Advice for new "story now" GMs

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I don't agree. Specifically, you call it "intent" when it may instead be the "practical effect".
If that practical effect is a) foreseen and then b) ignored, it becomes intent.
Not all styles of game are good for all players. Not all players fit in all groups. That's okay. Story Now doesn't "have to" do anything in particular. It is what it is, if it works for someone, that's awesome. If it doesn't, the onus is not on Story Now to bridge the gap.
Again this comes down to intent. If the general intent is that story now remains a small-ish niche in the hobby then fine, but if the intent is to take it more mainstream then it very much is on story now to bridge the gap.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


My first piece of advice for a new Story Now GM would be to trust that the rules mean what they say. Don't smuggle in assumed processes from other games - use the ones the designer has provided in the game you're playing.

Treat the game like you've never played an RPG before and proceed from there. Be honest and rigorous in checking the assumptions you're making - especially about the authority and role of the GM, and those of the players, the roles of the characters, responsibility for policing genre, responsibility for generating plot, and so on.

Don't assume a homogenous experience - Dust Devils will play very differently from Burning Wheel which will play very differently from Sorceror.

My other piece of advice would be that the hardest adjustments are often the ones for the players. They will likely go looking for the usual GM cues to find the pre-planned plot. It's important not to give any, and to instead establish interesting characters with motivations the players care about playing. If they don't want to do more than kill things and take their stuff, or solve scripted GM mysteries, the game isn't going to take off. That needs an out of game conversation about why - given the endless range of people they could portray - their horizons are so limited.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
Maybe an example for some of us?

I’ll share an example of how a Blades in the Dark game I ran began. This may help with some general ideas.

During the first session, you create the player-characters and the Crew. As part of that process, the players will need to make decisions for their characters and for the crew; these decisions are to reflect that they’re denizens of the city of Doskvol (the setting for the game) and have a history and connections there.

The choices the players make will help determine some of the starting situation, and the GM should keep them in mind. The best thing a GM can do during the crew creation phase is ask questions. For instance, part of crew creation is the selection of a location that serves as a lair for the crew. The lair begins play with some upgrades, and you have to decide which of the city’s existing factions helped with the upgrades, and which suffered do to the upgrades. Ask why this was the case and then use that information to inform play. Alternatively, you can leave the question unanswered as something to be revealed during play.

All the decisions the players make during this phase should give the GM fodder to draw upon as needed. By the time crew creation is done, there should be a dynamic situation between the crew, some of the city’s factions, and other individual NPCs. Many games embed this kind of process into character creation, but it’s something that can be used to enhance many games.

So, for my group’s game, the players decided to be a crew of Hawkers, which are purveyors of illicit goods. They chose the Crew Ability “The Good Stuff” as their starting ability, which means that their product is of exceptional quality. So this prompted me to ask about the product; what is it? How did you come to have it?

They decided that it was a potent drug that interacts with the ghost field (a kind of ethereal plane that exists alongside the real world, the realm of ghosts and other supernatural entities and phenomena). They decided to call it Third Eye. One player suggested that they’d come into an initial supply of it unexpectedly, so we went with that general idea, with the expectation that we’d fill in more details later.

One player had chosen the Leech playbook for his character. This is a kind of alchemist/saboteur/mad scientist type of character. He suggested that he’d like to learn how to create more. So as a means to do so, the players decided to select the Lair Upgrade “Workshop” which gives the Leech the means to craft or engineer items… in this case, how to learn enough about Third Eye to be able to replicate it.

The selection of the workshop involved choosing a faction that assisted and a faction that was harmed. The crew would take a positive rep with the helpful faction and a negative one with the harmed faction. We decided that the Greycloaks (former police who’d turned to crime after supposedly being framed) had obtained equipment from the Sparkwrights (the city’s guild of engineers) and they provided it to the crew. So the Sparkwrights are angry with the crew for the theft of their equipment. Not a great enemy to have.

Part of the rest of the crew creation involved selecting another faction with a negative status, and a turf boss. The turf boss is the faction that runs the district in which the crew operates, and who must be paid tribute or else the crew risks angering them. We decided that what made sense was to have the Crows as the turf boss because the Crows are the current top gang in Doskvol. They took some turf from another gang, the Red Sashes, and offered it to the new crew. So our Crew has to pay tribute to the Crows and has angered the Red Sashes by taking their turf. It’s a small vendor stand in the district called Nightmarket, a district that’s seeing some form of gentrification from new money folks moving to the area.

The book suggests for the first Score to just jump in and start. What we decided was that the crew needed to get their initial shipment of product from their lair in Six Towers to the vendor stand in the neighboring district of Nightmarket. So that was the score… a Transport Score to get the product from lair to turf. They had to deal with some Bluecoats (the police) and also some angry Red Sashes. Finally, a ghost was attracted by the Third Eye… we’d established that it was supernatural in nature, and so I figured it made sense to introduce that element right away.

