|
Secrets…so many secrets. It seems players want to keep their thoughts and goals to themselves. Most will share with the GM their ideas, but not with the other players. Yes, I said players. This sometimes goes as far as to keep the GM out of the loop as well (usually ending poorly). They fear the metagaming aspect of another player knowing the secret.
Let me make one thing very clear: metagaming is not always bad! If the other players know and understand what your goal is, and a general idea of how you may want your character to get there, they will have their characters interact in a way to help you do so. This is a collaborative game, the players, as well as their characters, should be working together. This will enable them to achieve the larger goal of defeating the bad guy, but it also helps to achieve the smaller, more personal goals. Metagaming aside, if the GM doesn’t know the secret, they cannot incorporate the reason for such a secret into the game. What is the reason for keeping a secret if there is no fear of it becoming known? I, personally, am okay with secrets among my players, but it does come with caution. The secrets kept cannot interfere with party cohesion. I do not like when one player goes out and does anything detrimental for the rest of the group, or intentionally causes some major setback on the main plot. I don’t like a “mole” within the adventuring party that is planning on betraying the group (some like this, but I do not). I also don’t like it when players keep their personal goals or expectations to themselves. This is why I like session 0. This is a good time to work out how the characters know each other and what they know about each other. Secrets could to be shared with at least one other player, and the GM to ensure their incorporation within the story. Talk with your GM, let them know your personal goals (it’s okay if this develops during the game, you do not need to know it all on day one. If it is a secret within your character’s backstory, let them know what it is and what your character believes would happen if it became known. And, if none of it matters, why keep it a secret to begin with?
0 Comments
Part of homebrewing a campaign is customizability! If my players want to be able to do a certain thing, I can create a feat, item, talent, background, or even race that will enable them to do so (within reason of course). The hardest part is balance, I don’t want it to over power the rest of the group. So, I start with the end and work backwards.
The first thing I ask the player who wants it is: Why? Sometimes a player is really just looking for something flashy. A new look, an acrobatic attack, or an ability that would come out of their backstory…these are all good reasons to homebrew. In one campaign, a player wanted his character to be born of a union between a mermaid and a human, and was looking for something to show this heritage. Okay, sounds cool, so the next thing I asked was: What? This is when we spitball ideas until something makes sense. We thought about aspects of the merfolk that we could bring in such as swimming speeds, fins, water breathing, skin coloration, etc. We finally landed on being able to hold his breath for longer and making it easier to swim. He wanted the water to be comfortable for his character, but the land would be his home. Great! Now I ask: How? Here is where the balance needs to be taken into consideration. For this specific example, I wasn’t too worried about this. We decided that his character could hold his breath for twice the time a normal human could, and added a swim speed equal to his walking speed. Other times I’ve done this, I really had to think long and hard. I did not want to make something too powerful (dealing enough damage to one shot my monsters), nor add so much extra resources that would allow the character to take on a lot of major enemies without consequence. After getting some ideas, I start looking for something that is similar that might already exist. If I find one that works, I may just give it to the character (not make them find it or buy it). However, this is not always the case, sometimes I just cannot find anything that is close enough. Such was the case of the spell transference feat I created. Some have told me this feat is too powerful, but I disagree. I had created a scenario where some spell casters were being held ransom by a warrior tribe. Within the tribe were shamans who would shield the encampment if an enemy came too close. A problem arose when giants were attacking the camp, they needed more shields for camp. I decided that the shamans were going to be able to transfer the concentration of the spell to another spell caster, nearly doubling the size of the area if they passed the spell to the captives. I realized quickly that this could be misused (making it the powerful feat that some have claimed it to be). All I had to do was add in some restrictions. First, it had to be transferred to another spell caster, who had to succeed on a check to take it over. Second, the one that it was transferred to had to maintain the concentration on that spell to keep it effective (meaning they would not be able to cast a concentration spell themselves). And third, it could only be used once each day. Keeping in mind what a homebrewed creation can do at its maximum, you can write the mechanics and description to fill in the loop holes and give it some restriction. Too much restriction, it will make the creation nearly useless. Not enough restriction will make the creation control the situation (instead of the GM). You just have to find the happy median that will make your player happy while still maintaining control of the game. My first, completed, prewritten campaign is over! It was definitely rough. Though I believe the players had fun, I found myself stuck on the tracks. Talk about railroading! When the GM feels like they can only go one way, I know the players felt that too. There is so much more offered in the book that I was running that was missed, glossed over, ignored, etc. that I know the players would have enjoyed. However, because we had this major goal, they felt it necessary to accomplish that.
In this particular campaign, there are a few things I will do differently next time. Probably the biggest issue was it gave out way too much information right after the first real encounter. The players knew immediately what needed to be done, and even a bit of how to do it. At the end of that scenario, they were given a direction to find another NPC with even more information. So, how would I change this? Well, cut the information in half, if not more. Let the players explore the first city more before driving them onward. The next issue I would address was the magic items. Many points within the campaign just gave quite powerful items to the players from NPCs. A couple they found on bad guys they had defeated, but that was only a few. A couple of the players ended up having so many items that they began to look for ways to sell them. Well, it didn’t make a lot of sense for them to sell these particular items as they were religious relics in a low magic world. Besides that, they didn’t have a whole lot they needed to buy. So, that being said, I ran this in my usual style without caring about what they were carrying or how much was needed to pay for room and board. I just don’t like the nuances that come with keeping an inventory and, quite frankly, I forget about what the players actually have in their hands when encountering a guard or city official. However, I still felt as though that would not have mattered much in this campaign. I want to run this again. Next time, I will treat it more like a campaign setting and less like a prewritten campaign. I want to allow my players to explore the world more, and interact with more of the NPCs. Instead of knowing ahead of time about the bad guys, they will “stumble” upon them, and not receive so much information until they are half way through, or maybe even later. Gotta keep ‘em guessing, right? The number one discussion I have with other GMs is balancing encounters. Several systems try to do this by using some sort of mathematical equation that involves player levels versus monster levels. Often these equations just don’t work…well, not the way most GMs try to use them anyway.
I have discovered that if I use these equations and actually give several combats to the players before they can recover, then it works. However, I generally only have my players do one combat. When following the guidelines, these combats are super easy for my players. They lose interest quickly when fights are simple, and quick. They are not using their resources to any great degree, so how do I fix this? When I am planning an encounter, I find a monster (or bad guy) that makes sense to be in the area, and triple its given hit points. Then I check its attacks. If it has minimal attacks, or only one type of attack, I like to add other enemies to fill out the attacks, making sure I have some melee and some ranged attacks. If this is supposed to be a major bad guy, I might give them legendary actions to impress the imminent danger. My general rule of thumb is to try to make the encounter last at least three rounds, but not more than ten if possible. I want it to be challenging without becoming a “slugfest.” If it lasts too long, the players will fall into taking the same action on every turn. When that happens, they will check out and just roll the dice, the battle becomes monotonous. Full disclosure: I will fudge my roles, I will alter the enemy’s stats…and I will even do this mid-battle. I do these things for my players’ enjoyment. It is never a “me vs. them” mentality, I actually want my players to win (otherwise the story ends). I just want them to feel challenged and am trying to learn where the line is for making an encounter feel deadly without actually killing the characters. |
AuthorJodie 
Archives
April 2025
Have a question you would like the GM to give her thoughts on?
|
RSS Feed