In a lot of the Powered by the Apocalypse games that I've looked at, the section of the rules for gamemasters often looks, at first glance, to someone unfamiliar with PBTA games, like just advice on running games in whatever the setting of that game is. Most of the content doesn't look or sound like rules. And yet, it is. And it's very important to the system that these things are rules and not just advice or guidelines.The Way it Works:
Gamemasters/Narrators/Masters of Ceremony/whatever they're called in the specific PBTA game you're looking at have three different sets of "rules" to follow: Agenda, Principles, and Moves
Agenda
A GM's Agenda is a list of about three to five things that make up the core of what the GM is supposed to do. Everything the GM does through the course of the game should be traceable back to the Agenda. Oftentimes, the agenda will include points like "Make the setting seem real," and "Fill the player characters' lives with conflict/adventure/trouble".
Principles
Principles expand upon the Agenda in more specific and direct ways. These guidelines help to provide a more complex framework for the GM to follow in running a game. Again, all actions should be traceable back to the principles. These might include things like "Be a fan of the protagonists," "make a move, but never speak its name," "think off screen," or "name everyone and give them a Motivation."
Again, this just sounds like good advice, but PBTA games are set up such that if you aren't acting in accordance with the Principles, the game will likely fall flat.
Moves
Moves are the things that Gamemasters can actually and actively do in the course of the game. They are how the GM moves the game forward and propels the story. These include things like "Separate them," "Deal damage," "Reveal an unwelcome truth," "Give them a difficult choice," or "Turn their move back on them."
While the Agenda set's the GM's purpose and the Principles set the GM's focus, the Moves provide the GM with things to do.
I told you that one so I could tell you this
One of the items that frequently appears within the GM's agenda, is "Play to Find Out What Happens." This appears even in the agenda for The Veil, which I'm going to be running for my next campaign. And this is one that I think will be particularly challenging for me as a GM. But I also think that's a good thing.
Play to Find out what Happens
The basic idea behind this point of the agenda is that the future of the story is within flux. The players don't control what's going to happen, and neither does the gamemaster. Both parties have moves to influence the story, but neither really has control.
From a GM perspective, this means not having a plan. Sort of. It means not setting out a 'this is going to happen, then this, then this." It also means not planning one true path for the players that they need to take to "win." (The idea of "winning" in RPGs is a bit debatable and subjective as it is, but that's, perhaps, a subject for another time.)
Mechanics supporting Story supporting Mechanics supporting Story
Why is this more than just a guideline? Why is it a hard and fast rule that gamemasters have to follow? Well, some of that has to do with the way PBTA games work mechanically.
For a significant portion (maybe most) of PBTA games, when a player wants to do something that they might fail at, they roll 2 six-sided dice, and add any modifiers they might have (from stats, movies, abilities, or situational aspects). If the result is 10 or greater, awesome, the player succeeds. If the result is 7-9, then it's a partial success. The player might succeed at what they were doing, but maybe they only partly succeed or maybe that success comes at a cost. This allows for interesting situations and complications to arise in play. If the result is 6 or lower, then the player fails at what they were attempting.
A lot of the players moves in PBTA games can be pretty big and sweeping. Failing or even having a partial success can entirely change the situation at hand. This can throw a big monkey wrench in the plans of the players or the gamemaster. Since all rolls have about equal odds, there's no way for a gamemaster to prevent or support particular courses of action by raising or lowering the difficulty.
So, a gamemaster that relies heavily on a specific plan or level of control for the plot will end up being disappointed when the players' plans or rolls subvert that.
But this is good. Succeeding at a cost and having a set difficulty overall help to keep the drama and storytelling interesting for everyone at the table. It just also means that everyone, including the GM, has to be able to roll with the punches, pun intended.
Why it's hard for me
I like to think that I don't railroad my players. But I do like to have a plan, and I do like to have control. I tend to have a story that I want to tell, or things I want the players to accomplish. I can be flexible on how they get from point A to point B, but I definitely often have point B in mind.
Even with Caerwent Ascending, which I wanted to be completely open world, I ended up forming schemes and ideas of how I wanted things to go down. And I had been disappointed when the players weren't latching on to my idea of what the campaign should have been.
I like to have a plan, and I like to have control.
Why it's good for me anyway
I think that a lot of times, I, as a gamemaster, get caught up in the idea of the game as my world that I'm sharing with the players. The story is my story, and they are just participants in it. But that's not what roleplaying is.
Roleplaying is a shared experience, owned by both the players and the gamemaster.
By letting go of my "plans" or direct control, I allow the players to more fully experience and participate in the roleplaying game. Thus I provide a more full experience for everyone at the table, including me.
I've realized this and I've tried, several times, to take a step back and give the players more control. But I'm bad at letting go of that control and inevitably end up trying to seize it once more.
So, I think that with "play to find out what happens" being encoded into the rules, both on the player and GM side of the game (although in different but cohesive ways), the game will force me to let go of some of that control and will help me to grow as a GM. Hopefully this will also provide a better experience for the players as well.
Prep: Plots verses Scenarios
Now, I know what you're thinking: "No prep? That sounds impossible." And maybe it would be. But I didn't say I couldn't prep anything. Just that I couldn't prepare plotlines. What I can prepare is a scenario. For a lot of PBTA games, this looks something like this:
- There exists a threat/danger. An NPC or other force that can have an impact on the player character's lives and on the setting as a whole.
- This threat wants something-and has a plan to get it, or at least to get closer to getting it
- Then I look at the threat's plan and determine steps of what would happen if the players never got involved in the situation.
- However, once the players *do* get involved in the situation, I have to adapt accordingly.
- All NPCs in the setting have motivations. How the players interact with these NPCs might determine future threats and scenarios.
Bonus Points: Loss of Setting Control
Related to my giving up control: Most PBTA games don't have an "official" or "preset" setting. Many of them are left generic so that blanks can be filled in cooperatively by players and GMs alike as the story goes on. Some of them have means of generating the setting to begin with. The Veil is one of these. This means that not only have I been unable to plan any sort of linear plot, but that I've also been unable to plan the setting, do world building on my own, or otherwise think about what aspects of the world might impact the game.
This is very hard for me.
But hopefully it'll pay off.
My campaign of The Veil, begins next Saturday, 31 August, 2019. I'm sure I'll let you know how it goes.
Ruins & Robots: Available Now
If you've missed the announcement, my Ruins & Robots series of books has started now. Ruins & Robots is a robot-bases space faring post apocalyptic series with cyberpunk themes and gamelit elements.
The story follows MAI, a robot whose role is to raise up projections of human personalities as she and her team search the ruins of humanity in search of anything valuable that our race left behind.
You can grab the first short story for free here:
The first full book of the series, which follows where the short story leaves off, can be found here:
No comments:
Post a Comment