How I Roll - Is It Me?

I like to think every GM asks themselves that question at some point during their games. I know I do.

What brought this to mind was how my group doesn't seem to connect the dots I'm laying out for them. Therefore I have to ask myself "is it me?" or are the players not good at connecting dots.

Taking a step back and looking at the dots is difficult since I know what they are and where they're going. Trying to pretend I don't and reading them as they were presented to the players is difficult but possible to a certain extent. This also falls back into the question of plot hook vs railroading.

In this specific situation I'm going to say my players aren't very good at connecting the dots for medium to long range results. For short term they seem to be on the money. But they don't look at the larger picture. That means it's on me to adjust what I'm doing.

I have three choices that I can see.

1 - Nibbles

I can break the puzzles down into smaller nibbles that build on each previous encounter. This approach means there's still a decent chance they won't make necessary connections but I have more options for letting them roll for what their characters would know.

2 - Bigger Dots

Maybe I stop being subtle, make the dots much bigger, and put flaming arrows in the direction they go. That one feels like it's getting into railroading territory and I'm not sure how I feel about that.

3 - Abandon the Dots

This group may be one that doesn't play the long game, as it were. They may not pick up on wider implications of what they're doing until they get smacked in the face with them. Of course I'd have to mitigate how much of a smacking they get if they don't have a chance to see it coming.

These are options for each group. They're not something the GM can decide ahead of time. Unless Session Zero had the players flat out stating they didn't want to deal with the consequences of their actions or solving mysteries then it's going to come out in game. Even if they do say that there's always a chance they change their minds as the game evolves.

As the GM it's frustrating to me to see them struggle with what I think are basic connections. Even stepping back to try to see it from their perspective it seems basic. Or at least not that hard. There's enough bits and pieces that they should have picked up on some pretty obvious stuff in our last game. They didn't.

So what happens when the players aren't seeing where a storyline is going and they flub every roll that would allow the GM to give them insight? Good question. I wish I had a definitive answer. It would certainly make my life easier.

What I'm going to do is try to use NPCs to fill in some of the gaps. Once they get to town there's always a way to get information to them. I'm lucky that they're heading to one now. Otherwise I would have to drop some more encounters on them to give them more dots to try to connect. Or I would have to abandon that completely and make it less of a cohesive story than a series of short stories or an anthology.

The conclusion here is to try not to be too clever as the GM. We're at a huge advantage because we're the ones who know the intended storyline. It's easy for us to see connections because we created them. Talking it over with someone not in the game but who knows gaming can help a lot. Telling them the basics of what you've given the players can show whether or not you've done enough. Make sure you're not assuming too much and that you're running a game the players expect.

A Dead Game System

I'm not going to "name and shame" here although I feel it's a shame that the game was pretty much DOA when it was released.

Some history.

The game was developed by a miniatures company to go with models they were producing. This was not their first foray into that world and the games used very similar rule systems. But they were a miniatures company, not a game company. They said this explicitly.

The games had life while someone was willing to work on them and then stagnated when those people left. So people would get their hopes up only to be slowly disappointed as the interest waned. This happened many times.

The skirmish game rules are still out there and the models are available under different names. The line that was tied to the game has been retired but the models are still in production as general usage. If that makes any sense.

For the other game they sold the IP for the setting and the minis themselves to another company. Personally I think that company got a raw deal because of the history of the game itself but I wasn't the one buying it. I believe they get some of the proceeds from the miniature sales since it's their name on the bases but don't quote me on that.

The game didn't have a following at the time. The metal minis were necessarily expensive since they were heavy. Not many stores stocked them or the rulebook either. So most people didn't even know the game existed.

After the rights were purchased the miniature companies put together a Kickstarter campaign to start getting the models from metal to injection molded plastic. The miniature company had already done a couple of those and it made sense for the two companies to do this first one together. But ...

