Cinematic fantasy combat

[amertes]

Hello all!

This is my first post here, I've been lurking here for maybe a week or two and because of some of the things I read here I decided to buy BRP. I've read it over, more of a quick skim through, and have started throwing together a few professions for a fantasy game I'm hoping to run in the near future.

The game I want to run will probably be heavy on combat. Have any of you seen rules to make characters more durable? I don't want characters to be as invincible as high level D&D characters, but would like them to be able to take a few wounds without dying.

Should I raise starting HP? Increase armor values? Decrease weapon damage values? Increase the starting level of Parry and Dodge skills?

Any suggestions are welcome!

[cjbowser]

A couple things you could do, real quick.

Use total hit points (CON + SIZ) instead onf (CON + SIZ)/2. Perhaps even double the total, but that would be too much in my opinion.

Use of of the options to create Epic or higher games. This will give you more skill points, which players can put into Weapons, Dodge, etc...

Use Step 6 to generate more skill points.

All of the above (with the exception of doubling the total hit points) can be found in the BRP book.

[NickMiddleton]

Hello all!

This is my first post here, I've been lurking here for maybe a week or two and because of some of the things I read here I decided to buy BRP. I've read it over, more of a quick skim through, and have started throwing together a few professions for a fantasy game I'm hoping to run in the near future.

The game I want to run will probably be heavy on combat. Have any of you seen rules to make characters more durable? I don't want characters to be as invincible as high level D&D characters, but would like them to be able to take a few wounds without dying.

Should I raise starting HP? Increase armor values? Decrease weapon damage values? Increase the starting level of Parry and Dodge skills?

Any suggestions are welcome!

Rather that fiddling with what the players get for their characters (albeit that's an entirely valid route), how about adjusting their opponents? For cinematic combats, think about using some sort of mook / extras rules e.g. NPC's that drop out of combat after one hit, or after one major wound; extras only get ONE action per round etc.

In cinematic style games, only the major Villain should really be on an equal footing with the PC's.

Nick

[RosenMcStern]

Give them extra skill points and throw in only Goblins at first, giving the PCs a numeric advantage. Then use Healing spells and potions to decrease the chance of characters dying for bad luck with parries.

The first time a character is on the verge of dying for an impaled gobling spear, they'll learn to be cautious in combat. Once they have learned how to survive (but they are not pissed off by too many PC deaths) you can throw in the Demon or the Dragon: they'll be scared, but they'll win. And remember, protective and weapon magic in BRP is way more powerful than in D&D (whereas direct damage magic is not), so throwing in a magician and a couple enchanted items makes for waaaay more survivability and fun than doubling hit points.

[p_clapham]

How about adding Hero points from the Mongoose Runequest / Conan rules? The players could spend them to re-roll at critical times, and use them to turn a killing blow into a incapacitating one?

I second the Mook rules suggestion. I've been using rules like that for cinimatic Call of Cthulhu games for some time now. :thumb:

[Harshax]

Rather that fiddling with what the players get for their characters (albeit that's an entirely valid route), how about adjusting their opponents? For cinematic combats, think about using some sort of mook / extras rules e.g. NPC's that drop out of combat after one hit, or after one major wound; extras only get ONE action per round etc.

In cinematic style games, only the major Villain should really be on an equal footing with the PC's.

Nick

this.

Unless you and your players like resource management, and also like to view Hit Points as a resource to gamble throughout the game, make opponent mook or extras that go down with one hit.

Even if you all don't like resource management, don't tell the players you've got mook rules in place. It helps when it comes to the whole suspension of disbelief thingy. . .

[Atgxtg]

I'll second the HEro Point suggestion. BRP actually has that as an optional rule. It can be very useful for counteracting unlucky dice rolls. Its no fun when Merlin fumbles his boating roll and he and King Arthur drown instead of getting Excaibur from the Lady of the Lake.

I'll third the "mook" rule suggestion. If you want it to be cinematic, you can write up some characters as "extras", "minor supporting character" and so forth and give them stats to match. So an orc "extra" for a fantasy game might be 30% and have a low CON/SIZ for low hp, while the orc champion that is supposed to be a tough foe would have higher skills.

