Having GM Anxiety. Tips?

[Altair]

So, I'm looking at possibly running a Supers game starting up this fall. And even though I'm working on another RPG that (should hopefully) provide robust support for the genre, I'd like to run this game in Hero. Mainly because:

 

• The project I'm working on isn't done yet
• I like Hero
• At least one of my potential players is super into Hero
• People have been playing Supers games in Hero for years - there's a lot of wheels I don't have to invent

So, Hero. Specifically, Champions Complete. Hooray!

 

Problem: I'm having serous anxiety about running HERO.

 

My GM'ing style is highly improvisational. Even when I prep things, I have a tendency to discard them once the game is truly flowing. I'm a little nervous about the highly granular nature of HERO playing poorly with that tendency, and I have neither the time nor inclination to drill myself on the mechanics until I know them inside and out. Being a player is one thing, I only have to manage my bits, and I can decide how complicated I want them to be. But GMing has an awful lot more complexity; I'm likely to get things wrong, and I cannot stand fighting about mechanics.

 

So that's pretty much the situation: I want to run HERO, I like HERO, I'm intimidated by the thought of running it long-term in an actual campaign.

 

Help?

[Surrealone]

The real question seems to be as follows:

Will your players be ok with your fast/loose style in a game system that models combat to the second?

 

The answer in a nutshell is:

Only you know your players well enough to effectively answer the question, above.

 

My recommendation:

Do your thing for a while and see how it goes -- and make it clear to your players from the start that this is the plan.  Solicit feedback from your players as you go.  If things go well across 4-5 sessions, no adjustments are needed.  If players give you feedback as to things that might make the game go better, take it to heart and act on it.  If it's looking like the improvements you need to make don't fit your GM'ing style, then sit down with your players and call a spade a spade.

 

The game is supposed to be fun for the GM, too.  Seasoned players understand this and won't fault you if your style isn't working for them ... and if the changes you'd need to make for the game to work for the players ... will turn your fun into something more like work.

[Doc Democracy]

dont think you have been given bad advice there.

 

dont volunteer for a long campaign.  You might decide to run a four or five session game setting up the game you really want to play.  do the things from the previous generation of heroes.  If things screw up then it is not the players heroes that suffer and you can adjust things for the real campaign if that is what you still want to do.

[Spence]

I'm in the process of building up a campaign with an intro min-campaign.   This may help.  Or not

 

Link to my thread.  

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/93723-new-campaign-help/

[Altair]

Lots of good stuff from everybody thus far; I'm gonna unpack this bit.

 

The real question seems to be as follows:

Will your players be ok with your fast/loose style in a game system that models combat to the second?

 

The answer in a nutshell is:

Only you know your players well enough to effectively answer the question, above.

 

It's true! While I'm not entirely certain what the play base is going to look like, or even if this game will wind up happening - I've also pitched a post-apocalyptic adventure, and offered to run the Infinity RPG - the players in question seem to like my stuff, and should be pretty comfortable with my style. 

 

They'll have more experience with me than with HERO, and would be signing up for something significantly more narratively-focused than the dungeon crawl-heavy stuff they're also involved in. 

 

Additionally, this would hopefully include at least one of the fine folks from my adventures in Champions Cardstock Combat Chronicles from last year, so I'd not only have good experiences previously, but also (with any luck) be able to lean on them for help & advice when I get stuck.

 

 

My recommendation:

Do your thing for a while and see how it goes -- and make it clear to your players from the start that this is the plan.  Solicit feedback from your players as you go.  If things go well across 4-5 sessions, no adjustments are needed.  If players give you feedback as to things that might make the game go better, take it to heart and act on it.  If it's looking like the improvements you need to make don't fit your GM'ing style, then sit down with your players and call a spade a spade.

 

The game is supposed to be fun for the GM, too.  Seasoned players understand this and won't fault you if your style isn't working for them ... and if the changes you'd need to make for the game to work for the players ... will turn your fun into something more like work.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much my feelings on the matter. I'm not worried about a style clash, and I'm not running for anybody that I have a mutually exclusive style this time around, so hopefully this shouldn't be too big an issue. 

 

I guess I'm wondering if anyone else feels this way? Where they love HERO, and it's fun as a player, but they're intimidated at the thought of running it seriously?

 

And if so, what helped them make that work?

[Altair]

dont think you have been given bad advice there.

 

dont volunteer for a long campaign.  You might decide to run a four or five session game setting up the game you really want to play.  do the things from the previous generation of heroes.  If things screw up then it is not the players heroes that suffer and you can adjust things for the real campaign if that is what you still want to do.

 

That's a cool idea! A generation gap is probably not going to work with what I'm trying to do, but it's sound advice nonetheless. 

 

I might try a "snapshot" of a single event, just to see how that feels. That's not the worst plan in the world.

