The joy of thumping

[Dan Stack]

Continuing my list of topics of interest to me in a general sense but hopefully of interest to others as well.

One topic I see come up here from time to time is players "not getting it" in the sense that sometimes the game seems to resemble a D&D adventure, wanting to destroy everything in sight and treating a Klingon Battlecruiser as a big dungeon to loot.

The normal response is "that is not Star Trek", in Star Trek characters think their way out of problems. And this is true, Star Trek ain't D&D - the level of combat seen in D&D or even Star Wars is probably too high for a non-Klingon Star Trek game.

But I feel the opposite is problematic as well - that of too little action. When Gene Roddenberry made Star Trek he knew that an action component was needed. Look at the number of fist fights Captain Kirk got into. Star Trek: The Motion Picture had the least amount of action and is not all that well regarded (though it has its fans).

The key, in my opinion, is to put that action in the right way. "Arena" did this perfectly in my opinion. There was plenty of action with Kirk and the Gorn squaring off. But, if it were run as an adventure, there were tons of opportunities to make science and engineering skill tests, with Kirk manufacturing a primitive firearm when he realized he didn't stand a chance in hand to hand combat. And also in the spirit of Star Trek, when victory was in his grasp he stepped away from bloodlust, trying at last for a peaceful resolution.

And sometimes it's just fun to thump things - look at "Trouble with Tribbles".

[Captain Zymmer]

I agree with you dan, but I also find players tend to sometimes be defeatists...they try to hit it...when that doesn't work they don't think sometimes, they just get upset.

No it is not Star Trek, but I ran Marvel last night where they were forced to take on the Metal Militia. The team split into twos and went to each bank robbery where there were 6 guys at each.

Now in a straight up fight the bad guys had numbers on their side and enough firepower to make that count...but it wasn't until one of the players was nearly dead he asked me for some advice as to what he could do.

I find the samt hing will happen in Star Trek as well sometimes...for whatever reasons (work, school, love life) players often come with heads full of other things and beyond "smash" they don't always see the options...how do you as a Narrator get them back on track without wasting half the night or without seeming to be railroading them?

[Dan Stack]

Out of curiosity, when you say options, do you literaly mean plural options or is there just one option...

One of the biggest challenges I often find is to avoid the "singlular-solution" encounter or adventure, when there is just one way to solve a problem, a way which seems so obvious when you design an adventure but impossible to get across when playing it.

The TOS Narrator's toolkit had a great example of this. Suppose the adventure relies on the characters discovering the Klingon Base on Darru V (forget the name in the toolkit). The first time you drop a clue that the base is on Darru V the players get it in their heads the base is really on Rigel II. So you add more clues - soil from Darru V, Klingons with weapons made from minerals only found on Darru V, Klingons with t-shirts saying "Visit the secret base on Darru V", yet the players are convinced the base is on Rigel II.

What do you do? The narrator's toolkit suggests having the base actually be on Rigel II, where it always was , with the players having cleverly seen through the deception that the base was on Darru V.

I've had some adventures when the players go through trying to figure clues out they sometimes come up with ideas better than the one I came up with. And often I decide to squeeze that into the adventures, making the players co-authors if you will.

[Dan Stack]

One idea just occurs with the superior firepower issue you mentioned. The redshirt. The purpose of redshirts dying on TOS was not for humor (though it did make for great humor), but to illustrate danger.

Hindsight is always 20-20 (I lose count of the number of adventures where I get a great idea just after finishing the adventure), but one suggestion for the marvel adventure you mentioned - or any case where danger needs to be illustrated. Take an NPC which the players know to be comptetent and have the snot beaten out of them. DS9 did this when Odyssey was blown to smirthereens by Jem'Hadar.

[Captain Zymmer]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
Out of curiosity, when you say options, do you literaly mean plural options or is there just one option...

Oh I see it as always having options, but they just run into a mental block and find themselves needing guidence.

The TOS Narrator's toolkit had a great example of this. Suppose the adventure relies on the characters discovering the Klingon Base on Darru V (forget the name in the toolkit). The first time you drop a clue that the base is on Darru V the players get it in their heads the base is really on Rigel II. So you add more clues - soil from Darru V, Klingons with weapons made from minerals only found on Darru V, Klingons with t-shirts saying "Visit the secret base on Darru V", yet the players are convinced the base is on Rigel II.

What do you do? The narrator's toolkit suggests having the base actually be on Rigel II, where it always was , with the players having cleverly seen through the deception that the base was on Darru V.

I have done things like this from time to time, but in the end, when the clues are that obvious I will simply say "Out of game guys, the base is not on Rigel II"

I've had some adventures when the players go through trying to figure clues out they sometimes come up with ideas better than the one I came up with. And often I decide to squeeze that into the adventures, making the players co-authors if you will.

Agreed, sometimes I start one way, but my players present a better idea...and then one of them turns and yells empathically "SHUT UP!" They even have a sign with that written on it for people to flash at those moments.

Got started the day a players said "Why does Galactus only make one Herald at a time? Why doesn't he find a planet and turn them all into Heralds?"

[Dan Gurden]

For myself I learnt the hard way in my early GM`ing days that a single route path is just no good at all. Who of us hasn't?

Anyway, after I realised that I was playing alongside the players, rather than against them, I not only found the games a lot more fluid, but also more fun for me...

For the record, I too have had players turn to me and ask what they should be doing, something as a GM I am loath to do... But have not heard that question in nearly 10 years now.

As a GM I see it as my resopnsibility to drop the clues. And should a player drop the ball, if its an important enough clue thats what the NPC's are for. Judging the importance of the clue is however, part of the art of being GM.

When it comes to resolution I am always trying remain fluid. When I think through the scene before hand I like to conside the best path through and maybe a couple of alternate routes too.

Then I am usually far more open to judge the potential route if the players come up with another concept that as narrator I didn't even think of...

With Trek, there is another problem. The Treknology. Many people have vastly different concepts of what capabilities the tech has, and a GM may well discover the players attempting to use the tech in ways that just shouldn't be. In these cases it is really important to remain fluid and objective as the TV shows always added new, improved capabilities to the gizmo of the week, never to be used again, while players are likely to re-use something that works over and over... In these cases simply keep the difficulties high, but make a note of these new abilities and the difficulty numbers. That way it will get easier as the characters advance, but as GM you remain consistant.

And when frustration sets in, and your players put the Smack Down on the bad guy. Let them. Dont make it easy, this is simply another, less desired, route. thers a reason combat resolution is to be avoided, so dont hold back. But be reasonable... The bad guys are more than cut-out targets... Sfter a while some will surrender, some may even run-away... Very few will fight to the bitter end.

If your players can capture a prisoner as a result of a difficult fight, then you can still provide the relevant clues to help direct the plot. The important thing to remember is that the players are more important than the plot... Sure if they dont take the easy route, it wont be easy... And if they find something that I as GM never thought of... Well, I guess the bad guys never thought of it either, which could make things slightly easier!!!

But your right, there should be some conflict and action, some danger to the players, otherwise how can the players show these 'advanced sensibilities' of the Federation... Its just a bit of a shame that many Roleplayers are of the 'Hit it till its dead' school of combat...

Some food for thought