One neat thing about RPGs is that since the players don't get to look over the opponent's sheets, they don't have to know how weak a foe really is. If you runhim like he is tough, have him act tough, and set up the encounters so that he looks tough, the players will believe he actually is tough. Perception is everything in cinematic storytelling.

[dragonewt]

Have any of you seen rules to make characters more durable?

The question to ask is; what makes a Hero a Hero, what makes them survive a story? From a story point of view, the main characters often have an edge because the story would end quickly otherwise (Fate points).

Another point is that we only hear the stories about the Heros that survived, and hence those by chance (and wit) have survived long enough for us to tell exaggerated tales that portray them as combat demi-gods who slay dragons with their bare hands.

In another light, think of how the Heroes of most Saga actually did succeed.

Most were smart and witty or had the charisma that gave them support to draw apon (Always a good reason to not make CHA a dump stat. I always liked how CHA was dealt with in RQ2).

Conan had Krom, and so Valeria's reappearance would be more like a RuneQuest (2/3) divine intervention, boosted by all the brownie points and alliances he racks up for himself (The way I see "Runes" in RuneQuest).

For the Greeks, heroes were heroes because they took and survived risks (and could be wounded). It is how they dealt with circumstances and the actions they choose that made them a hero (and made a story interesting).

This is why I like a mix of gritty 'realistic' rules (RQ, BRP), and something more akin to fate points. Often it is what a character does and how they do it that make them a hero and helps them survive (rather than just being a HP tank). Characters can take the risks yet still have the edge from a story point of view (as opposed to being purely simulationist).

With this type of play, the main characters are the leads of a story (like some books) and so the enjoyment is in seeing them survive. I like the BRP POW/Fate ideas, however, for me this is the character directly influencing the story with the equivalent of minor wish spells (compared to using POW for other magic) which is fine in a game depending on the flavour and consistency of a world.

For me, games like D&D abstract the act of being a hero too much, such that you can't play at being the hero, almost the same way that World of Warcraft automates action for you (apologies to WoW fans).

In summary, for me and my current style of play, I like a mix between gritty realism (the risk) and story teller type of fate points which is a mechanic outside of the game world for the PLAYERS to enhance the story and character survivability. Two methods that do this well and adapt easily to BRP are: Action Points from Action! System and Fate Points from FATE (Spirit of the Century). I like how there is the option to allow players to have some input into the story line and events (this does depend on the tone of the game and players, etc..., compare this to the tone of H.P. Lovecraft stories where characters are born to die horribly and/or go insane).

Action! System Core Rules (Free Version)

Fate: Fantastic Adventures in Tabletop Entertainment (OGL)

Edited March 29, 2009 by dragonewt

[Al.]

As part of my 'everything I've ever needed to houserule I can nick from Savage Worlds' policy

Heroes (PCs and important NPCs)

Have hitpoints (calculated as per normal)

Use powerpoints as heropoints

Roll 2 d100 for each skill/characteristic test and get to choose the best roll

(if the player chooses fail over success for amusing ot story reasons then

character gets an extra Power Point, choosing the Fumble gets 2)

Extras (most NPCs)

Die or KO on one hit (although it must at least get passed their armour)

Roll d100 for skills as normal

Al

[dragonewt]

Have any of you seen rules to make characters more durable?

On a humourous note; don't let characters wear a red shirt...

Character Mortality

[frogspawner]

Have any of you seen rules to make characters more durable? I don't want characters to be as invincible as high level D&D characters, but would like them to be able to take a few wounds without dying.

Should I raise starting HP? Increase armor values? Decrease weapon damage values? Increase the starting level of Parry and Dodge skills?

Fate/Hero/Action points (just like lots of extra HP), where players can completely rely on their 'luck' until it's all spent, are unrealistic (i.e. unbelievable) and un-heroic. It's less like adventuring, and more like... accountancy.

