Hello all,

This is an idea that I have been thinking of, but is really quite daunting, and I am interested to see what you all think.

As I see it, there are two approaches to GMing an RPG.

A) GM Drives the story: The GM artfully creates plot hooks that the player grab on to and follow. This approach is the sort of "standard" one as I see it, create a framework that the players play around in, ad lib here and there to fill in blanks that you didnt expect etc.

B) Players drive the story: this has always proven to be very difficult from the GM chair, mostly because of the obvious lack of ability to plan.

So, as I see it, somewhere in between those two is the sort of game that I want to run. My idea is to create an open and LIVING world in which the players drive the story. the key word here (and the part that will be the absolutely most difficult to pull off) is the living part. I am going to attempt to create agendas for all of the major players (inquisition, ad mech, xenos factions etc.) and they will spur events based on their agendas, simultaneously, interacting with each other regardless of the players actions. Basically, If the players sit in their ship and do nothing, the should be able to witness wars, military action, rebellion, regular imperial operation, xenos incurrsion...all of the things that would actually be going on in reality. They will then simply pursue their endeavors as they would if this were all REAL. I am essentially wanting to create a life simulation as realistically as possible within this setting and framework. There is no plot, there is no story, its just a rogue trader, his crew, and dynasty. Essentially its the extreme end of the players driving the story, however because of the agendas of the players, I as the GM will more or less be prepared for it.

What do you think, I am not actually sure whether I even stated anything new, or just re-iterated, but thoughts would be welcome.

Your players will hate you. Sounds like you're going to deny them any real capability to affect the universe in favour of you sitting in front of the players telling them all the awesome things that the other groups are getting up to.

Rogue Trader is easy to plan for. It just requires that your players be a bit proactive. Ask them what they want to do at the start of a campaign, plan the major parts out and fill in the rest as necessary.

Stuff is going to happen that the players are not involved in. That is important for your players to understand, and it is good that you acknowledge this fact.

How you handle this is very important. What you absolutely should not do is use this as an excuse for everyone and everything to be prepared for anything your players could possibly do. Sometimes the rest of the universe is going to be prepared, especially if your players go out of their way to brag about what they are going to do. Sometimes they will catch a break. What is important is that your player's actions play a role in things.

Errant said:

I think we have a mis understanding. I did not mean to imply that my players will not be able to impact the universe. Quite the opposite in fact. I was trying to lay the groundwork of the universe and create a whole series of events simultaneously occurring, (based on the motivations of the major factions) that the players can interact with, and by doing so, shape and change to their advantage. My mission was to try to create less of a specific set of scenarios for the players, and more of a real living world for them to shape/rule.

Kalec Fash said:

As unpredictable as my players are, I doubt that any organization (baring the use of spies or other) will be much prepared for the players actions. I just want to sort of fully flesh out their agendas, so that I have a good idea as to how they should react to the players actions, and also to better let the players sort of run the story. Less of me creating adventures, and more of them just going around, sort of sandbox style.

Heh, what you have just described is, what i like to call...good GMing.

Both of the former methods are, for all intents and purposes, 'bad' GMing. One leave the universe feeling cardboard, and the other leaves them feeling like they have no real control, just choices presented by the GM.

So good job, most GMs never realize there is a happy middle ground that both gives their characters real choices and still has a vibrant, exciting universe. So just remember, you're job is to provide the universe and the occasional interesting situation, and then let your players figure it out. You don't NEED to 'tailor' encounters, you just make situations. The fun thing is that this forces the players to do things besides the same old, boring, well rounded combat. Sometimes they will sneak, sometimes they will use diplomacy, and sometimes they will utterly dominate.

But the funnest thing about this method of GMing is naturally cinematic it is. You will be amazed at the cool scenarios that you never could have planned for. You're players will grow as gamers, stop meta-gaming, and learn to think outside the box for solutions, because they will know there isn't a 'solution' to every situation, and that there is no guarentee that they can actually win every fight they pick. They will look for new ways to expoit situations, instead of looking for plot hooks, because they know the universe does NOT revolve around them.

They will start collecting interesting equipment and preparing for unexpected situations, because the adventures they run into generate naturally.

So good job in figuring it out. It is how gaming should be done, but rarely is. No railroading, no 2 dimensional 'sandboxes' where nothing really happens. Just a real, compelling universe that has the benefit of a director to keep things interesting.

riplikash said:

Thanks for the reply!

So, in your experience what is the best way to start. Just pick an organization and start thinking about what it is doing / reacting to? I think ive got the base concepts here, the task at hand seems a bit daunting. Thanks again for your thoughts. I really do appreciate it.

taranwanderer76 said:

So there are two parts to this kind of game: Preperation and gming skill

Preperation

The real key to this type of GMing is to know your NPCs well enough that you can react without a script, and that involves fleshing them out. If you flesh out their motives and personalities well enough you can ad-lib encounters with them in a fashion that is more dynamic and realistic than in a scripted campaign. In this instance when I say "NPCs" I am referring to both individuals and organizations.

Obviuosly the first thing you need is to flesh out the big stuff:

• foreground organizations that your players will interact with
• background organizations that work behind the scenes to be discovered
• Rivals
• Major personalities on the ship

So that is your foundation. It requires some work, but not a ton. Here are a few of mine:

Admeral Bastille:
presence: Older, proper man wearing lots of military regalia. Slightly british. Stiff upper lip. Commander. superiority complex. Delusions of grandure (somwhat justified). aggressive, strait forward, non-diplomatic.
Main goals: expand his influence
resources: Big fleet, moderate tactical acumen
Interactions: always uses his troops or ships. Very heavy handed, unlikely to deal, would rather just take what he wants.

