Hey everyone!

I'm Deadly Whispers. I'm fairly new to the whole GM business and have run a couple small adventures thus far. My wife and I recently finished the Eye for an Eye adventure. We both had quite a bit of fun playing, even though it was her playing 2 PC's, we still made it work. In the end her elf stood up at the dinner table and yelled "I'm drunk! I'm going to bed.". This, combined with the poisoning in the venison both her characters ate ended up with them being sacrificed in the chaos ritual. She was fine with that since she wanted to build her own characters instead of using the characters I had built.

Anyway, on to my main point. About a year ago we tried playing with my brother-in-law and his girlfriend. This event turned out to be a major disaster. They didn't like the way I dynamically altered the difficulty of encounters because they were taking the easy way out and letting NPC's kill NPC's, (first beastman encounter, guards kill one ungor every round). What I had said was "One of the guards succmbs to the poisoning and passes out. As only one guard remains he is not as effective and therefore you have to roll for his attacks, instead of him automatically killing the enemies for you." My wife was excited about this, but the others were furious! Because of their behaviour as heroes (hiding and allowing others to handle business for them), I wasn't going to award any XP or fortune, which would have pissed them off even more.

Their belief is that story takes priority over encounters, battles, and task resolution. They think that story is 80-90% of the game, while other events and battles and skill checks, etc, are 10-20% of the experience.

My belief is that they are all equally important, as well as what happens in one aspect can and will affect the rest. What happens in one combat can affect the story significantly. A character could have been injured and would have to rest while the rest of the party goes to investigate. They may have all been injured and had to rest for a day. This would allow the cultists to go ahead with preparations for the sacrifice without pesky heroes probing them for clues, or possibly fighting them.

I was just curious about how other players and GM's stood on these issues. Would you forgo some encounters to advance the story? Or would you push for making the encounters challenging, yet fun?

Generally I keep the workings of NPC groups vs. NPC groups secret. Like with the Guards vs the Beastmen. Since the players are hiding they do not get to know how it's going or how I run it mecanically. Then it's easier to change the outcome, or whatever you wish to do.

Otherwise if they are hiding out, let them roll stealth checks or be found by some other lurking beastmen, which the guards cannot see since they are hiding out. Then at least something is happening for the hiding characters.

For your main question: I want the encounters to be challenging and fun for the players, that is kind of the point of the game. But still, if the players somehow want to skip an encounter by sneaking past it that can also be a way to resolve the encounter and can be fun and challenging in a different way.

That beeing said, if your brother-in-law and his girlfriend got angry because you let one of the guards drop, well I would not want players like that. But again, if you kept how the NPC vs. NPC-encounters were tracked hidden, like using progress trackers behind the GM-screen and rolling some dice (even if you still let the guards kill 1 beastman per turn in the end) the players won't know how it "should" be.

Keep more secrets in a way, roll some dice just for the rolling. And if they ask why all of a sudden a guard dropped, you can say that he made a horrible die roll.

I agree on the last part of k7e9's response.

If they choose to hide, that is their right (and depending on their class, it would make sense maybe - I'm thinking commoner, scribe, apothecary, ...)

Keep the workings of the NPCs separate from them, except in cases where they directly command the NPCs (say they're in a war, and get their own squad)

But that simply means the PCs don't know what's going on, and will get/need to make other decisions, and with that other rolls.

- discipline checks to keep quiet, keep it together

- stealth checks to remain hidden

- resilience checks in case of fire/smoke of the building they're hiding in

- endurance checks if they make a run for it

- etc.

I'd say

- keep the NPCs as NPCs

- Keep the story ON the PCs directly. If they're hiding in a basement, describe in detail the screams and sounds they hear, but nothing else.
Maybe give some vivid description about the interesting texture of the wall they're staring at

- Remind your players that you're describing/playing THEIR surroundings, you're not hear to tell a story for them to simply sit & listen.

Yeah, I think my main mistake was to read what the book said out loud, although I didn't read all of it, just small snippets. It was my first time using the system and I was an idiot. I haven't done that since.

The biggest problem is that they simply didn't want to roll any dice at all. When the fight started they hid in the carriage and let the drugged guards do their dirty work. Basically what these two players wanted was for someone to read them a story instead of play the entire game.

What I eventually did, after some arguing, was equip one of my gors with a great weapon. He then charged in and with a mighty blow managed to knock out our little elf waywatcher (brother-in-law) who foolishly went into battle with no armour and only a dagger. The gor then proceeded to use his body as a projectile weapon, and after throwing him and knocking down our dwarf, the elf suffered a critical wound. I could have also had the gor find and kill Vern Hendrick because our "heroes" left him in the carriage alone and unprotected. This would have ended the story because without him the "heroes" wouldn't be able to get into the lodge, or talk to Aschaffenburgh.

Another point they told me was that the horses would be too scared to run, so the carriage had to stay in one spot. I was under the impression that such a racket and the danger they were in, they would bolt. But I guess they would stand still, "Calm as Hindu cows." as Tyler Durden would say.