Similarly 'mook'-style rules, where the PCs have big advantages over (nearly)everyone else, turn it from heroic adventure into contemptible bullying.

(Of course that's all IMO. But I feel it quite strongly). So, bearing in mind those two principles, what can be done for PC survivability?

What I do is give HP= SIZ/2, actually less than usual... BUT say characters don't die until -CON HP. This has several advantages: 1) It feels more dangerous; 2) it's a bit safer as they have 50% more HP than normal; 3) it's politically OK to run away on 0hp (and hence survive), whereas on half-hp they'd be expected to fight on (and hence die). (This also has the beneficial side-effect of Major Wounds occuring at a more intuitive 0hp, rather than at an artificial-seeming half-hp).

What I also do is allow Dodge to be used in addition to Parry on any hit. This is unreliable (so not accountancy), and everybody can get it (so not bullying) - which improves survival-chance quite a lot. (I also make Dodge a special skill that improves only via role-playing (or is GM-assigned for NPCs, obviously, but usually low or zero) - so PCs can earn this big heroic advantage).

One other edge which primarily favours PCs, though, is personality traits. They can have one or two, rated as skills (e.g. Bravery 25%, Stubborn 30%). Doing something in that manner gives that chance of a x2 bonus on the action they are attempting. (NPCs also have these trait-skills, but the GM doesn't have to bother using them, unless for dramatic effect).

This way, any advantages to the players are gained through their own wit and role-playing. Neat, huh?

[dragonewt]

Similarly 'mook'-style rules, where the PCs have big advantages over (nearly)everyone else, turn it from heroic adventure into contemptible bullying.

In what way are the given example player-only rules not 'mook'-style rules?

"give HP= SIZ/2", "characters don't die until -CON HP", "One other edge which primarily favours PCs is personality traits", "Dodge to be used in addition to Parry", "NPCs also have these trait-skills, but the GM doesn't have to bother using them, unless for dramatic effect"

This way, any advantages to the players are gained through their own wit and role-playing. Neat, huh?

Depending on game play, the example PC-only actions that are described have a similar result as Fate/Action/Hero results, except that there is no limitation in frequency.

This also means that there is more than wit being used.

There are good examples where fate points encourage role-playing in order to avoid an otherwise deadly fate for a character (more so player wit than character wit).

"Hi, I'm a PC, and I have twice the HP potential than you could ever have, move over, I am the new bully in town"

On the other hand, if a game is not purely simulationist, and aims to entertain in a story-teller way, there needs to be a story-teller type of lucky-break (as seen in almost any hero story or movie), otherwise, statistically, most characters will never make it past that 01% hit roll to their head. It might not happen overnight, but it will happen.

Statistically, most of our favourite action-movie, saga and book heroes would be dead long before the story finishes. How do we deal with that without 'mooking', fudging the roles, or giving some other advantage to the PC's?

I guess this brings into discussion the big difference between watching/reading a story, compared to playing it. Another difference, in addition to the nature of character survivability, is that players often do things differently compared to those in a story being told.

I can see how a fate/action points mechanism could cheapen the risk, however, this depends on how many and how often they are allowed to be used. Many uses would be a high action movie where it is often hard to suspend disbelief. A very limited use would be the occasional lucky save (used IN ADDITION to good GMing and smart player choices; they are always needed).

In BRP and RQ, generally anyone of great skill can die very easily at the drop of an 'unlucky' roll of the dice. The way I use fate points off-sets that slightly, while leaving the core rules untouched, but it still doesn't allow for gratuitous Final Fantasy or Dragonball Z style 'mooking' (unless you are playing that style of game, with "whatever gives you the most pluses" ).

RPG Motivational Posters/fumble

Edited March 29, 2009 by dragonewt

[frogspawner]

In what way are the given example player-only rules not 'mook'-style rules?

In that they apply equally to PCs and NPCs, not player-only. (Yes, including "give HP= SIZ/2", "characters don't die until -CON HP").

...fate points encourage roll-playing...

