Taliesin
05-11-2016, 09:21 PM
The Gamemaster’s Guide to Managing Player's Schemes and Plans
by Thijs Krijger
Sometimes your players want to accomplish a particular goal or objective. So they prod you, their illustrious Gamemaster, for all kinds of information in order to devise the perfect plan. You don’t want to disappoint them, of course, so you spend untold hours developing all the requisite details — the number of soldiers, watch schedules, names of bribeable NPCs, backgrounds and motivations, weaknesses in the defenses, and remarkably detailed maps to prepare for the big event. Then your players spend three-quarters of the session planning and, in the last fifteen minutes, blow it all with a bad dice roll.
Sure, the planning and hand-wringing can be fun. But sometimes you just want to get on with the action. Once all the requested information to inform the plan has been provide, one might conclude that the players have complete freedom to choose their preferred approach, right?
Wrong.
The players will usually seek to exploit the weakest link in the defenses. This can be a weakness intentionally provided to give the increase players's chance of success or an actual weakness that you simply missed (but a five-year-old could have spotted). With such weaknesses exposed, the players do not truly experience free will, but rather the impression of freedom.
And let’s be honest: If the players came up with the perfect plan, the session would be a bit boring, as nothing unexpected would happen. In fiction, it’s when the plan goes south that we “zoom in” to the hero and the exciting action happens. Hence in gaming, as in fiction, we understand that no plan is perfect.
If your players want to make a detailed plan to overcome some obstacle, ask them to provide the plan. Let them tell you how their characters come up with the plan (which of course can always be vetoed by the Gamemaster), and why it will work. The Gamemaster should then require the players to provide at least one Detail about how they intend to carry out the plan and, most importantly, let them indicate where the Weakness of the plan lies. Let the players fill in any other details they like (again Gamemaster-veto possible) but don't spend too much time "in the weeds." No one really cares why some of the options are not chosen; it's the end-goal that counts. Sometimes players already have a clear plan in mind. Be agreeable but remain impartial and remind the players that there are always alternative ways to accomplish their goals.
Once the plan is set, you need only define one or two Details. Different plans require different sorts of Details:
Attack: You want to attack a target. The Detail is the point of attack.
Deceive: You want to lure, trick, or manipulate someone. The Detail is the method of deception.
Sneak: You want to secretly infiltrate some place you are not wanted. The Detail is the point of entry.
Social plan: You want to negotiate, bargain, or persuade. The Detail is the social connection (NPC).
The weakness in the plan should be just that — the weakest point in the whole endeavor. Given the relatively low skills non-combat skills common to Player-knights in King Arthur Pendragon, rolling for every step in the plan will guarantee at least one failure. Don't get bogged in minutia that can spoil the main event before the characters even arrive. Focus on the weak link in the plan and play out this one critical story beat. Try to boil it down to a single roll, opposed or not, with a single player. This will also allow players to optimally employ their passions, and win extra rewards for deserving risk-takers. Let the players come up with the weak point, but feel free to aid or overrule them, as needed.
If at all possible, let the players themselves indicate what the consequences of failure should be. Encourage your players to provide interesting failure options (see "Failing forward" below). Don't always go with the obvious effect, nor should you feel obligated to follow the players' suggestion.
Example:
The players want to free a friend imprisoned in an enemy castle. The Gamemaster asks them if they are committed to an assault, or if they want to try to get inside the castle, free the prisoner, and escape. The players opt for subterfuge.
Instead of getting mired in the details, simply tell them the castle is well-guarded and ask them how they intend to get in. PK1 suggests some sort of trickery or deception. PK2 is more cautious and wants to bribe a guard. PK3 is a courtly knight and suggest he might know someone inside.
The players decide the best approach is to try to persuade or bribe a (as yet un-named) friend of PK3. The Weakness is that the friend might not be persuaded or (suggests PK1) may even betray and ambush the heroes. The Gamemaster (or PK3) provides some details on the friend and the game continues with the PKs meeting the friend outside the postern gate. Roll Intrigue...
Notice how the whole issue of how to meet up with the friend or how to get to the postern gate is skipped in the interest of compelling action. Also, if the Intrigue attempt is successful, sneaking through the castle to get to the prisoner is skipped altogether (or briefly narrated by the Gamemaster to underscore the tension and uncertainty), since the Weakness was the Intrigue attempt. Had the players indicated that the Weakness was sneaking through the castle, a Dex check (modified with armor) would have precipitated the action.
Other possibilities in the above example may have included:
Storming the castle at the main gate—but there might be more knights then we accounted for.
Seducing the castellan’s wife and letting her free the prisoner—though his wife might not be so easily seduced.
