-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Advice for new "story now" GMs
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
I guess that's the case!
I mean, I can come up with the following:
When you leave town (your ship; camp, some other safe place) to find a not-too-distant onworld location (an enemy installation; an abandoned mining outpost; the site of a crach; etc), throw 10+ (+1 per level of Vehicle expertise; +1 per level of Recon or Hunting expertise, if appropriate); if the throw fails, the referee determines how may days have passed, and you must make throws to avoid malfunction as per the standard rules. Assuming your vehicle continues to function, you may throw again.
Though that's rather hand-wavey for a system that cares about days of rations, credits spent on crew salaries, speeds of vehicles in kmph, etc.
Maybe that would be best focused as "traps for new players" - things to look out for in your RPG of choice, and possible work-arounds.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I think it can be profitable in some cases. Traveller is a pretty distinct game, with a lot of 'stuff' that comes along, and a LOT of it is surprisingly well suited for Story Now play. But it is still an older game with some elements that will trip you up. So, if replacing a relatively peripheral subsystem, planetary travel, with something like a variation of the Dungeon World 'Dangerous Journey' move, that seems like fairly low-hanging fruit.So what you’re saying is it could be done if you kitbash a functioning subsystem from another game onto Traveller, but you need to understand what good Story Now play looks like to do it properly.
I’d bet the expedition stuff @Manbearcat does in his games would probably work for on-world exploration (based on your description of it as map-and-key). I also expect a large part of why that works is he has a robust model of what good Story Now play looks like and how to operationalize it in play.
Anyway, I wasn’t trying to say this was a best practice or good idea —just that it’s possible.
I just start to get impatient when people tell me that a 5e game can just be run 100% Story Now as if it was such a system. Yes, you can get a big mallet and pound square pegs into round holes, sort of. If you do it in a serious way, you won't have something that resembles 5e anymore, at all! Not in any of the important ways. Its an entirely different question than Traveller.
Mod Note:
The fact that the advice is good for everyone does not mean it should not also be present in specific spaces. If someone likes a particular style, they should be allowed to give any relevant advice in a thread about that style.
Please allow folks to have the discussion they want without interruption.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
The most crucial advice I would give is to directly address a specific player instead of the whole group. Even within the context of games like Masks or Stonetop where characters tend to have a shared agenda it's important to put that spotlight on specific characters. This sends a message to the players that when it's Ryan's turn to speak to what Reinhardt does it's his turn and no one else's. Everyone else can than embrace their role as audience members: take a direct interest in Reinhardt, what Reinhardt is doing and what that fallout might be.
Seemingly small things like addressing specific characters, asking provocative questions, et al can make a big difference in the overall atmosphere and environment of play. That's why trusting and embracing the game you are playing is so crucial.
Seemingly small things like addressing specific characters, asking provocative questions, et al can make a big difference in the overall atmosphere and environment of play. That's why trusting and embracing the game you are playing is so crucial.
Another comment on "system matters":
It's true that changing (say) d20 rolls to (say) 2d10 or 3d6 may change the feel of play to some extent (eg if target numbers for success are well above or below the mean).
But the more interesting aspects of system, especially when thinking about how to be a "story now" GM, pertain to the processes an expectations that surround dice rolls (or other resolution techniques). Important considerations include:
The OP states one important response to the last of these considerations, in the context of "story now": a "story now" GM, when establishing new fiction, should always have regard to the fact that players bring the protagonism, via their concerns for their PCs.
There are many possible responses to the other two considerations, consistent with "story now" play - compare, for instance, the sorts of permissions in respect of setting elements that players enjoy in MHRP (via actions to create Assets, and resource expenditures to create Resources), to the much more "traditional" authority structure in Apocalypse World.
I think it's a mistake to think that "story now" depends upon any particular sort of resolution method or resolution techniques. It's pretty diverse in that respect!
It's true that changing (say) d20 rolls to (say) 2d10 or 3d6 may change the feel of play to some extent (eg if target numbers for success are well above or below the mean).
But the more interesting aspects of system, especially when thinking about how to be a "story now" GM, pertain to the processes an expectations that surround dice rolls (or other resolution techniques). Important considerations include:
*Who gets to establish new fiction, under what circumstances, and under what sorts of limits;
*How the entitlement or permission to establish new fiction is itself established;
*What sorts of principles participants are expected to adhere to when establishing new fiction.
*How the entitlement or permission to establish new fiction is itself established;
*What sorts of principles participants are expected to adhere to when establishing new fiction.