Do you mean role-playing? Roll-playing is a bad thing - that's what I'm saying. But I don't see how Fate Points encourage RP. Can you explain?

Statistically, most of our favourite action-movie, saga and book heroes would be dead long before the story finishes. How do we deal with that without 'mooking', fudging the roles, or giving some other advantage to the PC's?

The Art of the GM is making the players feel like heroes. But if the odds are stacked in their favour by the Science of the Rules, then they'll know in their hearts they are not. My rules-suggestions above are even-handed - but in how much of a simulationist/storytelling way to apply them is up to the GM.

(PS: I guess I should have mentioned that I do in fact limit the Personality Trait-Skill bonuses to one successful use per session.)

[dragonewt]

Do you mean role-playing? Roll-playing is a bad thing - that's what I'm saying.

It was a bad typo. I meant to say role-playing. (Edited and fixed)

But I don't see how Fate Points encourage RP. Can you explain?

RP is used to describe how a fate point gave a +X bonus to a roll that helped a character out of trouble. This requires that creativity is used to describe a reasonably feasible result (the more creative, the better and more fun), otherwise the fate point cannot be used.

Additionally, here is a snippet of text from the Fate 2005 SRD (published under OGL 1.0a) that describes other uses and the general theme:

4.5 Fate Points

...

They may also spend a Fate point for minor narrative control of a situation. Common uses for this include finding a convenient item, knowing someone in a particular town, or showing up at just the right moment in another scene. Effectively, this expenditure allows the player to take the role of GM for a moment. The GM has full veto rights on any such expenditures, in which case the point is not spent.

More often than not, this sort of expenditure of Fate points is an attempt by the players to keep things moving. It’s more fun to just assume you have the tool you need in your trunk than to have to drive back from the haunted house, hit a hardware store, and then drive back. As a GM, if the expenditure lets people continue to have fun without breaking anything, it should generally be allowed.

...

4.5.2 Additional Uses of Fate Points

Fate points can be viewed as small “votes” you can cast to get the story to go your way, within certain guidelines.

...

The Art of the GM is making the players feel like heroes. But if the odds are stacked in their favour by the Science of the Rules, then they'll know in their hearts they are not.

I am not sure I understand what you said here.

(PS: I guess I should have mentioned that I do in fact limit the Personality Trait-Skill bonuses to one successful use per session.)

It looks like we are using a similar method for similar results, only with a different name and slightly different implementation.

Edited March 29, 2009 by dragonewt

[frogspawner]

RP is used to describe how a fate point gave a +X bonus to a roll that helped a character out of trouble.

Additionally, here is a snippet of text from the Fate 2005 SRD...

As a GM, if the expenditure lets people continue to have fun without breaking anything, it should generally be allowed.

...

Thanks for that. I would have thought a GM should usually allow fun like that anyway though, without a tally limiting the number of times they can. And I still don't get the RP connection, I'm afraid. OK, the player has to do a bit of justified storytelling for their +X bonus (good to note it is just a bonus, btw, so they can't rely on getting out of trouble), but that still doesn't mean they're in-character, which is what I call role-playing.

I like to think my trait-skill mechanism does encourage them to act according to their chosen personality, as much of the time as they can, so they can justify any bonus-roll they may need.

I am not sure I understand what you said here.

The GM should create situations where the players think their characters face genuine risk. PC-only advantages detract from that, because the players know the system is on their side. To be truly heroic players need to know the risk, feel the fear - and do it anyway.

It looks like we are using a similar method for similar results, only with a different name and slightly different implementation.

And we both know which is best, don't we?

[dragonewt]

Thanks for that. I would have thought a GM should usually allow fun like that anyway though, without a tally limiting the number of times they can. And I still don't get the RP connection, I'm afraid.

I always assume that players should play their character "in character", and that creatively playing a character in character is role-playing. So therefore, they have to role-play to gain any benefit from using their fate points.

The GM should create situations where the players think their characters face genuine risk. PC-only advantages detract from that, because the players know the system is on their side. To be truly heroic players need to know the risk, feel the fear - and do it anyway.

