LostKnightsRPG.org

I’m not sure how to write this out formally, so I’m just gonna jump right in. Last nights Star Wars game did not end on a very high note. I noticed that at least half my players left the game frustrated, and bitter. I take some responsibility for this. As the GM I feel it is my duty to ensure that the plot progresses, a good story gets told, and most importantly everyone has fun.

I am not always able to do all these things unfortunately. I do attribute some of this to my lack of experience as a GM. I want people to know that I don’t take these responsibilities lightly. I think about them a lot, and I want to get better. So for my part I want to apologize. I’m sorry to my players who are disappointed with the way things turned out. From here I want to move on, and keep trying to provide a progressively better game, and I hope you guys will bear with me.

I guess I should address some of the over-arcing issues that lead to nights like last night. I want to touch bases with people and try to get everyone on the same page. This will (I hope) prevent frustration in the future.

Issue one is the arguing. It’s not just in Star Wars, but many of the games we play. I am as responsible as anyone, but it has to stop. We can’t keep playing games that are interrupted by half hour (or longer) arguments. It’s not conducive to a fun atmosphere. Cheyne kindly pointed out several reasons why this is occurring, and by pointing them out I hope to help mitigate such activity.

GM trust is one of the larger points he made. Basically, as players we have to trust that the GM is trying to tell a story, and has our characters interests in mind. We have to have faith that the GM is not actively trying to defeat, or kill us. This doesn’t mean that characters wont die, or that they wont lose a fight or two, but that such occurrences will only happen in order to develop the plot, or with just plain bad luck with dice.

Second, I think this group (me included) has serious control, and trust issues, and that we as players and friends are going to have to overcome these to some degree, if we want to play games productively.

Another issue that was mentioned was the familiarity we have with one another. I know it seems weird, but due to the amount of time we spend together doing this stuff we are more comfortable with one another. This means we are, as people, more likely to express opinions, and argue. I’m not sure how to fix this, except to say that we are just going to have to learn to deal with it in a more productive manner.

Lets see… As far as Star Wars goes I’m really excited about all the new rules we have worked on. I think the D6 system is better for them, and over all I think the game is more balanced. However, we have to understand, that we are essentially play testing these mechanics. They are full of typos, bugs, and misunderstanding. Please, try to keep this in mind. It means we will run into weird rules that seem unfair, and need to be fixed, and they will be, it will just take time.

When we run into these kinds of situations its best to try and resolve them quickly. I would say that the GM needs final say during a game. This lets the game continue, and gives everyone a chance to experience the mechanic. People should write things down if they really feel strongly, and address things afterward. This lets tempers cool, and lets people know if their fears/worries/complaints are justified in regards to the rule/mechanic in question.

Something else I want to address actually makes for an interesting, and fun exercise. After everyone left, me and Cheyne sat down, and started talking about our particular perspectives on what Star Wars was; how it felt, what different characters represented, and the overall ‘power level’ of the setting. Not surprisingly many of our ideas were different. The way we saw things was just not the same. This, I think, is at the heart of many of the issues people are having with the game. What I want, is to hear what each of you think Star Wars is. More to the point what are your expectations when you think about the characters, and the universe.

I’m going to start by telling you how I envision this setting. Keep in mind this is the view-point from which my game is being run. I am hoping that by doing this we can at least come to understand each other a bit better, and what is expected of us while playing the game.

I see Star Wars as a fine blend of cinematic, and epic heroics, coupled with gritty leg work, and ‘edge of your teeth’ victory. Most of my inspiration comes from the original trilogy, with the newer movies, and graphic novels a close second. I do take video games into account, but Steven actually convinced me to take them with a certain grain of salt as they tend to be a bit above the standard range of power, and effect of the rest of the extended U (they are in fact almost totally cinematic in a way I don’t think the rest of Star Wars is).

