How to run a KUP game #3 - GMing under the hood
TAGS: #HTRAKG
This post aims to clarify the activities of the GM which are not part of the plot/campaign but they rather deal with the evolution of the PCs. These are quite relevant and they should not affect in any case the game by either slowing it or, even worse, change it. Let me add that this is an extremely subjective topic so you’d better test any option and find the one where both the GM and the players feel more comfortable.
The main activities are related to:
the injuries or recoveries of the PCs
the growth of the PCs
the PCs’ improvement in ES
the evolution of PCs’ Morality
There are other features which change as game goes by and are not listed here above because they are on charge of the PCs: one example is the change in SOM. Let’s see in detail how any of the listed activities should be handled in order to optimize their impact within the VI·VIII·X game.
Point nr.1 - The first activity is tracking down any injury or recovery: given the fact the US are involved in the damage mechanic, this activity has to be handled by the GM with different options to disclose the quantitative information of the damage suffered (or recovered). There are actually two ways to manage this situation: either the GM keeps fully undisclosed the information or he declares the KS affected by damage once the US has reduced to zero. I tested both ways and I found more effective in terms of game-play the first solution: just track down the changes in the stats within the GM notebook (or the 1-page log available in the bottom of the Product page) . The reason I find the option to keep every piece of information undisclosed is that there is value added neither in the application of mechanics (i.e. an ARC has to be in any case calculated by the GM and there is no relevance whether the player communicates the reduced KS or not) nor in terms of in-game effects (role-play doesn’t change in case a player knows exactly the amount of damage suffered… or, better: it should not change!). What is relevant is the way to ‘translate’ any damage (or recovery) in qualitative terms so that a player has an idea of the health of his PC: it may seem obvious to write, but the communication of the GM is the key in this circumstance! In case a PC suffers 1 damage on Agility, the GM should report that the hit has slightly slowed the character… in case the damage has set to zero the US and decreased also the KS (let’s stick to the previous example: Agility is now at zero and Control has a -2 modifier), then the GM should tell the player that his character is seriously wounded and he has lost the use of a leg, for instance. The GM is asked to translate the quantitative information adapting it to the in-game picture; he absolutely needs to keep this translation consistent over time during the game in order to avoid misunderstandings of the players and consequent problems.
Point nr.2 - The second task of the GM is inherent the PC development: as stated in the VI·VIII·X core rules, characters’ growth is generated by the accumulation of points up to a threshold. The threshold is a direct function of the PC level and it is affected by PC morality. A point for growth may come from 3 possible sources: actions, target achievement, or impromptu situation. In the core rules there are some indications of the rewards for each type of source however in this context it’d better to consider the rate of reward as follows:
for an action the single reward varies from -2 up to +2 points; a GM should consider that each player can run for a limited number of times per session into this situation: in average the number varies from 0 (for downtime sessions) up to 4/5 times (while in the middle of the plot) since this mechanics is required every time a character uses an ES for the first time, in a new way or when the ES has just improved (in other words, this is a ‘request’ to the player to check if he got the PC’s limit for that action);
a target achievement varies from 0 (when the session is dedicated to downtime for instance) up to 10 per session (when the PCs are in the middle of the plot) per character; the later limit may increase according to the difficulty however the underlying logic is that a character with no other sources of growth can level up after a number of successful sessions double of his current level: if a 3rd level PC meets 6 successful sessions, he should be in the position to level-up (please consider this a guideline, not a strict rule!);
the last source of growth is totally unpredictable as its name says… let me add that if the GM knows his players, he will also likely understand who will harvest some points in such a circumstance and who won’t likely do that… if I may add something for this kind of reward, this is a good lever for the GM to foster those ‘shy’ players to invent something particular and therefore, have a more immersive experience! (This can be done by some rewards which comes with an out-of-the-records explanation to these guys.)
As a rule of thumb, a player should be able to level-up after a number of ‘active’ sessions equal to his his level: the row maths show 5 points from actions, 10 from targets and 5 from active in-game presence… in average this makes 20 points per session, which means that a character’s level-up is met after ‘n’ sessions where ‘n’ is his level: that does not consider any other factor, like Morality or any multiplier the GM wants to apply for difficulty!
Point nr.3 - Any improvement in an ES should be, needless to say, consistent within the campaign as a whole (as already mentioned in the core rules). This means that the GM may adopt a rule valid for any ES and applicable to all the PCs or a mix of rules which have to ensure two constraints: one is that the same ES follows a predefined rule, regardless to the characters (i.e. it is applied throughout all the PCs), the second is that a PC cannot have a rule specific to an ES which is known only by him (namely a rule ad personam). There are 2 ‘easy’ ways to apply a rule: the first is one-rule-fits-all (i.e. a rule is applied in any ES to all PCs), the second is one-rule-fits-a-group (i.e. for any Illicit ES there is a rule, for any Martial ES there is another rules and so forth). The later seems to be more complicate but it isn’t if this activity is done off-line by the GM and not during the session. The GM should apply the predefined rule(s) for every ES except for those cases where the use of the ES is useless or redundant (as a part of the Social contract explained in the previous post, the GM should explain this detail to the players in order to avoid situations of ‘abuse’ of an ES with the only goal to test it as much as possible for this purpose). A last word is about changes in the rule: if the GM deems it necessary, a rule can be changed sticking to the constraints here above.
Point nr.4 - This is the most free and subjective part of the GM activities. It refers to the application of modifiers to the Morality score of a character. The relevant aspect of this evaluation is that it should be handled with care: Morality is a game changer and any increase or decrease in its score could significantly benefit or disadvantage the actions of a PC. What is useful on the GM side is to make it extremely clear at the inception (as a part of the Social contract with the players) and to ask for confirmation, even twice, when a character takes a decision affecting his PC Morality. The part referred to a change in the Path (which has not yet occurred in the playtest though) is another situation where transparency and clarity are asked to the GM: he should tackle the conversation with the player involved in the change of Path so that it is clear it is not a punishment but rather an opportunity to keep on behaving in the most comfortable way for the player (it’d otherwise better to explain again what is required to follow the original Path!).
Many other recommendations could be done, these are the most basic and likely obvious ones… but along with them, another important detail should be added: when is the best moment to handle these tasks with no loss of effectiveness on game? This is my view based on the playtest feedback:
Injuries (and recover) need to be handled in real-time, so as soon as a blow hits a target, the calculation of the reduced (or increased) stat is required; the rationale is that a character suffers of the reduced stat from the following turn after the hit and any action he undertakes might be affected by this reduction (mainly within the ARC formula).
Points for level-up can be calculated ‘off-line’ by the GM and applied from the next session onward; what is relevant is that the GM should keep track with a thick/small note of any event producing points (I use the 2-page log and leave in there small marks which help me to recollect all the info useful to allocate the points).
Same as above: for increases in ES score, there is little advantage to calculate the improvement during the game compared to the loss of time for an ‘on-line’ calculation.
Like for the last two tasks, also in case of changes in Morality score it is far better an ‘off-line’ calculation based on thick/small note records. There are 2 good reasons: the first is to reconsider in a second moment the event which has generated the increase/decrease so that the GM has the time to weight it with accuracy and no chance of error, the second is that this also allows the time to properly communicate it to the player (in case it is a decrease there is also room to discuss with no hurry). Lastly an off-line calculation comes handy in case the character is close to reach his next level threshold (an improvement in Morality could lower it) and could allow an early level-up!
As already mentioned, I have many other details to add: maybe these could be part of a second post about this topic or some additional considerations in the future chapter ‘How to run a KUP game’!