I normally run games like that, and even the keenest accountant-type players tend to get caught up in the action such that they forget about their "lucky save points". Remember, a bad or flippant choice on the player's part means that the use of fate won't necessarily save them, or the outcome may not be what they want, and so the tension is still there. They have to work, sweat, think and be heroes.

Most people know that the main character of most fiction will somehow live through to the end, but they tend to forget that when in the middle of the action, risk or suspense in a story.

Then there are others who like Call of Cthulhu.

I use "fate points" to take a little of the deadly edge off the lethality of the BRP system (for some games), it helps curb some of the bad extremes of randomness (criticals or fumbles against players), although I still use hit locations.

And we both know which is best, don't we?

Given that we are doing practically the same thing, and trying to be fairly gritty and realistic, yet allow players to be heroes with a little bit of saving grace; both.

Edited March 29, 2009 by dragonewt

[Atgxtg]

Fate/Hero/Action points (just like lots of extra HP), where players can completely rely on their 'luck' until it's all spent, are unrealistic (i.e. unbelievable) and un-heroic. It's less like adventuring, and more like... accountancy.

I disagree. I find a Hero Point system to work the best. The trick is which system to use. Personally, I always liked the one presented in the old James Bond RPG. The reason being that the Hero points didn't refresh themselves at the end of the adventure like they do in most games that have them. That kept PCs from just spending them until they ran out.

Similarly 'mook'-style rules, where the PCs have big advantages over (nearly)everyone else, turn it from heroic adventure into contemptible bullying.

(Of course that's all IMO. But I feel it quite strongly). So, bearing in mind those two principles, what can be done for PC survivability?

What I do is give HP= SIZ/2, actually less than usual... BUT say characters don't die until -CON HP. This has several advantages: 1) It feels more dangerous; 2) it's a bit safer as they have 50% more HP than normal; 3) it's politically OK to run away on 0hp (and hence survive), whereas on half-hp they'd be expected to fight on (and hence die). (This also has the beneficial side-effect of Major Wounds occuring at a more intuitive 0hp, rather than at an artificial-seeming half-hp).

How does this make things more cinematic?

Advantage 1- Feel, heck it is more dangerous. With an average character having 6-7 hit points, a single hit can easily make a character unconcious, and at the mercy of his foes, who will have litle difficulty ensuring thatsaid PC reaches -CON.

Advantage 2- No it7s less safer, as disabled and unconscious characters are nowhere near as safe as those who can actually protect themselves.

Advantage 3- When do character pass out? Or do they?

You could get the same effects much more simply by just saying character don't die until they are -MW in HP.

What I also do is allow Dodge to be used in addition to Parry on any hit. This is unreliable (so not accountancy), and everybody can get it (so not bullying) - which improves survival-chance quite a lot. (I also make Dodge a special skill that improves only via role-playing (or is GM-assigned for NPCs, obviously, but usually low or zero) - so PCs can earn this big heroic advantage).

A "mook" rule by any other name. You create a special dodge skill that only PCs and significant NPCs will have high scores in. Looks a lot like the RQ2 Defense ability.

One other edge which primarily favours PCs, though, is personality traits. They can have one or two, rated as skills (e.g. Bravery 25%, Stubborn 30%). Doing something in that manner gives that chance of a x2 bonus on the action they are attempting. (NPCs also have these trait-skills, but the GM doesn't have to bother using them, unless for dramatic effect).

A neat way to bring Pendragon Passions into RQ. Systematically though, it doesn't favor the PCs. The GM might, by not giving NPCs many traits, but that is, in essence a "mook" rule.

This way, any advantages to the players are gained through their own wit and role-playing. Neat, huh?

No, the advantages are gained by rolling under your trait. I don't see where role playing "brave" is giving an advantage. Don't get me wrong, I like Pendragon. Where the reward for role play comes in isn't in the application of the trait, but in the improvement check awarded for role playing the trait. But, a character can role-play brave until all the other players hide under the table, and it isn't providing an advantage--the die roll does.

