Hello everybody. I kind'a have a problem. I feal my games/scenarios ar to straight forward, and don't give my players manny options on what to do and what they experience. What do you think is the easyest way to give the players more freedom and still have good entertaining sessions?

Is it: Just aske the players what they do, and just improvise

or: write several events and just pick the once you feel fits the situation best?

What's your take on this?

Hi Croma,

I use something I would call the "at least three" approach. This means I try to sink about a problem the players shall handle and try to think about at least three different ways to solve the problem.

In addition, try to work out "must be solved" problems and "might be solved". The later will give extra xp, but the players will be able to solve the plot without solving these "minor problems". This might be a co-conspiritor they did not catch, a hint to supporter of the evil they did not caught or anything like that.

All in all, I try to Imagine what will happen if they do not solve the mission (or the minor problems). If they don´t...well, they don´t.

...or door number 3!

Usually I don't map out a series of encounters or the like, I decide (or they do, depending if their characters are under the direction of a superior or if they're pursuing their own agendas) upon a situation with a MacGuffin. Second, i figure out the settings that the Plot will take place in. Once the plot and MacGuffin is decided and I have a setting in mind, I then create the various groups or individuals who are caught up in the plot or have a vested interest in the MacGuffin and whom will come into conflict with one another in their pursuit of the MacGuffin or just to survive because they're caught in the Plot. Finally, I decide how events will play out if the PCs do absolutely nothing -which never happens, but it gives me a base-line for deciding who dose what and how as well as the general shape of events before the players start mucking with it. At the start of the game, the PCs are tossed into the mix to do what they want how ever they will and I simply keep track of what all the major players on the field know, how they respond to the PCs actions and the actions of each other, and let events play out how ever they will to what ever conclusion they come to.

I guess to sum up my process, I come up with a screwed-up situation, come up with a fist full of screwed-up people to be involved with said situation who also don't like one another, toss the PCs into the mix, shake well, and see what falls out. Voila, instant choices -piles of them because there's no set way anything is to go, just a situation, setting, and NPCs to be interacted with and reacted to how ever the PCs see fit. The major thing to keep in mind with this approach is the NPCs should always have rivals. This insures that exciting things continue to happen even if the PCs decide to sit on their hands as well as giving the PCs the wonderfully noir option of playing one side against the other -one of my favorite things to see happen especially if the PCs hate most all sides involved where one hated side "losing" means the other hated side "wins".

I guess I use a similar approach to Graver.

I come up with the general plot, the essential items and characters for the story and then come up with a general framework of the plot. You have the opening moves and player introduction to the problem that can largely be scripted out, then I either give them a chance to gather some information or toss them right into an ongoing situation. As soon as this happens player choices and actions are going to start making changes to your original story plan: This is just fine! I will have worked out a list of events (and possibly times/circumstances) of things that WILL happen regardless of player action/inaction as well as a list of potential events depending on certain "likely" player actions. After that you need to improvise based on what your players do and how well they pull their plans and ideas off and then figure out what their opponents know about the situation and what they will do because of the in-game events. Repeat the action/reaction sequence until a fixed event comes along or a major plot development is reached. If all goes well then they will be rewarded by a dramatic (and hopefully cool) finale scene. They crushed their foes, managed to scrape together a painful victory or perhaps had their butts handed to them, but they have (hopefully) survived to report on the events of their mission to their Inquisitor or Interrogator.

Do something smart, clever or downright cunning and unexpected? Good player, have a cookie! Do something utterly stupid and ill-timed? Cudos if it was done in character , but there are likely to be unfortunate consequences either way. The way I see it, DH is a game ultimately about choices and consequences. All the bolters, powerblades and psi-bolts are really just awesome stage-dressing.

indeed, like Graver and ZillaPrime,I organise the setting before the game starts. I basically invent an "evil plot that must be stopped" and then map out all the relationships between the evil cult and the rest of society, connecting various organisation and groups so that the PCs can follow these thinks and discover the evil cult. There will be multiple entry points into this through different groups, depending on what they pursue the mission will run differently.

I've always tended to organize my games into nodes. The trick is to set tasks which must be accomplished, perhaps a suggestion or two about possible paths and then let the PC's go to work. It requires some fairly extensive campaign building in order for you to be prepared for whatever they might do, so make sure your major players are well defined, at least in your mind. Then just let the nodes fall into one another. For example, the PC's are charged with investigating an official who has been failing in his duties and fix it. Now from here you could: talk to him, benignly gather information, spy/infiltrate, etc. Maybe some scum tell them they saw him visiting the hideout of some shady characters. They can take this and go back to step 1, confronting him, and he'll reveal that a loved one was kidnapped. Maybe he's lying. Or perhaps the characters immediately advance to node 2, the Seedy Hideout, and proceed from there.

