How to run a KUP game #4 - Away from preconceptions

In all respecting rulebooks there is an author's note in the introduction invoking the "zero rule" or advising to avoid railroad: I say, be free to play as you wish as long as it is fun for everyone. It has to be so for both the GM and the players, so the first rule is: as a GM, always ask for feedback and try to use the players' suggestions; of course you need to agree in advance on the details of the social contract as I have written in a previous post.

The KUP approach may be frustrating for some players, for example, the so-called 'Rule lawyers'; if so, listen to the feedback and reduce the information asymmetry to facilitate these players and keep them entertained. Against my best interest, if the KUP model frustrates players too much, you have two options: change GM (he may be unsuitable) or change RPG (and adopt a traditional RPG that satisfies everyone).

One of the salient aspects to pivot to in the KUP model is that not everything is scaled on PG level and it is also possible to encounter a dragon when you are at first level. I strongly believe it is important to have this kind of experience as well, and players need to understand that in situations like this it is better to flee (in which case the GM has to be good at rewarding those who make choices 'contrary' to the pure spirit of adventuring). This also applies in the opposite case: at high levels you may encounter a level 1 NPC who wants to Pickpocket you (and in this circumstance the situation is definitely more fun than the previous one!).

'Not everything is granted': this motto implies that balancing should not be considered applied throughout the game at any cost …and it refers to encounters with monsters, to treasures and magic items, and to any other circumstance. Unbalanced encounters can help players understand that the default solution need not always be combat but dialogue and roleplay can be viable alternatives in their actions. This concept can best be expressed with an example: in many video games a character's advancement depends on his lethality, the more he kills, the stronger he becomes. Although this is true in the vast majority of games, there are titles that work exactly the opposite: one of these is Thief, a video game that kept me glued to the computer for a long time precisely because of its elegance in solving in a non-brutal way the situations the protagonist encounters. In this sense, the GM may find it useful to include situations that do not involve combat and where the solution is dialogue and roleplay and assign a similar amount of reward to these as well as to combat.

It is important to add that it is not solely a matter of reward: the GM needs to insert encounters with NPCs (without planning too much in the short term) but at the same time he needs to think about the campaign in the long term: only by keeping track of these characters then they can come in handy later when there is a need (and this is the rationale for Personae!). For example, the PCs have an encounter one evening at the inn with a completely drunk person who taunts them: they do not know who the person is and the person also does not know them… the GM could insert a high-level NPC in front of the characters (or a much lower level, as mentioned above...) however this only makes sense in case of conflict. The GM could build up this encounter to introduce an NPC who after a couple of months turns out to be the head of the town guard, and perhaps the characters meet him again when they are jailed: roleplay in this case is crucial.

By fostering players to think not solely about conflict as the only solution, the GM can provide clues to help them think through non-combat actions as well. Once players understand the meaning of the GM's actions, then it will no longer be necessary to remind them each time of the various options other than combat. In these situations it is important to recognize a reward for players who have grasped this aspect: the GM can (and should) reward those who have such cues even if during the game perhaps they have failed the underlying ARC.