I'd also say that writing down and keeping track of an actual score for things like Bravery or Stubbornness, certainly seems like accountancy to me, with some character being 20% more brave, honest or lustful than others.

[frogspawner]

I find a Hero Point system to work the best.

Fair enough. it's just they feel too meta-game for me.

How does this make things more cinematic?

Normally not much, but the extra layer of Dodge/Defence makes it very much so at 100%+.

Advantage 1- Feel, heck it is more dangerous...

Not really, since I don't play they go unconscious at 0 (or even 1hp). When they pass out isn't strictly defined (another potential advantage to heroic PCs!) but generally they only pass out if they go 0- from a head-hit, or a very serious wound elsewhere.

You could get the same effects much more simply by just saying character don't die until they are -MW in HP.

Ah, but the players wouldn't feel more vulnerable that way, since they'd know they had normal HPs, plus the -MW safety buffer too. That mechanic also doesn't give the subtle "licence to flee"-effect of 0hp until much later, when it may be too late...

A "mook" rule by any other name. You create a special dodge skill that only PCs and significant NPCs will have high scores in. Looks a lot like the RQ2 Defense ability.

Yes, inspired by RQ2 Defence, blended with RQ3 Dodge. I think there's a difference between 'mook rules' and characters just having different values for skills.

A neat way to bring Pendragon Passions into RQ. Systematically though, it doesn't favor the PCs. The GM might, by not giving NPCs many traits, but that is, in essence a "mook" rule.

But how "mookish" the NPCs are is up to how the GM plays them at the time, not built-in to the system.

No, the advantages are gained by rolling under your trait. I don't see where role playing "brave" is giving an advantage. Don't get me wrong, I like Pendragon. Where the reward for role play comes in isn't in the application of the trait, but in the improvement check awarded for role playing the trait. But, a character can role-play brave until all the other players hide under the table, and it isn't providing an advantage--the die roll does.

They have to be playing Brave (or whatever) to qualify for a roll. And if they RP the trait exceptionally well, but don't make a roll, the GM could award a tick anyway.

I'd also say that writing down and keeping track of an actual score for things like Bravery or Stubbornness, certainly seems like accountancy to me, with some character being 20% more brave, honest or lustful than others.

It's no more 'accountancy' than the rest of the skills system, which we're stuck with anyway.

The OP asked for any suggestions, so I felt obliged to outline the system I use, since it is quite different from the usual Hero/Fate point mechanisms and offers a real alternative.

[Mugen]

Personnally, I don't like rules that gives different mechanics to different characters depending on their "type".

If I had to tweak BRP in order to have very resistant PCs and very "weak" NPCs, I would rather play on the characteristics scale than give different formulae for hit points.

If my average PC has CON 30 (which means super-resistant ones could reach 45 or more) and my common "mook" NPC CON 4, fights outcome will not be the same than with standard RuneQuest 3 or Call of Cthulhu characters.

I also like Hero Points, if they are not restricted to the PC and specific NPCs can have some.

[kaddawang]

BRP in it's base form does not lend itself to cinematics. Unless the cinema is showing Saving Private Ryan;)

BRP can be more loose and heroic, though. Using the fate point-mechanic is one thing. Using one- or two-hit mooks is another. Allowing PC's extremely high skills will toughen 'em up significantly. If running a supers-game, the characters will be above-average from the start.

In my own, humble, opinion the best option is to allow the players to be descriptive and creative with their character's actions, and not penalize them for doing so.

Player: "I slam my shield into the creature, trying to knock it back from the distressed damsel!"

GM: "What's your shield skill?"

Player: "..er.. 28. Can I bodyslam it instead, using my shield to try to protect my face?"

GM: "Sure. Roll your agility to connect. Now where did I put that resistance-table..?"

If an action makes sense, do it. If an action is cool, do it. If an action is good for the story, do it. And if the players start to get abusive, throw the book at them.

Another genious little thing is the fate-dice(or something like that-it was an old post on these very forums that mentioned them). At the beginning of the session, put out a handful of d10 on the table. How big a' handful depends on how hard the session will be, and how well-behaved your players have been lately;).