The OP states one important response to the last of these considerations, in the context of "story now": a "story now" GM, when establishing new fiction, should always have regard to the fact that players bring the protagonism, via their concerns for their PCs.
There are many possible responses to the other two considerations, consistent with "story now" play - compare, for instance, the sorts of permissions in respect of setting elements that players enjoy in MHRP (via actions to create Assets, and resource expenditures to create Resources), to the much more "traditional" authority structure in Apocalypse World.
I think it's a mistake to think that "story now" depends upon any particular sort of resolution method or resolution techniques. It's pretty diverse in that respect!
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
I would like to express my gratitude for this thread and others similar to it that have been posted in the past. Story Now is not my favorite "mode" of playing, but I've enjoyed the Ironsworn and BitD games in which I've participated as a change of pace from the typical "traditional" fare.
The first times that I tried approaching Story Now games I bounced hard because trad gaming is so hard-wired into my way of thinking and if there hadn't been so many explanations and examples from people who understand those games I doubt that I would have been able to enjoy those experiences.
Sorry for the interruption. Carry on...
The first times that I tried approaching Story Now games I bounced hard because trad gaming is so hard-wired into my way of thinking and if there hadn't been so many explanations and examples from people who understand those games I doubt that I would have been able to enjoy those experiences.
Sorry for the interruption. Carry on...
I've long been an advocate of this, but I'll say it again as advice for a new GM - only build setting with the players, never in secret, and only build enough to establish (some of) the crises, pressures, dependencies and responsibilities of the characters. That is to say, the setting exists to allow each protagonist to show their character.
Anytime the GM / MC decides that something is happening in the setting away from a character, that thing should always have reference either to goals or ideas the player themselves authored, or to a transparent resolution process within the game system.
Anytime the GM / MC decides that something is happening in the setting away from a character, that thing should always have reference either to goals or ideas the player themselves authored, or to a transparent resolution process within the game system.
innerdude
Legend
To follow along with @chaochou --- in Story Now play as a GM, it's generally best to only define something as "true" within the fiction as late as possible.
It's totally okay to have ideas in your head of what could be true. Ideas, rumors, possibilities, fronts, NPC goals, etc.
But it's usually best to put forth what actually is true as a response to play. There will almost always be a twist or turn that results from player inputs or action resolution that will enhance or supplement an earlier idea, or twist the original idea, in a way that makes the idea more directly impactful to the fiction and character concerns.
In this same regard, be true to what the fiction demands and implies. If and when the most obvious conclusion of a turn of play is in front of you, take it, especially if it adds dynamism and interest to PC concerns. If you want to throw a twist out there, try a technique from Ironsworn and use an "oracle table" or randomizer to choose between possible conclusions.
Be very, very careful about directly injecting your own ideas of "This sounds fun to me" without consulting the other GM principles first ---- Does it follow from established fiction? Does it address PC concerns? Is it the most impactful version of the outcome? Does a recent PC action success or failure require it to help or hurt more than usual? Have you followed the correct procedure as identified by player and GM side "moves"?
*Edit --- one of things I had to learn for Story Now GM-ing is to scale back the level of specificity of my ideas. As a "trad" GM, we get used to defining highly detailed, highly granular notes about everything. Story Now play seems to work better if you take general ideas / themes / concepts, but then let the direction of play fill in the specifics along the way.
It's totally okay to have ideas in your head of what could be true. Ideas, rumors, possibilities, fronts, NPC goals, etc.
But it's usually best to put forth what actually is true as a response to play. There will almost always be a twist or turn that results from player inputs or action resolution that will enhance or supplement an earlier idea, or twist the original idea, in a way that makes the idea more directly impactful to the fiction and character concerns.
In this same regard, be true to what the fiction demands and implies. If and when the most obvious conclusion of a turn of play is in front of you, take it, especially if it adds dynamism and interest to PC concerns. If you want to throw a twist out there, try a technique from Ironsworn and use an "oracle table" or randomizer to choose between possible conclusions.
Be very, very careful about directly injecting your own ideas of "This sounds fun to me" without consulting the other GM principles first ---- Does it follow from established fiction? Does it address PC concerns? Is it the most impactful version of the outcome? Does a recent PC action success or failure require it to help or hurt more than usual? Have you followed the correct procedure as identified by player and GM side "moves"?
*Edit --- one of things I had to learn for Story Now GM-ing is to scale back the level of specificity of my ideas. As a "trad" GM, we get used to defining highly detailed, highly granular notes about everything. Story Now play seems to work better if you take general ideas / themes / concepts, but then let the direction of play fill in the specifics along the way.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