The miniatures company wanted the best sellers to go into production first. That makes sense from their perspective. If they sold well in metal they'd sell REALLY WELL in plastic. And there's another much more popular game that would benefit from cheap plastic robot minis. Those are the models they chose.

The game company had to deal with selling their new rulebook as part of this campaign. Here's where things continued to fall apart.

The popular minis were spread across the game factions. That made it a scattershot approach to starting the game.

The rulebook was an add-on purchase and not part of the campaign pledge. That confused a lot of people and caused some ill will later on.

Here's the thing that gave me the idea that the company that owns the game didn't know what they were doing. They didn't make any rules or force building information on the campaign. Halfway through they make a quick start document available but there was still no guidance on how many of what minis to buy. None. Ever. Even after the campaign was over and the pledge manager was open they gave no help for people who wanted to play the game.

That's when I realized the game was dead before it started. The right company could have jump started it back to life and gotten a following, much like other tabletop miniature games. This was not a company to do that. The game - miniatures and/or rulebook - aren't in the game stores I've visited. Everything seems to be online purchase only.

The game company has had at least two more Kickstarter campaigns since the first one and they were faction focused. I think each one had mostly two factions with a smattering of other minis. So it was what should have been done from the start. The game website has quick start rules and a force builder so you can figure out what to buy. Everything they should have done from the beginning is now available.

But they missed their window. I personally don't like the owner of the company. He's not the type of person I'd put into social situations to sell a game. He knows the rules but he doesn't have the personality to bring in people and get them excited. He's kind of a jerk. His booth tends to be set up with models and him sulking at the little counter or showing a very small demo for someone. With the transition of the game rules to him he lost the miniature company support to help out at conventions. It shows.

What brought this to mind was me going through my minis from the first and second campaigns. This is more of a chore than it sounds since the minis sent as rewards are multi part in little plastic bags with no identification as to what minis they are. Sorting them out is a challenge of trying to match bits to the pictures of the assembled minis online and going from there.

I found I have way, way, way too many minis from the first campaign. I overspent like crazy and have more faction minis than I will ever field. I'm sending a bunch of those off to be broken up into mercenary forces that someone else is going to paint for me in exchange for things I've 3D printed. They're going to make the forces, now that I think about it. I'm just sending a box full of minis and letting them figure it out. I checked - that's acceptable.

I don't know that I'll ever get to play this game. I honestly don't know. It would depend on me meeting people who would be willing to play and I don't see that happening in the near future. People here are very much 40k and some other games that small groups play. Bringing in a completely new game is difficult to impossible. Without being able to buy stuff in stores it lessens the desire to play. Sure they can order it like they do so many other things but that's an extra step for a niche game.

I know it sounds funny to be talking about a dead game and then talk about working with the minis. I'm not getting rid of any of them since I seem to collect armies. I also know there's no market for these if I did want to get rid of them. The new ones are cheap enough that trying to sell them wouldn't be worth the effort. They'll go into foam storage and the book will go on the shelf.

Both to gather dust, as it were.

How I Roll - Circular Sessions

Sometimes a game circles back around to an earlier place. For whatever reason the PCs need to (or should) go to somewhere they've been before. There can be a lot of reasons for that so I'm going to avoid all of those.

Going back depends on what kind of location it is and what happened when the PCs left. HOW they left is also important. Because believe it or not the game world keeps going on while they're off adventuring.

Not every game has the world spinning on. Module games and leagues tend not to revisit what happened in the past it seems. Everything is looking forward. But if you can get a game going where the PCs are part of the world - not the center of it - then things can get interesting.

What brought this to mind was a session of a game I'm running where the PCs needed to return to the place they left their mounts. They even said that they needed to go back. What that did was close their encounters into a circle. Some players can find it distressing to think that they haven't "advanced" as they're in a place they've already "finished".

This can be a problem. It really can. If they've already thoroughly cleared out the area of monsters and treasure then there's nothing for them to do unless there's been a deus de magister ludi where things get reset so they can clear it out and get more treasure. Which is circular in its own way.