That first score was shaped entirely by the choices they made in character/crew generation. And the outcome… suspicious Bluecoats, angry Red Sashes, and possible ghostly attention… all mattered in subsequent scores. I’ve only touched on a few things from crew creation that were involved in the initial score, but there was a lot more to it, and it all informed later play.

All those starting details combined with the fact that once you do a couple of scores, some outcomes and follow up activities suggest themselves means that the game starts chugging along on its own. The players start suggesting scores… we need to grab some more turf, we need to hire some muscle to defend against the Red Sashes, we need to crack the recipe to make Third Eye, we need the raw materials to make it… and so on, all of this just starts to snowball from play.

I hope that gives a good idea about how this works.
 

With only a very few tweaks the OP would be generally good advice for a D&D DM as well. Nicely done.

Question: is it possible for this sort of meta-level discussion to never happen, and if so, how?

I ask because while some players might be the safety net, others often carry metaphorical knives with specific intent of cutting through said net. I speak of players - and there's a whole lot of 'em out there - whose main or even only goal in play is to "beat the game"; and who would quickly find ways to exploit meta-level discussions like these to game the game, as it were, and in so doing stumble on to (and with open arms embrace!) the Czege principle.

The other time when the players-as-safety-net idea fails is when the players simply aren't proactive enough. There's a lot of these out there as well, and while it's possible to get some to become more proactive it sure don't work on all of 'em. These players will at best react when they have to and at worst will happily do nothing other than watch as the story unfolds.

And unless the intent is to trim the potential player base by a lot, maybe to near zero in some communities, story now has to be able to seamlessly integrate and deal with these approaches to play; and further, do so without overtly trying to change who-what these players inherently are, as that never ends well. So, how can this be done? Or do you think it's even possible?
Fair questions. Frankly a 'game wrecker' is probably not a technique related issue IMHO. Most of the ones I ran into had some sort of underlying issue with the type of game being played. Maybe a different game is better for them?

But passivity: let's imagine the most passive of all players, the lump. This one will respond when directly prompted, but in a vague or disclamatory way, and never acts on their own. First line of defense is chargen. In narrativist games, generally, creating a PC requires some commitment to backstory or personality or something that is designed to give direction and signal what the character is about. 2nd is asking questions, and finally the PC is going to be framed into a situation!

Again, if the player really won't engage at all, maybe they really need a different game to play.

All these games appeal to certain people, but not all.
 

pemerton

Legend
Maybe an example for some of us?
In a Burning Wheel campaign, one of the players built a sorcerer PC who had some key features that linked him into the broader setting/situation:

*A Reputation as a minor illusionist;
*An Affiliation with a sorcerous cabal;
*A hostile Relationship with his older brother, who had been his teacher but is now possess by a balrog (a type of demon);
*a Belief (=, in this context, a PC goal) that he will find a magic item to help end his brother's possession;
*an Instinct (= a type of character-specific free action) to use Falconskin (a spell that turns him into a falcon) if he falls.​

Another PC, a magic-using assassin, had a hostile Relationship with her former mentor - which suggested her former mentor was probably the brother (making connections) - but I'll just focus on the sorcerer PC in this post and gloss over the interactions with the other PCs.

At this stage, the start of the game, it's unclear how and why his brother is possessed by a balrog. Just that he is. And we don't know anything about the cabal other than that it exists. I decide that we will start in Hardby - a town on the Greyhawk maps - and tell the players the key fact about it, that it is ruled by the magic-user Gynarch.

I started the action in the bazaar: a peddler is selling all sorts of curios including a feather he claims to be an angel feather from the Bright Desert. This is my facilitation - the offering of an opportunity.

The player purchased the feather - leaving himself in debt - and then declared that his PC used his Aura Reading to identify whether it really was an angel feather. I had to respond, and - as per the rules of the system - I called for a check. The player explained how he was using his Ancient History to enhance the check, and described his PC's knowledge of the ancient war between angels and demons (maybe it even caused the Bright Desert). Despite the Aura Reading check being buffed by Ancient History , it failed. So I had to respond again, and I told him that he could read the aura, and it was an angel feather that could help him resist a balrog's fire, but it was cursed!

The PC then decided to reach out to his contacts in the cabal to find work, given the debt he'd incurred. In Burning Wheel this is called a Circles check (a little bit like Streetwise in some RPGs). The player described a local leader of the cabal, Jabal the Red. I described Jabal's tower, located on a high point in the town (I'd recently been reading the REH Conan story "Tower of the Elephant"). My idea was that, if the action ended up in the tower, the PC might have a fall (responding to the player, and facilitating again, by way of another opportunity).