The reason I see Star Wars this way is that if you watch the movies they are full of failure, and dangerous battles. While I understand that a role-playing game can’t be full of constant failure, I do think that it means fights, and skill rolls should be challenging. The graphic novels and books tend to be even grittier, with character death, and constant struggle/hardships throughout. Even episodes 1,2,3 are filled with moments when seemingly powerful characters just have to run away, or try something different.

While I'm at it want to address Force users a bit as well. I know that a lot of people see Jedi pretty much like superheroes, as Cheyne puts it. They have magic powers, laser swords, and are depicted as being well beyond the average being. I do agree with this, but with less hero worship. I see the characters in the movies as the best of the best. Heroes that characters must aspire to become. I think that some of the problems people seem to be having are that they want to be those characters. While that’s fine, they must realize that they are aspiring to be that, not that they are (currently as starting characters) that.

I don’t know, I’ve always approached this setting with a bit of wonderlust. Becoming a master Jedi is a dream to be fulfilled after many sessions. The exception to this would be a game in which the GM decided to start people with those die codes, which is fine, but that isn’t what we are playing. I try to think of parallels in other systems. Vampire elders, and neonates in WOD, epic characters, and standard adventurers in DnD, that sort of thing. I remember an old Star Wars game (under Gideon) in which I got to fight Boba Fett. I got to Absorb/Dissipate his blaster fire, and I felt like a freakin’ epic badass. That character had been played for about a year when that happened.

I guess what I’m saying is don’t get discouraged just because you cant do what Luke, Mace, and Obi-Wan can do. You aren’t supposed to be them. Beginning characters aren’t on par with a Jedi Knight, much less a master. It gives you goal to work toward, something to hope for, which is important to the setting imo.

I’ve gotten a bit side tracked I think. The grittiness of this setting is something else I need to stress. It is suppose to be hard. Even with 8-9D there are things you just can’t do. This isn’t Marvel. Powerful characters still have to worry about blasters, and stormtroopers, and such. In the game so far you guys have only met one opponent you couldn’t face, and you weren’t suppose to be able to. I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings, but powerful creatures exist in Star Wars, and you guys will meet them. Yes, many of them are stronger than all of you together (as you are now). I don’t see a problem with this, and think it is highly appropriate for the setting.

Let me give some examples. Luke confronted and lost to Vader several times before he finally managed to bring him down, and as soon as he did, he got his ass kicked by Palpatine. Han struggled through the first three movies, failing as much as succeeding whenever he did anything. Episode 1 starts with two Jedi (one, Qui-Gon a master) getting ambushed, and having to run away. I’m not trying to dissuade people from playing, or trying to upset them. I’m just saying this is what Star Wars is to me. It’s the feel, and crux, and the reason the epic moments are so epic. This is what I want my game to be.

I hope I’ve done what I set out to do with this message. I really want to hear feed-back from other peoples points of view. Not just about what Star Wars is to them, but also about their feelings toward the problems we, as a group, are experiencing. I want to keep playing games, and so do most of you. However something has to give. We can’t keep having hours of arguing every session. It’s ruining the games, and potentially the friendships.

So we need to work on trusting the GM, communicating, and attempting to see each other’s points of view. If anyone thinks of other issues we can work on please feel free to let us know. Problems can’t get fixed if we don’t address them. I hope this came across without any vindictiveness, or figure pointing. I want to stress that I am as responsible as anyone for these problems, and that I don’t blame anyone person. Again I apologize for my part, and truly hope can keep gaming, and having fun.

I'm not even going to attempt to address any problems we might have as a group (or troupe, or whatever one wants to label us) of players. For the moment I will simply focus on a response in the context of this single game.

To me the fun of Star Wars is mostly confined to the first trilogy (Ep4,5,6) and the books that come after it chronologically up until the Yuuzan Vong invasion and the New Jedi Order series. There has been an unholy shit-ton of stuff published for Star Wars, and like anything that has such a huge amount of content published for it, an awful lot of it is crap. I love me some Star Wars, but I also loath a lot of the crap they've thrown out over the years.

