This is a second guest post by reader Kitsune. With the recent debate surrounding the Rule of Cool and Critical Hits’ take on the Rule of C4, I thought this would be a good time to post Kitsune’s experimental essay on GMing. No doubt this will set some people’s teeth on edge while others may be tickled by the concept.
“When in Doubt, Blow EVERYTHING up!”
Hello, blogosphere, how I have missed you! It’s Kitsune again, self-styled apprentice of the dark side of RPG blogging, here to steal Chatty’s thunder until I can make my own. Like Thor. Thor’s cool.
Today, we blow stuff up up.
I’ve been thinking about explosions a lot lately, more precisely on how to use insane, out of this world destruction in a RPG.
I’m currently playing a Pirate captain in a 4E campaign once a week, and every time we leave an area, we are followed by wanton destruction, and we rejoice. I’ve figured if most players are like we are, they’ll enjoy the ridiculous epic-ness of exploding crap all over.
Basically, Michael Bay would be a freaking intense Game Master to play under, hence the Michael Bay School of GMing.
We’ve seen the Rule of C4 (and here too), now let’s elaborate.
The theory
It’s a rather natural thing for game masters to be protective of their settings. As a GM who puts way to many hours preparing my games (most often more then I spend playing) , seeing players wreck havoc in a carefully designed town where everyone is described to the shape of their knees would, obviously, feel both like a waste and a horrible turn of event.
The sad truth is that people love blowing things up, and we, as protective idiots, rarely grant to our players the simple joys of pyrotechnics.
That being said, the Michael Bay School of GMing teaches us new and simple way to make your players happier, but first, one must unlearn those pesky protective reflexes. With that simple shift, I guarantee you’ll have your small horde of players begging for more, and screaming how much they love you. With a rocket launcher!
The Michael Bay School of GMing is, simply put, GMing principles based upon the idea that destroying stuff is really fun. You’ll have to unlearn a few things and allow your players to get slightly bigger guns. Although it can be scary, I assure you you’ll get happy players. Well, unless your running a drama-heavy White Wolf campaign, in which case you really should dismiss this post.
Meet the Principles:
Chekov’s Rocket Launcher
The first rule of the Michael Bay School of GMing is Chekov’s Rocket Launcher. “Chekov’s gun” is a theatrical trope by which a loaded weapon in a scene should, nay, will be fired before long. (Chatty DM: I think the saying goes: A gun introduced in Scene 1 should be fired before the end of scene 4)
The idea is pretty simple : Without the means to destroy their environments, they players can’t destroy their environments. But if you give them bombs and missiles, they will obviously use them in the most spectacular fashion possible. The trick is to force yourself to allow the PCs to get the fancy pyrotechnics.
Of course, in a fantasy game, a wizard with a fireball spell will do the job just fine (especially if you apply the John Woo Principle, see below), but to put it bluntly, your first job is to give them to tools to destroy everything they touch.
(Chatty DM: I have reservations, I’ll add them in the comments)
The John Woo Principle
Watch any John Woo movie. Ever noticed what happens when a bullet doesn’t hit it’s target? It decapitates a statue, kills a bystander, hits some poor explosive barrel calmly hanging out in the background.
The John Woo Principle dictates that one should describe each attack, hit or miss, with destructive consequences. Why just make that hammer swing simply miss, when you could make it hit that statue over there. And obviously, if that statue’s hit hard enough, or more then once, it’ll topple and fall down (either on something or just crash on the ground). Even if it doesn’t do any damage, changes much to the battlefield (although it can), your player might just find some pride in the murder of a priceless statue of J’ania, the Goddess of Purity.
Also, no explosive effect (magical or mundane) should leave the battlefield unscathed. A fireball or a thermal detonator should change the battle field somehow, whether by destroying a wall, or making a crater where one could take cover. Make it so the enviroment feels maleable, and let your players amaze you with the use they will make of their world.
The Desecration of the Dungeon
I fear this principle myself as I am writing it. Since All-Father Gygax brought the game to us, we’ve been carefully building mostly architecturally aberrant dungeons with the utmost care, lovingly setting encounters in there to make for the most complete DnD experience in ages. We kept fleshing out our dungeons better and better, may it be with Gygaxian naturalism or just carefully balanced yet diverse encounters, since then.