The Circles check failed, and so I decided that Jabal sent one is thugs (whom I named Athog) to tell the PC to leave the town, because of the curse. This was responding by way of opposition.

And so on - by the end of the session, the PC had indeed snuck into Jabal's tower, and stolen a spellbook somehow connected to the peddler of the cursed angel feather. (A full session report is here.)

Hopefully that gives a sense of things.
 

One thing that can be a speedbump for GMs and players alike calls for us to unroll that "concerns" definition again to look at what the PCs "projects" will be.

In a lot of heroic narratives and modern fiction, the protagonist is reactive. They are going about living their lives when there is a call to action. Bilbo Baggins' next project was "lunch, maybe some tea and cakes", when a wizard came by his door for a chat, and then a dozen dwarves came knocking for supper.

Similarly, in a lot of traditional RPGs, the players are expecting the GM to present some major issues or "plot hooks" for the players to grab hold of. The players are used to controlling who their characters are, but not so much on where they are going. Story Now more expects the PCs to be proactive, and have narratively interesting/relevant goals of their own.

This bears a lot of Session Zero discussion, to make the players comfortable with suggesting or generating their own narrative direction, when the media they are exposed to, and prior games they have played, don't typically look like that.
This reminded me of something I saw Brennan Lee Mulligan talk about with 'rails': the only rails he uses are what the players give him, especially in Session Zero.

Using Bilbo as an example also, he said you need to realize there's a disconnect between what the character wants and what the player wants. in LotR, Bilbo wants ideally to 'have this cup pass from him' and just go back to being at home and being normal, but someone PLAYING Bilbo wants the story of the struggle to Mt Doom and wants all the experiences.
 


Overall I'm not that interested in another debate about Narrativist/Story Now play, will it work, oh its a tiny niche and 99.999% of all TTRPG players hat it, etc. etc. etc. Honestly, I told @pemerton to make this a plus thread, lol. He didn't, I respect that, but isn't that debate pointless now?

Anyway, one other piece of advice I can think of, which is a bit tricky, but should be kept in mind. That is, what 'belongs to' the characters is really theirs to work with. I mean by that, if a character wins something in play, if they, for example, forge a sword of power, its not in the GM's wheelhouse to just take that thing away. Not for any reason whatsoever!

What I mean is, you can certainly threaten the PC's stuff. You can say "well, the King of the Bugbears really wants that sword, he challenges you to a duel!" Obviously you could lose your sword! You don't have to take that offer up though. If the GM instead says "Hard move, you lost your sword!" when the sword wasn't at issue, no, that's not really cool. I won that sword! You can say "You can either give up the sword or take 10 damage." OK, fair enough, its my choice choice, presumably I got myself into this jam, its narrativist play after all, so sure thing. I mean "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" so to speak.

Anyway, its a somewhat subtle point, maybe there's a case where it doesn't even apply in some specific game or situation, but as a general rule its a pretty good one to keep in mind. It means the ultimate stakes are really set or agreed to by the players.
 

pemerton

Legend
A bit more about the interplay of facilitation and response:

It's common for "story now" systems to require the GM to say new things about the shared fiction, where precisely what to say isn't dictated by the system, but the GM does not have carte blanche to say whatever they like. Your system's rulebook should give you advice or examples to help with this. There's also no substitute for practice. But you can also think of it through the lens of facilitation and response.

In particular, a "story now" GM should avoid "deprotagonising" responses - that is to say, responses that change the fiction in ways that don't reflect in some fashion the players' concern for their PC, and that don't provide avenues for the player to respond in terms of those concerns.

The boundaries for this are all about context: what does the player expect? what do they understand themself to have put at stake (like @AbdulAlhazred's example, just upthread, of the sword of power)? System is also important - to give an example, in the Marvel Heroic RPG the GM can "shut down" Captain America's shield whenever they want to (assuming the fiction permits it, and subject to the availability of an appropriate GM-side resources), but Cap's player can take a pretty straightforward action to get it back.

To go back to the sword of power: does the player regard it as one of their concerns for their PC? Or is it something they take for granted a part of their PC, that will help them deal with the things that are their concerns? If, as GM, you think it might be exciting to put something important to the PC (and thus the player) at stake, but you're not sure and you don't want to deprotagonise, then start with something "soft": the bugbear king challenges the PC to a duel for the sword; the PC hears a rumour that a suspicious stranger is offering bribes to the PC's retainers, or telling false stories about the PC, to try and undermine their loyalty; etc. If the player expresses outrage, that might be a sign to back off a bit or at least proceed with care! If the player engages, great - you've facilitated, and now you can respond as is appropriate for the situation, given the particular system you're playing.
 

Remove ads

Top