I tried to run the group through Mask of the Pirate Queen , but they ultimately decided they didn't want to work for the person who told them to take down the Veiled Sorority—in my game, someone who had a personal tie to the group, rather than the Zann Consortium. That ended up having consequences: not only is their employer now after them for their betrayal, but they also managed to take control of the Sorority anyway and now have those resources at their disposal.

In short, as long as your players' actions have consequences that are readily apparent, even if they're on the railroadiest of rails, they won't complain. (At least, not about the rails.) But that probably means being ready to eject that pre-made adventure module or those carefully crafted plans and go with your gut.

Thanks for this, and for the record I think that Quantum Ogres are fine as long as the players do not smell the nature of them. I think that even if you are using a pre-made adventure the ability to let it go at a moment's notice is a key skill. It's like in the movie Heat when Robert Deniro says that you have to be able to let it all go as soon as you feel the Heat, that's the discipline

5 minutes ago, SirSaiCo said:

I think most of us use the GM NPC PARTY MEMBER crutch as new GMs. As with most things, the more experience you have in practicing a skill the easier and more fluid using that skill becomes.

I never write material in detail. I design broad themes that involve key NPCs. Research background material on places that may crop up and drop story arc material into the universe as my players explore it.

The key to telling a successful story is never say no to anything out of hand, it is fine to deny a request with 'no, but...' If the players try to do something, roll with it and give it a believable outcome for why something can or cant be done.

React to player situations but weave the direction the players are going with the story that your campaign is telling. The bones of your story arc support the flesh that the players grow upon it.

A common mistake is to make very rigid set pieces that have no storytelling flexibility, railroading players or taking away player agency is the fastest way to upset your group. The best experiences come from making the players go where you want them to whilst thinking it was their idea in the first place.

Most of all have fun.

I think this highlights for me a good principle:

Pre made material isn't the enemy, being slaved to it is.

I think Fun is extremely important, I agree. For me sometimes I find that the recipe for fun has some ingredients that are necessary, and some that spoil the cake.

Pre made material is like a buffet, pick it over and take what you like, leave the rest that doesnt suit you.

I can hint at something being a really bad idea out of character just fine if it comes to that, no NPC involvement necessary. If the PCs want to continue on their chosen path anyway, that’s ok too.

On 5/22/2018 at 8:50 PM, Vorzakk said:

Nope. I write situations instead of stories, so there's no real tracks to go off of.

I write stories that seem like situations, then I use CaptainRaspberry's method of making crises and resolutions be location-agnostic. This way, a story seems to emerge organically from the situation. Occasionally I'll throw in a complaint about "wow, you guys are really doing the unexpected, whatever will I do?"--slap hand to forehead---and the players gloat amongst themselves meanwhile not knowing that no matter what they do, the story is unfolding.

On rare occasions I do get thrown for a loop, and it's important not to panic, in fact, it's usually an opportunity to rewrite the story for the better.

And no, NPCs that guide the situation are a big no-no IMHO. I have a friend that does this, to the point of having his NPC deny a PC's actions. It's really annoying, but we've been friends for a long time, and he has other strengths that make up for it.

I think it's preferable to have the location and situation do the explaining rather than have an NPC do it under most circumstances. I recently encountered NPCs like this in a friend's game where the NPC was friendly to the group but in a position of power, and was used to essentially critique the PCs choices both before and after the fact. I have a boss at work for that sort of thing and I am paid to endure his well-applied pedantry.

I say let the players feel competent by having their ideas come to life and sometimes have awesome outcomes. The GM may feel like he has the best idea for resolution but I think it's often only a matter of perception.

Also I really appreciate what Whafrog said about having stories that seem like situations. I think if you are going to do any prep of that sort then logically available choices and quantum ogres are the way to go.

On 5/22/2018 at 2:10 PM, Archlyte said:

1. For other Emergent GMs do you use this NPC much?

2. For you On-the-rails GMs how do you go about keeping your players on the tracks?

3. Do you use this NPC or try to do other things instead?

1. I currently run a group of mostly Padawans in the old republic that are under the guidance and tutelage of a Jedi Knight. Out of game I informed them he is mostly there to help train them (I have houserules on stuff in the compiled resources thread). He offers assistance now and then but just like a teacher might test their students, the Jedi leaves decision making up to the group and only offers guidance when they seem to want it. That means for the most part he's in the background, off doing something himself or using powers like Battle Meditation. He did assist them in a large combat that took place recently... It was a do or die moment for the entire group and though none died, several are now maimed and heavily injured.

2. The rails are more like guidelines really. I have an overall plot arc, mostly with a beginning and end worked out and a few major points along the way. The rest, as Yoda says, "always in motion is the future". The end I have planned may never come to pass, or it might indeed come about slightly differently. If I keep my notes minimal, then I don't worry about keeping everyone on a singular pathway and I am more flexible with the journey.