The players can use these die, roll them and replace any other die. But once a die has been used, it's removed.

Very fun, in a slightly disturbing way, to see the players exchange worried looks over the table when there's only one die left:innocent:

[frogspawner]

Personnally, I don't like rules that gives different mechanics to different characters depending on their "type".

Absolutely. Me neither.

I also like Hero Points, if they are not restricted to the PC and specific NPCs can have some.

Hmm - Players may be happy with a system to fiddle the story in their favour, but I'm not sure they'd like it letting the GM openly fiddle things against them...

Very fun, in a slightly disturbing way, to see the players exchange worried looks over the table when there's only one die left:innocent:

... or, when the Serious Roleplayer's character is reduced to a nasty red stain by an unlucky die roll shortly after the Power Gamer used-up the last three Fate Dice to bargain a better price for his armour without a second thought, they might exchange something else - like blows!

[kaddawang]

... or, when the Serious Roleplayer's character is reduced to a nasty red stain by an unlucky die roll shortly after the Power Gamer used-up the last three Fate Dice to bargain a better price for his armour without a second thought, they might exchange something else - like blows!

That's where "throwing the book" comes in:D

But these dice would be reserved for when things get hairy. The players are not quick to use them, and realize what they do-allowing them to survive when the dice go wild.

[Atgxtg]

Well the easiest ways IMO, to make BRP cinematic are:

1) Don't make the minor foes too tough/skilled in relation to the PCs. A bunch of militia or mercs at 25-40% with their weapon skills is not only good cinematically, but probably realistic considering BRP's skill curve.

2) Much of what what for a cinematic style isn't game mechanics but the type of adventures the GM runs and how he runs them. How players play makes a big difference too. If you want players to act like heroes, then there should be some things that encourage such behavior. If the PC knight saves the damsel in distress only to fall victim to her witchcraft, he will be likely to save damsels in the future. So if you want the PCs go go around saving people, don't make them regret it later. At least not most of the time. Likewise, reard those things you want the PCs to do.

3)Slant your descriptions and play style to encourage the sort of play that you want. For instance, if you are doing a LOTR type adventure and you want your heroes to flee from a hoard of orcs, don't let the group get bogged down in a toe to toe fight. Instead let them fight one or two orcs, have some others fire a volley or arrows (only roll for one or two serious attacks), and then give the PCs a chance to run.

[Atgxtg]

Absolutely. Me neither.

But all RPGs have them to some extent. Just some methods are better and/or more transparent than others. For example most RPGs give PCs and VIP NPCs abilties than "Karl Kobold" or "Tom Trollkin" doesn't have. Most RPGs don't actually prohibit such characters from being high level or reaching Rune status, but in terms of play these guys don't have the same abilities as the PCs.

Hmm - Players may be happy with a system to fiddle the story in their favour, but I'm not sure they'd like it letting the GM openly fiddle things against them...

Three points.

One iis that the GM is not an adversary and so isn't openly fiddling against them. A bad guy NPC might getting lucky, using the Force or whatever. Not the same thing.

Second Point is that some games restrict what can be done with Hero Points by the bad guys. For instance in Bond, Bad guys can only use HP defensively. This helps to enforce cinematic play, since it gives the good guys a reward for being good.

Thirdly, the key to making a Hero Point system work is to limit the number of points so that the PCs have enough to do what they need to do, but not enough to do what they want to.

[Simlasa]

Hmm - Players may be happy with a system to fiddle the story in their favour, but I'm not sure they'd like it letting the GM openly fiddle things against them...

Normally I'm not into 'cinematic' type games but...

In Deadlands... at least the version we play... the Marshall (GM) gets chips (fate points) when PCs use theirs (well, the more powerful chips at least). So... the more the PCs bend fate to their own purposes the more power builds in the hands of the NPCs to bend it back against them.

From what I've seen it works pretty well in setting up interesting choices... a run of 'good luck' has a kind of foreshadowing edge of trouble on the horizon.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Simlasa