Captain Haderak Fel:
Presence: effeminate, fopish, foolish, and shallow exterior. Actually a tactical genius, cunning, and loves to be in the middle of the action. Loyal to the ideals of nobility
Main goals: to test his wits against the best and come out ahead. has heroic tendencies as well.
resources: excellent swordsmen, cunning, tactically brilliant. Also has a powerful psyker who always brings at least 2 battle servitors.
Interactions: always personally involved while playing the fool. Loves to expose himself to dangerous situations, but always has an ace up his sleeve to keep from getting hurt. Trucky, cunning, tactically brilliant, usually two steps ahead of the players. Likes to make fun of them and the way they dress

Captain Feckwad
Presence: weasley, ratty, always grinning, prefferably behind his back as he runs away
Main goals: Money, as quickly and easily as possible. Saving his own neck
interactions: Tries to avoid danger. Loves to set traps and run cons. Players usually arrive in time to see his back dissapearing into the distance.

GMing skills

Now your most important skill is being able to balance smoke and mirrors with real, honest plots and events.

You are trying to make the game feel cinematic and planned out with a real sense of accomplishment and discover. They need to be able to overcome and think outside of the box, and the universe has to feel real and consistant. This requires planned out scenarios.

You are also trying to give the players choice, make the world feel real, not like a video game, and let them drive the plot. This requires smoke and mirrors to pull off.

To get both at once you have to become a master of the skills of bother and combine them into a single, cohesive whole.

Planning skills

Think of it like a video game: your planning is a loading screen: it takes time to do, and if they leave the loaded area everything falls apart. But just like a good video game, you can use tricks to make the loading seemless. Try to find out at the end of a session where they plan to go next, then you can prepare properly for the next session, while still allowing them to choose the course.

When planning scenarios focus on making them realistic, and never plan out solutions, story flow, or climatic moments. And don't 'tailor' encounters to your party.

Your job is just to come up with interesting scenarios (a base, 5000 troops, mad warlord obsessed with the color red, void shielding, exterior power generator, limestone caves underneath, corrupt guard, condiment shipment comes in on Tuesdays). Don't plan out solutions, climaxes, or story flow. Your players can figure it out from there, and no matter what they choose to do it wont "break" your encounter, because you didn't PLAN a solution. Mind control, orbital bombardment, blackmail, frontal assault, sneaking in, all are valid approaches, because you just made a realistic scenario, and they chose how to approach it. Sometimes they have to run, sometimes sneak, sometimes it is a total curb stomp, and all of those are valid outcomes that your players will enjoy.

Smoke and mirrors:

Trying to actually keep track of EVERYTHING EVER is a mistake. Keep track of enough to keep things feeling real, but use some smoke and mirrors to keep things cinematic and fun.

Like schrodners cat, until something is observed it can exist in any state, and what the player can't see they will supply.

You only need to actually plan out what the players will encounter, not everything that is happening in the background.

Leave yourself lots of 'hooks'-encounters and mysteries-that you can tie together later into a cohesive whole. Villains can appear at appropriate times, and traps can be set, if it makes sense, even if you didn't plan it all out.

For instance, currently there is a 'mutinous' movement on my players ship. So far their encounters have included: a mysterious leader, a hostage situation, a mysterious smuggling in the middle of the night with one of their own shuttles bringing in the supplies, and terrorist bombings bringing down their shields JUST before an Eldar ambush. My players have numerous theories on what is going on, how their enemies know where they are going to be, who is leading it, and who they are allied with. Now, don't tell my players, but honestly, I'm not entirely sure what is going on. I have some ideas, and every new encounter narrows down the possabilities, but in keeping it open I can always keep it pertinant to the campaign and never feels out of place, or like an unimportant side story. I know the basics, but I keep the details fluid. Eventually it will all come to a head and an amazing, intricate, and compelling plot will surface...I just don't know what it is yet.

Finally, in any major combat scenario, make sure at least one player enters into critical hit range, even if you have to fudge a die roll behind your GM screen. It keeps things feeling dangerous without requireing you to kill of players. Plus they get cool scars.

In conclusions:

• know your NPCs like you know yourself and you can adlib better than any script
• don't plan too far ahead, but always have at least the next session planned
• Focus on planning encounters, not stories. Come up with the details, but let your players figure out how to solve it
• Don't tailor encounters: sometimes it is a curb stomp, sometimes they have to run for their lives, and that is ok.
• Use smoke and mirrors to make it look like you are better prepared than you are
• keep it cinematic

Oh, one last thing:

Learn how to run 'cinematic' encounters. Not every combat has to be about 6 second turns, initiative, and half/full actions. You just can't fight through 16 decks of zombies in 6 second intervals. Sometimes full on combat just isn't fun.

For cinematic combat make it more like an exploration test: Everyone says what they are going to do and which skills they are going to use, you apply modifiers, and they roll. Do the same for their 'enemies'. Tally successes, compare, and apply effects.

For instance, in one of our first games our players were attempting to escape from a zombie infested ship. The zombies were easy to kill, but there were lots of them. As they progressed there were more and more zombies presssing on them.

So I decided each deck was a 'round', and asked them about their tactics for each deck.

Everyone says what they are going to do, and I give a bonus for its appropriateness (arch militant providing cover fire, +30, senchal coordinating thrings through her auspex/vox connection +20). I apply a bonus to the zombies for their 'density' (+20 for deck 1, +30 for deck 2, etc).

So on deck 10 the zombies are at +110. Both sides roll, the players get 6 successes, the zombies get 9. I describe cinematically their struggle, how a zombie breaks through, attacking the senchal. The arch militant declares he is going to attempt to save her, I make him roll an agility, he succeeds, and he takes the 3 wounds that were meant for her.

This type of abstraction can work for nearly any type of situation when you don't want to really dive into the nitty gritty: battles, negotiations, politics, etc.