If they started out in a large city then it's a lot easier to get them interested in more things to do from the same hub. There's a lot of spokes from a hub of that size. Drop some plot hooks and see which ones interest them. This type of circling back is probably the least problematic of circling back around because there's always new stuff to do.

It can get kind of weird when they revisit a smaller location. This is where the concept of how they left comes into play. If they ran out in the middle of the night after breaking up the inn then they're not going to be very welcome. In that situation the GM should pay attention to how the players think about how they'll be received when they return. It will show if they think their actions have lasting consequences.

Some players don't want the world to keep going. They want to stop the story when it isn't about them. Some players want the immersive game where things progress and grow without them. That's something for Session Zero and to monitor as the game proceeds.

What do you do when the PCs are in an area where they don't want to be anymore? Or the situation doesn't interest them? That's a tough one. Finding new and interesting things for the PCs to do can be a strain on the imagination. There's only so many monster lairs out there in their general vicinity.

Since this is my sandbox game I know what I'm going to toss out there. One player has already started pulling out the plot hooks I gave them before they chose this one so they can discuss what they want to do. My guess is that they'll go back to the large city after dropping off the villagers they rescued (by accident) in the smaller town. Then we've all got the options necessary to keep the game going.

I admit some of this is my fault. We're using an existing setting and there's some issues with it. Once you get away from the coast where almost all the modules and fiction have taken place things are spread out. There's a lot of road/water to cover between areas. And there's only so many random encounters you can pull out of the GM trick bag before it gets to be quite frankly boring.

So what's the answer to when PCs are back where they started and may feel like everything they did was a waste of time? There isn't one answer. It's something that has to be handled by the players and the GM. Every group is different and wants different things from their game. Pay attention to the player reactions when they know they're heading back to a "finished" location and adjust the game if needed.

By nature RPGs have adventurers. They want to get out and about. Sometimes it happens that they never do return to a previous location or things are so changed that it's an entirely new place. Sometimes they get attached to a place and keep going back on their own. And sometimes it's a plot narrative that gets them there. Each one requires that the GM understand what they enjoy and what they don't.

I haven't touched on what the GM likes to do in this post. That's for a separate post because while the GM is the guiding hand in the game they're also a player. People tend to forget that last part.

How I Roll - That One Player

We all have That One Player. They deserve the capital letters. There's some player that for whatever reason gets on our nerves. It's not big enough that they should be removed from the game and the other players may love what they do.

But you don't.

This is a tricky one. If they're not breaking the game then there's no reason to talk to them. Getting on the GM's nerves is not a punishable offense. Some GMs do this. Don't be one of those.

Just like any personality conflict you need to take a step back and try to figure out WHY this person you're having an internal problem with them. That's a tough one.

If it's personalities not meshing there's nothing you can do but grit your teeth and try not to drop a rock on their character. That includes - but is not limited to - always targeting them first in combat, not letting them have the spotlight, setting the DC higher for their skill checks, doling out extra damage, giving out treasure they can't use, and other GM tricks that are slanted against them.

A rogue who always sneaks away to try to cherry pick the loot isn't doing anything that a rogue might not do. It's a player choice.

If the other players aren't picking up on it and resolving it then you can meddle a bit. The rest of the players should see that happening and correct it themselves. If not a few well placed checks should get them on that path. It's not really wrong to do that but it rides the line. If they choose not to correct the player's actions then it's something you have to accept.

If the other players don't care then you have to let it go. Don't let them sneak into the room to be confronted with an opponent that will turn them into rogue paste. That's going overboard. Let them get locked into the room. An animated weapon is well within their capabilities to defend against. Give a few consequences at times to vent out your displeasure but nothing too bad. We get to have fun too.

If you've got a rules lawyer then it's an easy fix. Tell them to stop. Be polite but firm. Explain that their method of playing the rules, while factually correct, is in fact causing you problems in running the game. At that point the player will reveal if they're playing to play or if they enjoy trying to break the game.

