This is another of my attempts at so called Game Mastering. I take the view that I am a story teller and that everything I do should be done in pursuit of two things. 1) Making the game FUN, and 2) Making the STORY believable (within as much as an alien invasion global conspiracy can be.) The operative word being Fun and Game-Story; in that order.
I look at it as a cooperative effort between myself and my players at making the whole thing fun and enjoyable. It is not a contest between us to see who can outsmart the others, because I'll win; and that wouldn't be fun.
The next thing that isn't fun is not being in control or effecting the game. I've been in games where you were basically role playing a computer RPG.
Go to point A. Speak with person 1. After speaking with person 1, go to person 2 at point B. On way to point B get ambushed by monster 1. Kill monster 1. Continue to point B. Talk to person 2. Find out that you need to go to point C and investigate anomaly 1. Travel to point C. Wait around until anomaly eventually happens (which it must). Investigate anomaly 1.
Now that is no exaggeration. Having 700 point characters doing what a 100 point character could do is ridiculous. Any 100 point character could sit around until the lights in the sky show up and deposit an alien craft in your midst. I give my players choices that allow them to shape what is going on around them. Go here or go there. Either way you're gonna miss where you didn't go and something will come of it.
Giving character the chance to do something can be new too. In many games you must ask the GM what you can and can't do. Then you roll the dice. No matter how cool an action you describe if you fail your dice roll, it won't happen. Now I think that sucks. Where is the imagination in GM'ing like that. You've stolen your characters great idea by forcing him to roll the dice, then you have to go back and describe a failure to him to add insult to injury. I've had this done and after a while you just say, "I fix the problem" and roll dice. That totally sucks. But with the vaunted 700 point characters available to Black Ops there is almost nothing you can't do. So I allow players to run wild with their imagination, hindered only by the laws of physics and their own mortality. This will eventually allow players to break the mold of always asking "Can my character do this?" then rolling.
Getting back to missions that mean something. If I wanted to play a Point A-to-Point B computer RPG, that's what I'd do. Not sit around with a bunch of guys and do that. So not doing that is the only choice when you sit around and pencil and paper RPG. Point A-to-Point B is just one step above hack and slash. It is aptly called (thanks bro) shoot and smash. Where the missions involve incomplete intel, travel by helo or car, poor weather and thus poor communication, a bunch of interviews, finding the monster (or monsters), and finally donning your CID to kill it with big guns. Now whether I'm in the Sahara or Cambodia, that sucks. I want a plot. And a plot is not these strung together by only the characters associating together and having a mission controller giving you orders. If that is what you're gonna do, then everybody play combat Ops (except for the one Security op) cuz intel and science Ops will boil down to wimpy combat Ops...
To avoid the above a plot must be developed. That means players that understand the characters, and give a damn about them. Investing time to develop and explore their backgrounds is one way to do that. Writing a history of how they met each other and how they get along is another good way. The GM must explore these and MAKE the players do it. Otherwise the players will role play down and develop munchkinsisms. Characters will develop into equipment lists, bigger guns, and hit points (/armor). I've seen it happen. It is the GM's fault. If a GM says they can't make Players role play then they are bad GM's. A Pavlovian method must be used, (sans actual pain), so that they recognize that they fail, get beaten up, killed, maimed, and humiliated when they run in guns blazing and fail to do anything but be Neanderthals with caseless carbine rifles.
One of the first things I brought up was the realism/plausibility of an Alien invasion/Global conspiracy. There can be believable ones and unbelievable ones. If a character/player wants 'gritty' realism or such, then I recommend that you not play a 700 point character who has survived five years of the most grueling training on earth. Especially if that character has any sort of exotic background. If you want realism, ask to play a 100 point dependent of an Op. That is gritty and might actually might make you fear death. Another things is the fear of death. In most conspiracy games I adopt the attitude that characters must constantly be in fear that anything they do can get them killed, including doing nothing. But in Black Ops that is just not the case, Agents will put themselves in situations where they can get killed, but only against the most overwhelming odds or against the most uneven balances of firepower can an Op seriously fear being killed. In fact an Agent will only die when the GM wants it or the Player sees it coming and does it anyway (or they totally ignore the dangers posed by a TL12 Grey soldier...)
I think I am getting long winded here but if you have any comments you know how to reach me.
recently I have had new fuel added to this rant.
I've had some difficulties with previous DMs, in games from DnD to Vampire.
However, some of my most memorable gaming experiences came during a
Traveller campaign. What sets the GM and that campaign apart from the rest is
a simple idea, yet an idea that is intangible and thus difficult to
describe. Simply put:
The Traveller campaign was fun.
It was fun for the players, and, I believe, was fun for the GM. What made it
thus is not so simple to identify. Was it the plot, the level of detail,
the setting, the action, the realism? Whatever it was, the results were
clear, and I hope everyone can understand that.
One fundamental belief of mine is that the primary role of the DM is to
provide a fun experience for the players. Sometimes that role is a
thankless, self-less one. Sometimes it gets tedious and frustrating. But
for successful DMs, creating a fun and enjoyable experience for the players
is itself exciting and fun. Fun is contagious. Players know
when the DM is having fun and respond to it.
It is difficult to provide the ingredients necessary for a successful game.
Often times, the recipe for one game will not work for another.
Unfortunately, game worlds must often be detailed and thorough beyond the
experience of the DM. As a DM, I have had to research topics to fill in
gaps of my knowledge, as well as admit my shortcomings and default to the
players' experience. Sadly, it was often easier for me to standfast in the
light of new evidence than admit I was wrong and change. I guess, because
of this, I hesitate to provide a definite answer when I am unsure of its
correctness. But that can be harder in some games more than others.
In my experience, there are several types of games. To be horribly
stereotypical, one type of game is in which the game reality, whatever,
wherever, and whenever that may be, is in the spotlight, and character
development and party relationships are secondary. The opposite type is
where the environment is secondary, and the spotlight is on the characters
and their relationships. Of course, those are just two ends of one
spectrum, and games can fall anywhere between the two. For example, one can
play as warriors in any universe at any time, yet one cannot play as U.S.
Army Green Berets in the Dungeon and Dragons world. When playing Green
Berets, the reality of the world becomes paramount. To me, a gritty,
realistic, modern game relies on the DM's ability to construct a believable
universe. I enjoy playing realistic games because they are that, realistic.
I realize that reality must be balanced in the game, since life is boring,
life is constricting, and life is deadly. How many times in real life does
a group of humans, elves, and dwarves meet in a bar, go kick some dragon
ass, and loot a king's treasure?
The basic difference between the two is that the first is closer to real
world reality; the second is more conducive to Game realities or fantasy.
The second would be games like DnD, Vampire, or even Traveller; where the
players suspend disbelief and just accept a basic tenant of the world. Be
in Magic, Vampires, or FTL travel; it does not exist in our real world.
Details for me can be immensely important. When playing a game set in the
present, with players from units that exist, using equipment that is used, I
enjoy being as accurate to reality as I can. In fact, that is the draw of
playing a game set in the present. For me, seemingly insignificant
inaccuracies can detract from the game. If using the world of Special
Forces as a backdrop, I expect no less than an accurate picture. But by
no means is that the only type of game I can enjoy. I enjoy a basic shoot and
scoot too (e.g. mercenaries put together by the CIA), where we are told to
go to Dr. Doom's lab, kick his ass, and return home. No plot. No grand
conspiracies. No thinking. No point but to kick ass and take names.
Differences in the past have not been just about helicopters, or M-16's, ammunition, it was about fundamental beliefs. I hope I expressed my fundamental beliefs
adequately above.