Just have some broad challenges prepared, know the key players (major NPC's and adventure locales are the most obvious) allow for inventiveness on the part of your PC's, and give suggestions when they seem to have lost the trail. This provides a decent balance between a sandbox-like freedom and levels of preparation which do not break the GM's mind. Remember that the DH system has inbuilt restrictiveness: a strict supervisor, Imperial Creed, limitations in travel and communication. It is best, thus, to err on the side of indefiniteness. You can always throw a line to PC's who are floundering without direction but it's well-nigh impossible to disguise a rail-strict adventure path.

Like the previous posts said, always prepare the background so you can easier improvise.

A key to being a good GM (in my opinion) is to keep from going "meta". Never tell the players what the motivations of the NPCs are, and never give players an idea on what is going on in an overall descriptive term. It is the GM's curse to never be able to tell the players about all the brilliant background planning.

The players must discover as much as they can through acting in the world and getting reactions from the world. And you can help this by always describing too much rather than too little. I have often seen players that get stuck starting talking to unimportant NPCs I have described earlier, and that gives a perfect opening to help them continue in the plot. I have also seen players that find the minor characters more fun than the major characters, and with a little twisting of the plot those game session can turn out quite memorable.

My point is that if you go "meta" you are likely to get your players to go "meta" as well, and then the role playing game turns into a strategy game. Always keep the immersion factor in mind when you run your games.

One of the many reasons I love DH is that it is ultimately about the characters and the painful, soul-encumbering choices they make and the bad-ass ways that they act upon those choices. Yeah, nice gear is nice... But it is just stuff. The character using the stuff is what makes it awesome. This game really pulls that off much better than most others out there, and does it in a truely EPIC setting! My group recently finished Tattered Fates and will be transitioning back to having "nice things", but it really did drive home the point. My players got to see each-other's characters doing absolutely amazing things with almost literally NOTHING! More than once the Riddick and the teacup scene was used in gleeful comparison to something awesome done during that mission. I had lots of index cards made up with even the most minute "resource" listed on them, and if a character didn't have it on a card, they didn't have it.... This led to stuff like "Ok, so I have this rusty knife made from wire and a broken saw-blade, two shoelaces, a dead guy with a gold tooth, a broken stub-revolver with no ammo and a sock with 'left' written on it... Those bad guys are SO dead!"

Plan out your background material well and leave room to adapt on the fly when they throw you unforseen curves (and they WILL!). Give them several possible ways to "solve" the mission. Have the "bad guys" react to things the players do, but only based on things that they would reasonably know: The key here is to make the villains smart and dangerous, but NOT omniscient.... Unless that particular villain IS omniscient! Don't be afraid to have PC actions lead to abject failure, various shades of success, and the occasional crushing victory! You can also have thoughtless PC actions not have a direct cost to themselves, but perhaps their casual approach to a situation leads to several bystanders (or conscripted minions!) suffering horrible consequences. Sure, no one's character suffered any wounds or burned Fate, but seeing how they react to such things is a pretty good mirror into their souls. When they realize that they are not playing D&D any more and their actions can and WILL have consequences that shape the plot development they will get alot more involved in the story. This in turn helps you out, since you get a much better feel for what makes the Characters sit up and take notice and can craft ever more intricate story arcs for them to awesome their way through, which makes for a more enjoyable game. For my current group GMing my DH game is not a chore, it is FUN! Not since WEG's D6 Star Wars have I been able to say that about a game with such enthusiasm.

Random closing thought: If you have written out a dramatic "Bond villain" monologue for an exciting unveiling scene, for the love of the Throne, bolt the Assassin and the Guardsman to a table with a laser death-trap first! Otherwise they will recreate the "Bandit King" scene from The Gamers . Probably want to do that to the Arbitrator and Psyker too... Oh, and the Adept.... And the Tech Priest.... And their parrot Cyber-skull.... That really HOT NPC should be tied up too, but somewhere else that is nearby so they will need rescuing! <evil laughter and pinky held to mouth> You should also probably resist the urge to dress the mooks in butterfly costumes...

Thought for the day: "Brock Sampson, Throne Agent!"