If they accept that they need to ease back on their interruptions about exactly how something works then all will be well, with an occasional reminder.

If they double down and say that a good GM would know all this and they don't care if you feel it's breaking the game then you've got a legitimate reason to tell them that they either change or you'll ask them to leave.

Here's something to always remember. Players are a dime a dozen. GMs are in short supply. You have the upper hand in any argument. That's easy to abuse. Don't do it. When you start to feel that it's YOUR game then take a step back. It's everyone's game. But it's your table.

More on that later.

How I Roll - Back Up The Truck

We all make mistakes. Rules interpretation, forgetting to add a bonus, adding a bonus twice, etc. But as a GM we get to make bigger mistakes!

One of those is screwing up something in the game itself. This is more common in sandbox or homebrew because modules have the track to follow. But there's times when something just ain't right and we need to go back and fix it.

There's always a way to fix it. Part of it depends on how badly you screwed it up. Part of it depends on how your players feel about changes. Part of it depends on if you can fix it at all.

If it's something small you can sneak it in later, like you planned it all along. Forgot to drop that vital clue? They find it in another place. Gave them the wrong information? They figure out it was wrong information. Stuff like that they'll never notice and can make your game better. Or at least not making it any worse.

When it's something larger you have options. You can say you want to do a rewind (retcon) and start again from a place further back in the story. I feel there's a window on this one and it's one game session. If you're saying that the last three sessions don't count you're cheating your players. In my opinion. You can take a left turn in the narrative and send them to where you wanted them to go in the first place, effectively erasing the mistake.

When the mistake is a whopper then I feel you have no choice but to admit just how badly you screwed up and discuss how to proceed. An accidental TPK falls into this category. An intentional one does not. There may be no fixing this one and it may start a new game. Or it may end the current game.

Here's where I was going with this. Mistakes happen. Most of the time they can be fixed. But your players need to trust you. If you're having to correct yourself every few games then they're going to slowly lose faith in your ability to keep the narrative going. Some groups are fine with that and others are not. You should never be fine with making that many mistakes.

As the GM it's your place to keep a coherent narrative, no matter where the players take the game. If they go way out of what you had planned tell them you need to take a short break and figure out what to do. If they figure out how to defeat your BBEG in a few rounds of combat rather than the full game session then you'll need a backup plan.

A backup plan? Wassat? Who has time to make backup plans when there's this whole game to keep running?

You do.

I'm a big fan of notecards. Ask any player who's ever sat at my table and they'll tell you I freaking love my notecards. One thing I use them for is story hooks. Those come from everywhere. Take a TV show episode plotline that interests you. Take them from books. Listen to your players when they're trying to figure out a problem. Read adventures and modules and pick pieces that you want to use. Write down that idea that came to you while driving to work.

They don't have to be much more than a sentence or two. All you need is a hook to continue whatever you've got going or have to keep going. The BBEG is defeated? Well yes. And his chief adviser snuck out through the secret door in the back to continue the fight. There's your answer to that problem.

Stuck on what to do when you're in the middle of nowhere? Drop a five room dungeon adventure on them (read down the page for the basic format but also sign up for the newsletter for some premade ones). These can be caverns, an abandoned building, etc. They're a way to kill some time while you work out what they're going to encounter later.

The whole point of this post is to say it's OK to make mistakes. The trick is not doing them too often and working with your players to fix them when they do happen. Or fixing them so the players never know you made a mistake.

We're not perfect. We're running a world around the PCs. We want them to believe their decisions and actions matter. If you screw up then fix it in a way they still do.

Drawing 101 - Class 3 of 3

The class got canceled due to the pandemic after the third session.

Anyway, here's how it went.

The instructor handed out a picture of a painted still life and told us to draw it. Then he sat back and played on his phone for most of the class. He walked around a few times, gave some mild critique, but pretty much left us to our own devices. I wasn't impressed.