It is, thus, understandable why we’d be bloody scared of losing the necromancer’s tower to a horde of mammoths (that was a plan a buddy of mine and myself had to survive a Second Edition game), or a carefully placed fireball. But it’s a must for the follower of this School of GMing to find ways to balance everything when your players just want to blow the crap out of the Tower of Despair or the Dead Forest of Sthrim.
It’s the idea behind this principle. The fact that if you give a way to simply destroy everything the players see, your going to have to find new ways to challenge them that doesn’t include an underground labyrinth (and one made out of adamantine won’t work, you want them to blow up the walls!). A war campaign, for example, would work great.
I can’t say I’ve devised a surefire way to make this one work (if not for the wise words of Chatty himself : “One-Shot!”) in a classic DnD game without completely destroying the mood of the game, but I’m thinking about it.
The last gunshot was an exclamation mark
Please note that all of the above is all very theoretical. I’ll see if these few principles maintain themselves decently in-game later this year (in a Traveller Sci-fi/Fantasy hybrid game, maybe)
Revel in the destruction, folks!
Interesting proposal you got there Kitsune.
However, I don’t think that I’d be ready to give players constant means of destroying everything. Much like in Bay’s movies, often there’s just too much boom for too little fluff.
I’d use the tricks you mention once in a while, like Bartoneus of Critical Hits refers to in his Rule of C4 post, to give players the ultimate narrative control device. But I would not make wanton destruction a recurring campaign theme. I’m not sure players would enjoy it as much if it was always an option.
If you have access to larger firepower than what your opposition has in a RPG, you create a fundamental imbalance/arms race that becomes close to impossible to manage.
However I do like the Woo principle that incorporates collateral damage to a scene. This is a given for a super game or a high level game with earth shattering powers.
So for me, the Michael Bay school of DMing would be used only as a One Shot, as a Campaign ender or as a special adventure whose goal is to allow players to fundamentally change the game’s environment by giving them the means to blow anything up…once or twice.
To me, the John Woo Principle is where it’s at. The rest is almost unusable in a full campain without some… well, let’s say divine intervention. I’d really have to see it from my own eyes (or test it, and I will, news will come, my friends).
The idea of every action modifying to battlefield in some way is far from being new, but I’ve always felt it was underused both by the DMs I played under and myself (but I’m working on it, promise).
Once your players figure that everything they do changes the enviroment, they’ll start figuring out wacky strategies, thus suprise you. And honestly, I’ve rarely seen my player more satisfied than when the DM says “Wait…What?!”. Plus, more challenge for the DM, that’s always entertaining.
In any case, this is all highly theoretical in nature, and is intended more as food for thought than anything else, in retrospection.
I have to say, I think you are on to something in regards to player psyches. Every player I have had has always rejoiced in absolute destruction of their surroundings.
Back in the old days of Star Frontiers, the characters could not carry out any sort of mission (no matter how stealth oriented) without grenades flying and everything devolving into all out chaos and explosions. And, I must say, those were some fun and exciting adventures that we still talk about today and get us laughing.
I think the sci fi genre definitely makes this style of GMing easier to pull off as everyone knows that when rockets are fired things are going to blow up. Fireballs have been somewhat sterilized by their constant use/description as just doing damage to the creatures in the blast and not the room (also, typical dungeon crawls tend to just have rooms with stone floors and walls which handle fire pretty well anyway). I did have a PC’s fireball melt away part of the ice fortress they were in back in the day, but have since returned to the bland style of GMing.
After reading your post I have realized that I need to kick it up a notch in my games. The John Woo principle is going to be implemented next session and “dam breaking” I have planned for an upcoming combat encounter is going to have to be brought up a notch too. Thanx for the post and be happy in knowing you’ve definitely made one GM take stock in how they are going to approach their table next time.
I’ve read the articles on the rule of cool and rule of C4 before and they made me think, but your proposed GMing school is the kick in the pants that is making me actively think about those and incorporating them into my adventures (which, since I am at work is not really what I should be doing at the moment….)
Rauthiks last blog post..Session 13
Great post! The title really drew me in. I am an active practitioner of the John Woo Principle. Adding a little color to combat by saying the arrow shot past you and stuck in the barrel by the back door can really peak the interest in combat and draw the players back from meta gaming the combat to wanting to be aware of their environment.