3. I usually prefer not to have an NPC tag-along with the group. In this case, it makes sense for mr Jedi Knight to be leading this small group of padawans, but as the life of a Jedi is sacrifice, it's not likely he will always be with them. I just gotta make sure they like the character before something drastic happens to him...

28 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

1. I currently run a group of mostly Padawans in the old republic that are under the guidance and tutelage of a Jedi Knight. Out of game I informed them he is mostly there to help train them (I have houserules on stuff in the compiled resources thread). He offers assistance now and then but just like a teacher might test their students, the Jedi leaves decision making up to the group and only offers guidance when they seem to want it. That means for the most part he's in the background, off doing something himself or using powers like Battle Meditation. He did assist them in a large combat that took place recently... It was a do or die moment for the entire group and though none died, several are now maimed and heavily injured.

2. The rails are more like guidelines really. I have an overall plot arc, mostly with a beginning and end worked out and a few major points along the way. The rest, as Yoda says, "always in motion is the future". The end I have planned may never come to pass, or it might indeed come about slightly differently. If I keep my notes minimal, then I don't worry about keeping everyone on a singular pathway and I am more flexible with the journey.

3. I usually prefer not to have an NPC tag-along with the group. In this case, it makes sense for mr Jedi Knight to be leading this small group of padawans, but as the life of a Jedi is sacrifice, it's not likely he will always be with them. I just gotta make sure they like the character before something drastic happens to him...

Thank you for this GG. Your description of this sounds wonderful to me. I think that the GM NPC can be just fine as long as it doesn't cross into the territory of being someone whom the Players resent. Buy-In is the universal catalyst for all things TTRPG, so with enough Buy-In you can get away with murder But I find that in talking with other GM's that determining the mount of enthusiasm that the players have in the moment can be a tough thing to measure, and I know that there have been times where I was too busy to try and gauge it during the session.

On 5/29/2018 at 10:07 AM, Archlyte said:

...quantum ogres...

lol, that pretty much nails it.

I've never used GM's Little Helper NPCs for the reasons you've listed. As a GM, I only intrude on cross-player discussion in order to correct misstatements and I don't need an NPC to do that.

If, for whatever reason, the GM needs to move the plot in a certain direction, there are a myriad of other techniques for that.

On 5/23/2018 at 9:40 AM, SirSaiCo said:

I think most of us use the GM NPC PARTY MEMBER crutch as new GMs. As with most things, the more experience you have in practicing a skill the easier and more fluid using that skill becomes.

Gm-ing my first game of SAGA back in the day I made this mistake. I made an NPC pilot since Space combat was light and none of the players wanted to. I intended his role to be purely support, but I fell into the trap of using him one too many times to "steer the party" with "helpful suggestions". I think the players resented the loss of perceived Agency, and Thus the character became infamous among the group and treated with suspicion and distrust and with one of the players repeatedly suggesting murdering the NPC for fear he(I) would use him to betray them. It ending up turning the game into a much more "Players vs the GM" situation, and negatively affected the game.

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 8:32 AM, ThreeAM said:

Gm-ing my first game of SAGA back in the day I made this mistake. I made an NPC pilot since Space combat was light and none of the players wanted to. I intended his role to be purely support, but I fell into the trap of using him one too many times to "steer the party" with "helpful suggestions". I think the players resented the loss of perceived Agency, and Thus the character became infamous among the group and treated with suspicion and distrust and with one of the players repeatedly suggesting murdering the NPC for fear he(I) would use him to betray them. It ending up turning the game into a much more "Players vs the GM" situation, and negatively affected the game.

Thanks for your post on this Three. I think you nailed it with the idea of the players resenting the attack on their agency. It's like someone who knows the answer to something not giving you the chance to solve it on your own, or have it be what you see it being like.

Personally, I use relationship mapping, doomsday clocks, and mostly location agnostic adventures. In this last campaign I had little more "rails" than I typically do as they had set objectives. To compensate I simply made sure the players had ample opportunities to come at the problems from many different angles.

My next campaign is a F&D/Edge game, and plot is going to revolve more around the doomsday clocks, and relationships with a good deal of treasure hunting.

On 5/22/2018 at 11:10 AM, Archlyte said:

Instead they have an NPC

This is one thing I often see newer GMs missing when they want to bring in their GMPC to the mix to Mary Sue things up: all NPCs are GMPCs.

While all GMs have their darlings, it's fun to let the players think, "oh great, a GM PC, this is going to go well" and then off the NPC a few scenes down the road. Eliciting an emotional response in this meta sort of way is a fun dirty trick.

I might use one to set up a scenario up to a jumping off point where the PCs are aware of the situation in a natural way (say, they're hired for a job and are being walked through the specifics, or need exposition on a situation in the environment that will pose a complication/threat) then the NPC either disappears or reacts accordingly to the situation. They may argue or dispute the PCs in character, but they won't outright halt the adventure.

If the situation is plainly obvious/needs to be learned through subtle background queues then this NPC won't be used.