This time it was just myself and MG (manga girl). PL (Pinterest lady) didn't show up and SAG (serious art guy) had said he wouldn't be there. I don't blame PL. I called the county recreation department earlier that day to find out if there would still be class and the person who answered the phone said the powers that be were in a meeting about that.

The still life he chose was dark and in my opinion not great for drawing in plain pencil. It would have been more suited to colored pencils. But we were still using regular pencils so we did our best. I only took one picture because there was no point (in my opinion) of taking more.

All in all I found this a waste of class time. We don't get the full two hours anyway since he wants to pack up and get out before the main doors close.

I think you can see where color is necessary for this reproduction. It's dark to start and the only things that stand out are vibrant in color. I went with my strengths (design work and composition) then ignored the rest.

Yes. I know the table placement is completely off. I redrew that a few times while working then decided it wasn't worth more effort. The cherries started to become black blobs the more I tried to detail them. The tablecloth design isn't spaced right. I did do hatchwork shading this time and found that it was an interesting choice that I will explore further.

On one of his few rounds the teacher complimented me on the bowl design. Honestly that was the easiest part for me so I find it surprising that other people would have trouble with it. It's basic line work. But hey, I'll take it a compliment. I just realized that he may have chosen the one non-terrible thing to compliment me on. Oh well.

At the end he started getting all excited about our next class being a grid format full human figure. That means having a grid over a smaller drawing of the figure and translating it into a larger picture. That's not 101 stuff in my opinion. Both myself and MG said that it didn't interest us. He seemed disappointed and I think that also means he didn't know what to do for our next class.

I didn't sign up for life drawing. I signed up for learning the basics of how to draw. He didn't seem to realize that the provided supply list included colored pencils and pastels so he probably didn't have plans to teach those either. He did say he needed to talk to the county about that list, reinforcing my guess.

Would I do this again? Sure. With a different instructor. I didn't dislike this guy and he did have some of the basic instruction requirements. But he reminds me of some of the miniature painters I know. They spend so much time doing advanced techniques that they literally cannot teach the basics.

And the watercolor class I had scheduled after this one is also cancelled. They closed the facility until the end of April which would have meant we missed four of the six classes. I already bought the supplies. Silly me.

How I Roll - Game vs Table

In my previous post I ended with saying that it's everyone's game but your table. What does that mean?

The game is a cooperative effort in storytelling. The players and GM work together to make something special. While as the GM you really, really want things to happen they may not. Or they may not work out as you expected. But the story goes on. The group has to be having fun or it's not fun. Yes. The group includes you.

The table is the GM's place. This is the "under the hood" place. It's where house rules are set, expectations are laid out, and player behavior is monitored. That doesn't mean it's a dictatorship. Don't do that. It's where the GM has the final say in how things work.

Don't confuse the two. It's easy to do. As the GM you're in control of a lot of things during the game. Sometimes it feels like you're juggling chainsaws but you're in control. For a given definition of control.

When the story goes off the rails that's a game situation. If the players are happy with the direction its taken then as the GM you go with it. Exceptions would be if it goes against how you said you want to run games in Session Zero or if it's going someplace truly dark and icky. Remember that you can always reskin your original intentions and still get them where you intended them to go.

When a player goes off the rails then that's a table situation. Never solve that at the table. Every problem you have with a player regarding table situations is discussed in private. They may be setting up their own parallel storyline that doesn't conflict with the game at all. In that case you're golden and the player is helping you. They may not realize that they were going that far. Or they may not care.

No matter what the result that's something to be handled GM to player. And once it moves into game territory it's out of your hands. Having someone ignore a house rule because they don't like it isn't the same as someone who didn't understand the house rule and why it's there. And no, you don't have to change your table rules because a player doesn't like them.

Make sure you separate out the game vs the table. Go with unexpected situations happening in the game. Reskin monsters for those who have memorized the Monster Manuals. Take an existing module and cherry pick parts you like, because you know they've read the thing from start to finish. Change things up mid game to keep them on their toes.

And never break your own table rules. Player see, player do.