My interest, as far as an RPG goes, is largely in getting the look and feel of the Star Wars galaxy and playing a game in that. This look and feel is massively disrupted by the appearance of weird shit that only made appearances in one book (or series, as is often the case) and never receives any other mention (this stuff is often stuff I've never even heard of. I've read a lot of stuff for Star Wars, and seen a lot of stuff. If I haven't heard of it, its probably not notable enough for inclusion in a game). Its disrupted by odd elements that I find to be out of place (no examples in this game so far, but I've read stuff in other published fiction that met this criteria). It is, as I have noted in person, disrupted by uses of the Force that I find to be out of faith with what my personal vision of the Force is capable of. I'll be the first to acknowledge that my overall vision of the SW galaxy is not going to jive with everyone else's, but its all I have to work with, and I like what I've got in my head quite a lot.

That all said, we're play testing what is largely a new system, and so disputes over rules and whatnot are inevitable. In these cases I disagree that the GM should have final say. As one of the primary authors of the system, and also the GM, there is bias towards an end-result that cannot be ignored. Majority opinion should be a factor in what the final ruling for disputed rules is. One way to handle this may be to formalize the dispute process to some degree - give everyone a chance to state their opinion and cite any examples they may have, and then put it to a vote once everyone's had their say. To anyone that thinks this sounds like it might become long and drawn out, I say this: Would it be longer and more drawn out than us beating a dead unicorn for half an hour as we argue?

Josh I will call you, but I will say that I have a very low threshold for siting and doing nothing. my personal problem with last night was only that I was able to play though an entire monopoly game in the time between actions. Though it is not your fault I still tend to get very turned off when that happens. Other than that I just felt like I was observing a "josh npc" over whelm the party for no plot forwarding, and that even if the players had managed to find a way to succeed in the situation you would not have allowed it. If I was with that part of the group I would have infuriated, but till it happens to me I am willing to over look it.

Also no i do not trust you just tell a good story, but years of power gaming with a total lack of story has reenforced the idea of playing the game/gm/character instead of playing to tell a story. Old habits die hard, but I am working to undo a lot of those bad habits.

Avilister wrote: That all said, we're play testing what is largely a new system, and so disputes over rules and whatnot are inevitable. In these cases I disagree that the GM should have final say. As one of the primary authors of the system, and also the GM, there is bias towards an end-result that cannot be ignored. Majority opinion should be a factor in what the final ruling for disputed rules is. One way to handle this may be to formalize the dispute process to some degree - give everyone a chance to state their opinion and cite any examples they may have, and then put it to a vote once everyone's had their say. To anyone that thinks this sounds like it might become long and drawn out, I say this: Would it be longer and more drawn out than us beating a dead unicorn for half an hour as we argue?

I'm in agreement on this, with one caveat: after voicing a protest, if the GM disagrees, wait till the end of the game to have the discussion. I was pretty much with you on all of your objections, but I realized in the middle of the game that I wanted to actually do more than argue, and that would only happen if we just moved it along and played. So, the player, or perhaps the GM, should make a note of the disagreement, and return to it after the game (which also provides the chance for anger to dissipate and for the ruling to actually get tested; if it is a bad ruling, play may actually prove that out, depending on the nature of the ruling).

As to the nature of the rpg troupe... yeah, different thread. But I agree with Josh that sometimes we have to hang back and have a little faith in the GM's vision, without constantly "gaming by consensus". But at the same time, going with what Steven said, if it isn't fun, or if there is a decision that would be better established by the group as a whole, everyone should be involved in the process... Especially for play testing a game system (which, it is important to note, is not going to mirror the source material in every way if it is also going to be fun).

I've been thinking for a while about formalizing a few things, nothing big, nothing complex, but just some ideas about how to approach gaming to be more productive. Some of this feeds into that. I'll probably make a post in a different thread on how I intend to approach things after I figure it all out.

edit:
Also, as to the "Josh NPC", I had mixed feelings. I actually don't mind there being a Vader/Luke moment there. It is fitting for Star Wars. But it also fits into a longer habit of making NPC's that are cooler than the players, which I hate on any regular basis, and that was what was pissing me off. I eventually decided to just chill, and take it at face value; after that I was cool with it.

