Tips for aspiring GMs?

[invariably_stupefied]

As someone looking to run a quest in the near future, I was wondering what tips others more experienced than myself had. I'm currently working on creating a world, difficult enough in itself, but the one thing I'm the most nervous about is what to do about mechanics.

1d100+/- Modifiers using the CK2 stat system is what I have my eyes on atm, but I've heard it tends to be a bit too simplistic and I also worry about potentially loading way too modifiers and just getting like a sort of numbers bloat situation.

Pardon if I'm being vague about what I need help with. I don't quite know myself, beyond a vague idea of 'world, story, mechanics'.

 

[thepsyborg]

Disclaimer: Not a quest GM. Still, here's my take on it in case you find it useful:

The CK2 system is a lot of fun because you get to characterize your advisors and get them wrapped up in all sorts of drama.

d100+/-, on the other hand, is sort of a bad thing. It has really wide ranges, and if you have enough positive modifiers to succeed at a given DC consistently, you have enough to generate some real silly crits on occasion. I would suggest that you either (1) use 2d50 instead of 1d100 to weight the distribution of outcomes toward the center, (2) use actual CK2 stats which are quite a bit lower than you frequently see in d100 quests, and use a d20, with correspondingly lower DCs, or (3) put a hard cap of some kind on crit explosions, whether it be one explosion, only natural 99-100 crits explode, or just not using exploding crits at all.

Too many quests get warped all out of proportion by the first really big exploding crit chain, and the author has to figure out what that insane degree of success looks like in practice and what it does to all of their other plans...granted, you should expect the dice to dumpster your plans fairly routinely, but allowing them to dumpster your plans and simultaneously hand the players a Star Destroyer is setting yourself up for considerable headaches.

 

[Strigix]

I'm not familiar with the CK2 system, really, but some more general advice as a GM who has been running quests for close to a decade now:

• Never give the players an option you don't want to write.
• Keep the number of choices to a reasonable number- 3 or 4 choices is just about perfect for most situations, as it'll let you set forth a few alternatives but won't trigger decision paralysis.
• If at all possible, find yourself a co-GM. Having someone else to workshop stuff with is like, amazingly valuable. I wish I'd worked together on quest projects with other people starting years ago, it's just so much smoother.

 

[invariably_stupefied]

Disclaimer: Not a quest GM. Still, here's my take on it in case you find it useful:

The CK2 system is a lot of fun because you get to characterize your advisors and get them wrapped up in all sorts of drama.

d100+/-, on the other hand, is sort of a bad thing. It has really wide ranges, and if you have enough positive modifiers to succeed at a given DC consistently, you have enough to generate some real silly crits on occasion. I would suggest that you either (1) use 2d50 instead of 1d100 to weight the distribution of outcomes toward the center, (2) use actual CK2 stats which are quite a bit lower than you frequently see in d100 quests, and use a d20, with correspondingly lower DCs, or (3) put a hard cap of some kind on crit explosions, whether it be one explosion, only natural 99-100 crits explode, or just not using exploding crits at all.

Too many quests get warped all out of proportion by the first really big exploding crit chain, and the author has to figure out what that insane degree of success looks like in practice and what it does to all of their other plans...granted, you should expect the dice to dumpster your plans fairly routinely, but allowing them to dumpster your plans and simultaneously hand the players a Star Destroyer is setting yourself up for considerable headaches.

I don't think I'd use exploding dice tbh, although I do like the ideas of critical successes and failures. Thanks for the tips.

I'm torn between d20 and 2d50 though, with a preference for the latter. I want to say its because I feel like having correspondingly larger stats, relatively speaking, is going to be easier to balance with larger numbers but its entirely possible the opposite will end up being truer. I've heard arguments for both and I think I may have to try and fail myself before really coming to a proper decision.

 

[Aaron Fox]

As a GM from long ago, you have to have all the rules set up and play tested first because people will use every loophole you've got.

 

[Nyvis]

As a GM from long ago, you have to have all the rules set up and play tested first because people will use every loophole you've got.

Or just don't take people's shit. This isn't a video game where you have to deploy a patch after the facts to fix exploits. It's a story with a thin support from rules. If people don't play within the spirit of it, it's your right to change things to keep them on track or patch the loophole on the fly.

 

[Artificial Girl]

What @Nyvis said. If people try to game your rules, tell them to knock that shit the fuck off. I'm usually of the opinion that the story is more important than the rules in quests anyway and try to keep mine fairly rules light or to make the rules something that pushes the flow I want with the quest, not have the rules direct the flow of the story.

You don't have to have an ending in mind, but it helps? The first quest I wrote (and so far the only one I've completed) was a straight forward arc: it was about a girl having her gay awakening in her last year of high school and would end with her at peace with herself and hopefully at a place to move forward healthily. And maybe with a girlfriend. How things got there was up in the air!

Seconding the co-author thing. Almost all my solo projects I've started since that one have fallen by the wayside but having someone else to work with on Castles of Steel and Right-Hand Woman makes keeping things moving a lot easier.

Also yes. Never offer an option that won't be fun for you to write. Because if you offer something you think is mind-numbingly dull and it gets picked, then you're proper fucked.

I personally don't like write-ins since it feels like players often use them to cover all their bases in a way that doesn't fit. I also prefer to give player's difficult choices when I can, because watching them argue gives me the good brain juice.

 

[invariably_stupefied]

Thanks for the advice everyone! I do have an ending of sorts in mind, although just like most everything related to the quest its a big fat WIP. Even considering how generic the world I'm building is, its quite a bit of work populating it with factions and characters!

Related to what @Nyvis said, what are some common ways people might try to game the rules? It feels like one of those things you have to experience before you really know, but I must admit I'm not entirely sure what people trying to game or break it might look like.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Or just don't take people's shit. This isn't a video game where you have to deploy a patch after the facts to fix exploits. It's a story with a thin support from rules. If people don't play within the spirit of it, it's your right to change things to keep them on track or patch the loophole on the fly.

You can't catch them all for one, and it is easier to have the majority of the rules laid out and play tested first so you know what can happen.

 

[Tabac Iberez]

Honestly? My advice is simple: don't have rules. Don't have dice either. Know what your story is doing and how it gets there, choose a few open-ended beats to use, and let it go.

 

[Logos]

If you're working on mechanics for your quest, I think this might be good reading. It goes into a lot of detail on not just how to design your mechanics, but also why you might design your mechanics in certain ways.

 

[invariably_stupefied]

Thanks for the help, all of you. Lots of useful advice. I wish I could say I fully understood all of it, but that's a me problem.

I think now the only thing left is having a go at it myself. Hopefully sometime in the near future.