Sneaking into the castle over the moat—but we could fall into the water (in armor) while Boating across.
Of course, this process can be abused by players. The last option, sneaking over the moat, when chosen by player with Boating 35, is clearly not the weakest spot in the plan. The Gamemaster will exercise common sense to point out if another part of the plan is actually much weaker than the player’s suggested Weakness. Only do this if the difference is very clear; do not get into arguments of whether sneaking in armor (DEX check) or pulling someone up a rope (STR check) is the better tactic (unless the PKs are magically enhanced one way or another).
How much opposition the players encounter can be either left to the Gamemaster or based on the players’ reasoning. The impartial Gamemaster, however, can simply ask the players how they came upon the information upon which their plan was formulated. Attempt to match this to a character’s skill ("It's a friend I know: Courtesy", "I surveilled their battlements: Siege", "I know she is lonely: Romance," etc), and allow the Player-character to roll this skill as part of their "information gathering." A success will allow additional unmodified skill rolls on the 'weak spot' rolls, a failure will provide a -5, a fumble -10 and a critical +5. If a skill is needed during the 'weak spot' rolls and its rating is not immediately obvious roll 2D6+3.
Of course, members of the King’s Guard will be harder to bribe than hillmen, so make sure to apply common sense and appropriate bonuses (+5 for elite opponents, -5 for substandard opponents).
Failing Forward
If the skill rolls for the Weakness in the plan fail, don’t stop the action there. Always make sure that failure at the weak point results in new action. Failure to bribe leads to combat, failure to sneak leads to a chase, failure to seduce leads to a duel, failure to cross the river leads to being dragged downstream to a monster’s lair. Never let a failure stop the action, always “fail forward.”
Summary
Determine objective
Develop overall strategy
Specify one Detail
Identify the Weakness in the plan
Provide Information Gathering detail
Determine and roll Information Gathering skill [-10/-5/0/+5]
GM: Determine Opponent Skill [2D6+3]
Play out Weakness (skip rest)
Determine and roll Weakness skill (modified with Information Gathering roll)
Obtain objective or fail forward
[Editor's Note: This article was prepared some time ago, and is only now seeing the light of day (for which I apologize, Thijs!). It got buried in a mountain of email and was only recently rediscovered, much to my delight. It is offered here after review and commentary by Greg Stafford, and with his blessings. — MW]
by Thijs Krijger
Sometimes your players want to accomplish a particular goal or objective. So they prod you, their illustrious Gamemaster, for all kinds of information in order to devise the perfect plan. You don’t want to disappoint them, of course, so you spend untold hours developing all the requisite details — the number of soldiers, watch schedules, names of bribeable NPCs, backgrounds and motivations, weaknesses in the defenses, and remarkably detailed maps to prepare for the big event. Then your players spend three-quarters of the session planning and, in the last fifteen minutes, blow it all with a bad dice roll.
Sure, the planning and hand-wringing can be fun. But sometimes you just want to get on with the action. Once all the requested information to inform the plan has been provide, one might conclude that the players have complete freedom to choose their preferred approach, right?
Wrong.
The players will usually seek to exploit the weakest link in the defenses. This can be a weakness intentionally provided to give the increase players's chance of success or an actual weakness that you simply missed (but a five-year-old could have spotted). With such weaknesses exposed, the players do not truly experience free will, but rather the impression of freedom.
And let’s be honest: If the players came up with the perfect plan, the session would be a bit boring, as nothing unexpected would happen. In fiction, it’s when the plan goes south that we “zoom in” to the hero and the exciting action happens. Hence in gaming, as in fiction, we understand that no plan is perfect.
If your players want to make a detailed plan to overcome some obstacle, ask them to provide the plan. Let them tell you how their characters come up with the plan (which of course can always be vetoed by the Gamemaster), and why it will work. The Gamemaster should then require the players to provide at least one Detail about how they intend to carry out the plan and, most importantly, let them indicate where the Weakness of the plan lies. Let the players fill in any other details they like (again Gamemaster-veto possible) but don't spend too much time "in the weeds." No one really cares why some of the options are not chosen; it's the end-goal that counts. Sometimes players already have a clear plan in mind. Be agreeable but remain impartial and remind the players that there are always alternative ways to accomplish their goals.
Once the plan is set, you need only define one or two Details. Different plans require different sorts of Details:
Attack: You want to attack a target. The Detail is the point of attack.
Deceive: You want to lure, trick, or manipulate someone. The Detail is the method of deception.
Sneak: You want to secretly infiltrate some place you are not wanted. The Detail is the point of entry.