Needless to say they didn't want to play with me anymore, but I was also done playing with them. My thinking is that you NEVER tell the GM how to run an adventure. If he/she asks for some simple advice, or text clarification, you give your opinion but don't say "this is how you have to do it because my rulebook says so." The system is flexible enough that some bending and even creative breaking is allowed, but don't tell me how to run things in my castle. Especially when MY GM book says I can modify it. They want to try again but have my wife be the GM, which will result in the same thing since my wife and I play games very similarly, we enjoy the story and encounters equally and believe that one affects and directs the other. Her gm style will be similar to mine because she enjoys encounters as much as I do and it is an integral part of the gaming experience.

With our D&D group my character is always testing the GM with creativity, and the group loves it, kicking every door and crate for instance. Doing backflips in the middle of a bar as a tool for impressing NPC's and gathering information is another example. Catching rats and keeping them in my secondary backpack (I always bring a second backpack). Even though it isn't in the rule book he said "Ok, give me a roll." Natural 20! He also has asked us for some clarifications on rules and his adventure module, instead of us saying "Well MY book says this so do it that way." we have come to compromises and have had a great time.

I do not like playing with rules lawyers.

To me yes "story" takes precedence.

Where your players would be at odds with me is that the "story" we are playing is not how NPC's contend with each other (e.g., in Eye for an Eye it's not if the cultists pull off ritual, manor lord stops them or beastmen slaugher them all) the story is how the heroes' presence determines the outcome. If everyeone dies it's because heroes were cowards, traitors or incompetents - and then the story is how they manage to get out when the winners discover them.

NPC's are not the story, they are the catalyst and the scenery.

This can also be cured a bit by following the GM advice in warhammer and the sandboxy etc. approach generally of having players create goals and ambitions for their NPC's, relationships etc. and then making sure these factor into adventures. You don't do anything to save your friend? Well that's a boatload of stress and and insanity check for the guilt of it.

Good players do this themselves by "playing into the story" or "creating one". Finding out the villains are smugglers they narrate how smugglers murdered their older brother who was a watchman and they bet these are the same ones and that they swore vengeance against (and a good GM either says "absolutely they are" or if not "surely they know where to find those ones", and gives player a couple of fortune dice or extra reckless die when the player later narrates charging the smuggler captain screaming "you killed by brother!").

Rob

Next time they tell you how to run the game, ask them if they'd like to take the captain's seat for a while. You'd be happy to turn it over to them to let them "show" you how it "should" be done.

I definitely say keep the rolls for NPC's secret and away from the other players. They don't need to know when you're fudging things for the good of the story and the game. Next time they refuse to help the guards fight, be sure to overwhelm the guards and point out how far out numbered they are. Tell them things like "It sure looks like they could use a hand, doesn't it?" If they continue to hide, the guards get overwhelmed and those gors and ungors start looking for prey... right where the PC's are hiding.They are half-animals after all and probably have a decent sense of smell.

I'm sorry you had such a rough time of it with your first GMing experience. With time, it gets better. At least, nowadays you have forums to turn to for assistance, like this one.

double-posted... please remove.

Hey guys, thanks for all the tips.

After having a chat with those players we've decided not to continue with them. Not only becaue of the way they want me to run the game, but because they expect us to drive to their house across town every time we game since they are too lazy and immature to get their drivers licenses and a car (both being 30 years old). So we've convinced a couple players from our D&D group to join in the Eye for an Eye adventure to see if they would like to continue this adventure and turn it into a campaign.

I have told them how I want to run the game. I want to adjust difficulty on the fly, introduce things like managing encumbrance before and after a battle (your 50 lb pack before a battle or suffer misfortune dice on all checks, or possibly lose the contents during battle). When one character does a successful observation check I will hand them a cue card with what they see written down, thus further immersing my players into their characters. Promoting creative thinking by awarding fortune points for creative use of characters mannerisms, actions, conversations, etc. Since we have 2 wood elves and one human, I plan on making good use of the party tension meter as they may not be the best of friends.

There are a couple other ideas, but this is the gist of it. My PC's were really excited about this, even after I told them how I would be running things. I'm hoping to make them the main characters as well as the main narrators of their own story instead of being the GM who says "Ok, you defeat the beastmen and head to the lodge.". My hope is that I can come up with a basic outline that I can hand to the players which won't give too much information away, but will kind of help nudge them in the right direction. What I want them to do is create the world and the adventure for themselves without me having to say "you have a cult to stop, so get back to the story.". Should they get sidetracked I may give them subtle clues to help get them back on path, but otherwise I'll let ultimately decide where their characters will end up and what they will do.

One more question. Right now I'm mainly using the core set and the game masters toolkit. Does anyone have any experience with the other expansions? Or does anyone have any suggestions for other expansions a GM should pick up? I was looking at the creature guide or the vault, or the new GM guide.

hey, DW, I didn't read this thread with all the care I should, but I wanted to ask you for a little more of info before I do that. I'm very interested in your issues.

as Valvorik, I usually think that the story takes precedence. but that sure means I'll try to have a great story, full of excitment. and that I expect the characters my players play to get meddle in the story, that is, I expect them to roleplay their characters accordingly.