Josh has stated many times that he "likes challenging games", but I feel that the focus should still stay on how cool the players are, not the GMC's (note I said GMC's, not NPC's; I feel like Josh often doesn't have npc's in the classical sense. They are either scenery, or GMC's.)
Basically, I'd like to see a happy medium between hard ass fights all the time, and easy victories. A variety of different challenge levels, and only the occassional impossible to win battle. I'm not against losing, and I can have faith that it will lead to a better plot (and since I'm a fan of realism, and people DO lose sometimes, I like seeing it in games), but that would be easier if it didn't happen so often, and if we got to eventually see reward for our hardships.

I also would like to note that it isn't necessary to make everything hard; challenge for its own sake is imo meaningless. If players have good ideas, there is nothing wrong with letting them get around what would otherwise have been an impossible situation. This is somewhat at odds with some old-school GMing theory that states "players should earn every inch of ground they take", but I personally think we are past the days of the DM vs. Player paradigm out of which said theory came.

Cool, Im glad people are responding. Its good to know some of these things, as it will hopefully allow me to run a better game.

I wanted to comment on the idea of a GM having final rules say during a game. I may not have expressed exactly what I was trying to say. Cheyne I think said it though. When it comes to actually working on the mechanics, rules, and such a group consensus is pretty much the only way to resolve disputes. The times I think a GM should have final say is during the course of a game. This is functionally the same as a house ruling. There are things within the rules some people do not like. Each of us is different, and that leads to argument. Ultimately the GM has to have control of his game (by necessity), and thus if a rule causes conflict he should be the one to resolve it as he sees fit.

The reasons for this (and it applies to any game btw) are that its expedient, and cuts right through the arguments. It may be unfair in the sense that not everyone has an equal say, but our game nights don't need to turn into sessions of Congress. Besides people can always write stuff down, and bring it back up later if a revision to the base rules is necessary. During game play just isn't the time for that sort of thing.

That said GMs are just people, and they do make mistakes. I don't feel its a bad thing to bring up something if it seems like the GM maybe missing something, or has maybe just forgotten the way a certain mechanic works. Sometimes as a GM you have a vision about how something should resolve, and that may not jive with the rules. It is within a GMs right to change things to fit a setting. Sometimes however, they just overlook something. I unfortunately do this. I don't have the best memory, and it tends to get worse under stress, and fatigue (two factors which were in high in the last Star Wars session). So its okay to point something out when you feel its being done wrong. Do so in a polite manner, and respect the final decision though.

Something else that stood out in your comments was the way people are responding to my NPC's. So far we have only had like three sessions, and you guys have been able to do pretty much what you wanted. I try to allow players freedom, and mitigate railroading. When I see that you guys want to take a certain course of action I try to make several different avenues available to do so. Hell you could have left Dathomir in the first session (the option was there).

That said, there is a huge universe around you, and when I note something in game there are usually reasons behind this. I write a lot of material you all will never see. Sometimes there are crossroads between characters, some of these characters are normal, others are monsters (in several senses of that word). The NPC you confronted was one of the later. You have not run into anyone like him before this, every character you have come across so far you have had the chance to manipulate if you chose to do so. Some of them are a bit trickier than others, but most would barely have put up a fight had you approached them from the right angle. Even Trevadar you were able to escape from, because you developed a strategy. Could you have stood against him in a fight, not a chance. Yes, every aggressive action you took against him was shut down, but that wasn't the way to go about that encounter.

I'm really torn here. I don't know a great fix for the problems people seem to be having. If you went to Corruscant to confront the Emperor, would you expect to be able to see him? And, if you were prevented would you expect to be able to overcome the obstacles in your way, and confront him anyway? I am asking this because your specific answers tell me a lot about the way you view your place in this game. Its helpful to know. It should come as no surprise, that in answer to my own questions I respond with a big 'no'. I would expect to be turned way, and to either be incarcerated, or killed trying to force my way into the palace. Its basically a fruitless action in my mind. Think it through, and let me know your reaction to the above scenario.