Social plan: You want to negotiate, bargain, or persuade. The Detail is the social connection (NPC).
The weakness in the plan should be just that — the weakest point in the whole endeavor. Given the relatively low skills non-combat skills common to Player-knights in King Arthur Pendragon, rolling for every step in the plan will guarantee at least one failure. Don't get bogged in minutia that can spoil the main event before the characters even arrive. Focus on the weak link in the plan and play out this one critical story beat. Try to boil it down to a single roll, opposed or not, with a single player. This will also allow players to optimally employ their passions, and win extra rewards for deserving risk-takers. Let the players come up with the weak point, but feel free to aid or overrule them, as needed.
If at all possible, let the players themselves indicate what the consequences of failure should be. Encourage your players to provide interesting failure options (see "Failing forward" below). Don't always go with the obvious effect, nor should you feel obligated to follow the players' suggestion.
Example:
The players want to free a friend imprisoned in an enemy castle. The Gamemaster asks them if they are committed to an assault, or if they want to try to get inside the castle, free the prisoner, and escape. The players opt for subterfuge.
Instead of getting mired in the details, simply tell them the castle is well-guarded and ask them how they intend to get in. PK1 suggests some sort of trickery or deception. PK2 is more cautious and wants to bribe a guard. PK3 is a courtly knight and suggest he might know someone inside.
The players decide the best approach is to try to persuade or bribe a (as yet un-named) friend of PK3. The Weakness is that the friend might not be persuaded or (suggests PK1) may even betray and ambush the heroes. The Gamemaster (or PK3) provides some details on the friend and the game continues with the PKs meeting the friend outside the postern gate. Roll Intrigue...
Notice how the whole issue of how to meet up with the friend or how to get to the postern gate is skipped in the interest of compelling action. Also, if the Intrigue attempt is successful, sneaking through the castle to get to the prisoner is skipped altogether (or briefly narrated by the Gamemaster to underscore the tension and uncertainty), since the Weakness was the Intrigue attempt. Had the players indicated that the Weakness was sneaking through the castle, a Dex check (modified with armor) would have precipitated the action.
Other possibilities in the above example may have included:
Storming the castle at the main gate—but there might be more knights then we accounted for.
Seducing the castellan’s wife and letting her free the prisoner—though his wife might not be so easily seduced.
Sneaking into the castle over the moat—but we could fall into the water (in armor) while Boating across.
Of course, this process can be abused by players. The last option, sneaking over the moat, when chosen by player with Boating 35, is clearly not the weakest spot in the plan. The Gamemaster will exercise common sense to point out if another part of the plan is actually much weaker than the player’s suggested Weakness. Only do this if the difference is very clear; do not get into arguments of whether sneaking in armor (DEX check) or pulling someone up a rope (STR check) is the better tactic (unless the PKs are magically enhanced one way or another).
How much opposition the players encounter can be either left to the Gamemaster or based on the players’ reasoning. The impartial Gamemaster, however, can simply ask the players how they came upon the information upon which their plan was formulated. Attempt to match this to a character’s skill ("It's a friend I know: Courtesy", "I surveilled their battlements: Siege", "I know she is lonely: Romance," etc), and allow the Player-character to roll this skill as part of their "information gathering." A success will allow additional unmodified skill rolls on the 'weak spot' rolls, a failure will provide a -5, a fumble -10 and a critical +5. If a skill is needed during the 'weak spot' rolls and its rating is not immediately obvious roll 2D6+3.
Of course, members of the King’s Guard will be harder to bribe than hillmen, so make sure to apply common sense and appropriate bonuses (+5 for elite opponents, -5 for substandard opponents).
Failing Forward
If the skill rolls for the Weakness in the plan fail, don’t stop the action there. Always make sure that failure at the weak point results in new action. Failure to bribe leads to combat, failure to sneak leads to a chase, failure to seduce leads to a duel, failure to cross the river leads to being dragged downstream to a monster’s lair. Never let a failure stop the action, always “fail forward.”
Summary
Determine objective
Develop overall strategy
Specify one Detail
Identify the Weakness in the plan
Provide Information Gathering detail
Determine and roll Information Gathering skill [-10/-5/0/+5]
GM: Determine Opponent Skill [2D6+3]
Play out Weakness (skip rest)
Determine and roll Weakness skill (modified with Information Gathering roll)
Obtain objective or fail forward
[Editor's Note: This article was prepared some time ago, and is only now seeing the light of day (for which I apologize, Thijs!). It got buried in a mountain of email and was only recently rediscovered, much to my delight. It is offered here after review and commentary by Greg Stafford, and with his blessings. — MW]