I don't encourage out-of-the-game thinking. we usually take this as an extra method to have fun: the players know something their characters don't, so they'll have to try and roleplay their characters without having the influence of that knowledge. or the players are thinking well beyound what their characters would, then they'll have to let go of some lines of thought to roleplay accordingly.

I find it very nice and entertaining when my players are thinking aloud about what they should do, and they are making remarks about how the story has been happening so far, and things like "what the GM is thinking?", but then they have to let go of all of that to roleplay their characters. usually my players have fun with it as well as I.

so, what I wanted to ask you is: what characters each of your players were playing on the ocasion? the best way to make palyers alter their way of behaving, to me, is simply ask: "do you think your character would be doing this on that situation?" if the answer is "yes", well, maybe I'm not understanding what the player in question is thinking about his character. maybe I have a mind portrait about him that is different from the one my player has. it is a good idea to talk about it when we get the chance, and if the moment I ask that doesn't seems to be the best time to have that conversation, I just let things go on. we'll see how things will end. and usually, if the player is making his character act in a way that doesn't really corresponds to what such a character would do, that will become apparent and everyone can learn something of the experience.

sometimes that is just the case of don't awarding a XP. but as often as that is the case, it is also the case that the character himself learns a lot from the experience (and usually comes out of it badly beaten, frustrated and such), and so it could be the case of awarding the just amount - and that could also mean extra XP. the most important thing is that you level your expectations with those of your players, and mutually understanding about what the other is expecting is an important art to GMing.

maybe if you tell me how the characters were, I can provide you for some ideas about what I would do if I were in your shoes then.

good gaming!

I can't remember what characters we had. I believe we had one wood elf, one dwarf, and one human. Right there is a perfect example of how party tension could be really implemented. Those races wouldn't get along as well as 3 humans, or 3 elves. I also don't remember my PC's actually playing the roles given to them properly. I don't remember any of them actually getting into character and adopting the mannerisms each race and career would have.

I need to find some players who play the game like I do. Whenever I play a character I always put myself in their shoes. I even come up with voices and mannerisms for them. My last Dragonborn Fighter, for example, was a fairly reckless and not so intelligent fellow. He liked to smash thing, or more specifically, kick things. Everytime there was a door in the way, kick. Is there a table or barrels in the way? Drop kick! My social checks consisted of me trying backflips to impress the locals. Often this would leave us in a predicament, such as needing to spend the night in a dungeon but since there was no door we had to find another way to block ourselves in to a room for a reast. This worked out great because now we all remember all of Smashola's exploits, it brought life to my character apart from "my character attacks the monster...", it also kept the GM on his toes as half the stuff I wanted to do wasn't covered by the rules (such as catching rats and holding them in my secondary backpack). That's the kind of PC i want in my games.

When you guys say "story takes precedence", what exactly do you mean? My thinking is that every thing that happens is part of the story, including encounters because they can have a HUGE effect on what happens later on in the story. For instance they could become severely injured, making them less likey to confront enemies unless they have backup. They could become disfigured making it more difficult for them to pass social checks until they heal a little bit. Story, to me, isn't what was written in the adventure, it is what the PC's make of their situation and the decisions they make when placed in the world presented in the adventure.

Another tip can be to listen to the recorded sessions from the "Reckless Dice" podcast and see how they run it. Even if they use some houserules. An Eye for an Eye was just made avaliable for download, so listen to that and become inspired.

I haven't listened to it yet, but it should be good. Never wrong to listen to others gaming/GM-ing.

DeadlyWhispers said:

You are quite right in what I take for "story takes precendence" doesn't mean that the written story, the ready stuff, takes precence over what is actually happening. Quite the opposite: what's happening takes precendence. What's happening is the story.

When you play, you must be aware that sometimes people seems to be into what is going on with their characters, while other times people seems more focused on their own ideas, aspirations, or mechanical thinking than what is happening. If you allow me a wild guess, I think that could be what went wrong with your group the first time: they were much more into their own personalities and maybe a "win-or-lose, GM-versus-players" paradigm, that they missed the whole thing about what was happening in front of them. And to notice that, they needed to try and feel for their characters, not exactly themselves (if the two things becomes one, that's the greates thing that can happens with acting, you know).

As GM, I usually manage things as a world almost independent of my own aspirations. Almost. That is to say, if I imagined a lot of things happening at the same time in the world, they usually will happen if nothing influences them to change. Like: if the cultists from An Eye for an Eye were planning to take the painting to the temple after dinner, and the PCs go to check the walls, they will probably take the painting. If as GM I'm thinking that the PCs not perceiving it could be a problem to the story, and the fun of the night, then I can come with a hopefully clever solution, like allowing an Observation check because one of the PCs could see some movement through the windows, or the lights being turned on and off.

Anyways, there are a lot of ways to describe it. Does this help you? I'm quite in a hurry, but I love to think about good ways of managing a game as the GM.

Cheers!