This universe moves without you. Im sorry if this offends people, but it does make for a more dynamic setting. I know Cheyne has done this in his games as well. I am telling you this so that you will feel informed, and thus maybe less powerless. I will work on the balance of my encounters, so that not every fight has a gritty feel. I thought I was doing this, the stuff that was done last session was relatively easy for you guys to do. However, sometimes there are factors involved to which you aren't privy. This is the case in pretty much any rpg though. You really are just going to have to trust that Im trying to make a neat story, because that is what I want to do.

We are not playing a power game, just so your aware. If you cant trust me as a GM, and you want to play a power game... this is not the game for you. I hate ultimatums, and this isn't suppose to be one. I want people to have fun, but I also feel like the setting demands a power check. I just don't want to run a game with a bunch of Mace Windus running around. At least not at this point in the story. We are laying the ground work for the real adventures right now. This is the set up, for the epic stuff. I want people to learn about the universe, explore the game mechanics, and develop the characters.

As far as the other night advancing the plot. I'm pretty sure the events which transpired have totally reshaped the game for you all, at least for a while. Your lives in Imperial space are about to get much more interesting thats for sure. I would call that a victory for plot. Maybe I'm wrong.

Before I end this I want you to understand the power level a bit better (at least the one in my head). Again this info will hopefully let you judge situations a bit better in these games, and thus feel more secure in said actions.

Most NPCs are mooks, they have only the smallest chance of standing toe to toe with a PC, and that chance is pretty much pure luck. Even small groups of these characters don't have much of a chance, unless those groups are extremely large. A squad of stormtroopers (8 guys) should give you pause, two squads will probably take you down. This is the power level at which you are playing, and at which most of Star Wars exists.

Most named NPCs (many of whom are characters from published materials) are at this point in your development your peers. Even with the Force, there are a lot of dangerous people out there, who can beat you in a one on one fight. Keep this in mind. It might interest you to know, that most of the Force users you will encounter have very similar die pools to you guys' characters (although most of my made up NPCs actually are worse with the actual Force, if they have it at all). The danger level of Star Wars is actually very similar to the danger level of WOD imo.

Okay, I've written enough to respond to. Hopefully this post will help you feel a little more comfortable interacting with the game environment. Please try and respond to my above questions, as they will help me see where you guys are coming from. This will in turn help me tailor the setting a bit better.

I agree that the arguing needs to stop. I am bad about it when it is something i feel needs to be addressed, but i think most of us are that way. I am ok with the GM gets final say during a game, but that we need to have a chance to voice issues with the system/session immediatly after it is done.

As for this most recent session, i was on the whole ok with it. Most of the fights were well paced and not overly complicated. The ones involving me and Jason's characters felt cinematic and showed how our comabt characters would do against mooks. My only issue with the final fight was the apparent power level of the person you put us against. I hope you have a reasonable story for him since he was so powerul. To my knowledge at this time there were very few force senstives who are that powerful. Possible a small number of emperor hands, but i do not know of any other than Mara Jade. IMO she is probably the high end of the power scale along with Lumiya.

Yes, Trevadar Malasarius has an extensive backstory, and there is good reason why he is at the power level he is at. Mara Jade is actually only a bit more powerful than any one of the party at this point in the storyline. She really isn't at the top of the power curve at all (just kind of FYI).

You people weren't actually suppose to fight that character, but your actions progressed n such a way that an encounter was pretty much inevitable. I tried to mitigate his over all power as much as possible, but it was and is still pretty much impossible for the party to beat him at this point in the game. There are many suck characters and creatures in the universe like this. Its so expansive, and so rich with backstory that this is inevitable. I can only mitigate this so much, without completely ruining what Star Wars is.