Having NPCs get hit and objects damaged can make the game fun sometimes. I like to tell my players they are not in a vacuum, there is a world around them that can be influence by their actions. Not every combat is run like this in my game, but I drop it in from time to time and let the party get creative if they want too.
Big guns and Micheal Bay in games… Not so much. In 3.X I did give players a chance to wamp on little beasties that were so hard to fight at low level later on when they were higher level, that is about as close as I get to saying it with rockets 12th level wizard vs. level 1 warriors. In 4e D&D the minions get this job a lot while the players are on the trail in search the big bad who is leading them.
Shents last blog post..Life After the End of Living Greyhawk
Great advice, what’s important is knowing whether to use it 100% or just take some lessons from it. There’s plenty to be gained from this article even if you don’t want that highly destructive, action-movie feel. I particularly think the John Woo Principle can be applied in part to great effect.
SuperSoogas last blog post..Creating Combat Styles
The most important thing I get out of this is “allow your players to change their environment”, and that right there is important advice. It’s often hard to keep track of everything on the field, but it’s relatively easy to make such changes that stick in the players’ minds. Thanks.
Oh, and I rescind my previous comments on the Rule of Cool. 😛
Constant destruction is just too much.
But constant destruction in climactic battle scenes? I’m down with that. Hell, the “load-bearing boss” (kill him and the dark fortress crumbles) is practically a staple of the genre.
The bit about describing misses as well as hits is good advice, too, though I wouldn’t limit it to destructive results in most situations.
Ninetails last blog post..Hacking Skill Challenges
“Chekov’s Rocket Launcher”
Lol!
Chris Tregenzas last blog post..Poll Results: Why we Buy Adventures
Woah, lot more positive response then I thought! Thanks for the love, y’all!
@Rauthnik : Stop it! You’re making me feel all fuzzy inside! I’m glad you enjoyed! I’m really eager to try Traveller myself, although I’m waiting for my Castles and Crusades campaign to be over first. You might read about it in my own blog soon enough. (Blog pending, give it a month, tops)
@Shent : The School really is more about blasting the hell out of objects and buildings then actual fighting. It doesn’t matter how many bodies there are in your ruins as long as you made that ruin yourself. Technically speaking, the bad guys should have access to countermeasures and similar firepower. So basically, it’s not about the kill count, but the number of rocks that stop standing.
@Supersooga : My thinking exactly. This is food for thoughts and isn’t meant to be taken litterally. And like I said in my earlier comment : The John Woo Principle is where it’s at.
@benpop : Words of wisdom, reader. The good thing about it is that if you describe a small detail half-heartedly and forget it mid-battle, well, chances are one of your players’ noted it and already have some wacky plan for it’s use. Players are a great tool for GMs, I say.
@Ninetail : Well, constant destruction would make for a pretty shallow game, like Master Chatty said himself. It’s all about finding a comfortable (and possibly sugary) balance between mayhem and… well… let’s just call it “non-mayhem”. Therefor, I agree with your sentiment. And as far as describing goes, it’s not as much “misses as destruction” as it is “misses should have a defining effect on a fight other then just not doing damage”. Hell, I’ve seen players nearly kill themselves on a miss (in fact, it happened twice just yesterday) and loving every second of it. The thing is just to make every dice roll, success or not, mean something.
This was the philosophy I used when I ran Rifts back around 1990. Today, the game that best exemplifies this theme is 3:16: Carnage Among the Stars.
I don’t think this post needs to be dismissed!
In my current White Wolf campaign there was destruction ranging from fists destroying walls to a village being burned because the players fought demon lions (and of course, explosions were had).
Like others have said, the Woo principle is worth using. It makes players realise how powerful their opponents are and appreciate their dodging skills all the more when you describe how they weaved away from the fist coming down at them so instead of being hit, the roof they were standing on got a hole and wood splinters jumped into the air.
That is sort of how things go in my crew’s Shadowrun games – though not to the extent of a John Woo film. There’s always something blowing up (a few of the group are explosive-happy and have to place something somewhere to make big badaboom).
Learning that you could be this destructive was pretty awesome for a few of our group – but what was better, was when they realized that the enemy could make a bigger mess aimed at us.
Thomass last blog post..AIR and The League!
Just picture how Gandalf breaks the rock bridge in Fellowship of the Ring and the great Balrog falls. But the Balrog has a great whip…
pv
.-= Patty´s last blog ..Coss Stitch: Celtic deer =-.