[Nolgroth]

I have GM anxiety every single time I run a game. Sometimes it is intense and sometimes it is just barely there. I too play pretty fast and loose, improvisationally, speaking. What I found helps me is to understand the basic meta-rules that binds Hero together. What I mean by that is that, generally, 5 AP = 1 DC, Speed x acts so many times in a Turn, 10 AP generally translates into 1 END cost...that sort of thing. Another thing is to do a little bit of prep work before the campaign and then before each session. Hero is not a hard system to run and can be easily done "on the fly." You just have to be honest with your players and squash rules lawyering up front. 

 

I tend to use a narrative scale, in my head, of how competent somebody is at something. A character like Oliver Twist might well have an Expertise in Streetwise. Means nothing in Hero terms, but I translate that into a 14- Skill Roll. I also tend to lump packages of skills to fit my narrative, rather than rely on technical rules accuracy. So, for example, Oliver Twist might be an Expert Pickpocket. Therefore his Sleight of Hand and Concealment would also be 14-, but his combat skills are Average (meaning he has about average OCV/DCV for the campaign). This allows me to introduce a character without having to do too much prep work. If I haven't considered a skill or ability it is either non-existent, average, or can be shoehorned into some of those narrative categories. Failing all else, it falls into the Familiarity category.

 

For NPCs, I tend to use raw OCV/DCV instead of worrying about skill levels. Obviously, important NPCs are the exception to that rule and will get a full work-up. I can assign narrative values to that as well by having a range of CV's that cover the spectrum of the campaign. For example, if my campaign has a maximum CV of 10, then Average would be 5-6. Poor would be 1-2, Below Average would be 3-4, Above Average would be 7-8 and Great would be 9-10. It is possible to break those barriers but that should be rare. PD/ED is pretty much the same thing. If I want to build a particularly tough NPC, I will stay within the range of PD/ED values I've set up but use Damage Reduction to simulate their extra toughness.

 

Another thing you might do, something I have not tried but considered, is to assemble a list of packages from various sources in which to build your NPC characters. You need a Cat Burglar, there is a package somewhere that has the basic elements of that package. If you need a stat, assign it on the spot. If you are not sure, take a base value of 8 and add 2d6 (giving you a range of 10-20) to that stat. Most stats would fall into the 14-15 range with some lower and some higher. It may be easier to have broader brush categories like Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, Healer, etc. that you can start with and then narrow down the specialization later.

 

I also tend to build up a small rogues gallery of characters and a similar bestiary that I can pull from. These may be official resources or ones that I developed personally for the campaign. This is the most time consuming upfront option, but it really does help during gameplay.

 

Keep a small stack of 3x5 index cards and jot notes about each character you introduce. That will allow you to flesh them out later.

 

These are some of the tools I use to run a game. By not stressing over the stats, I can focus on the characterization and story. Hero can be a micro-management nightmare but it doesn't have to be.

[Manic Typist]

All of this is great advice.

 

I'd also point out that HERO is only as granular as you make it; you can dial it up or down by invoking or leaving out rules.

 

Something I like to do is farm out GMing responsibilities to players. When fighting mooks, tell them the CVs and have them help you track those combatants (I've even put players in charge of making their tactical decisions against the party!).

 

Rely on player knowledge of the rules - if someone wants to become an expert on X rule, ask them what they recall and then revisit the ruling after play.

[Doc Democracy]

All of this is great advice.

 

I'd also point out that HERO is only as granular as you make it; you can dial it up or down by invoking or leaving out rules.

 

Something I like to do is farm out GMing responsibilities to players. When fighting mooks, tell them the CVs and have them help you track those combatants (I've even put players in charge of making their tactical decisions against the party!).

 

Rely on player knowledge of the rules - if someone wants to become an expert on X rule, ask them what they recall and then revisit the ruling after play.

 

All good advice.  The other thing I have found useful (and bang on about wherever possible) is designing the character sheet for people.  If you give them a huge character sheet with scads of numbers on it then the players might (reasonably) expect to engage with ALL of those numbers (for good or ill).

 

If you give them a really stripped down character sheet then it is setting expectations.  I call the character sheet the GUI for the game.  It should set the scene and play style that the GM expects to deliver and engage with.

 

There is also a quid pro quo.  If you as GM are going to be fast and loose with the rules then you might set things up for the players to be too.  In this kind of game I might expect a character with a police background to have one or two skills to reflect that knowledge - PS: police and KS: forensics.  From that a whole range of rolls might be drawn as long as the player coherently argues the case and you are happy to set ad hoc penalties for how specialist the knowledge is within the broader skillset.  If the players feel the advantage then they are not likely to complain.

 

Doc

[Psillias]

I would add a few things from my own experience:

   - Ask the player who is "super into" Hero to assist you when necessary (looking up rules, assisting other players, etc.)

   - Ask all players to take a half hour either the night before or directly before the session, to re-familiarize themselves with their characters abilities (costs, OCV/DCV changes, special rules, etc.)

 

You have a great deal of time you have to invest regardless of how loose you actually play between developing the scenarios, antagonists, NPC's, maps, etc....the least your players can do is to know their portion of the game.  This allows you to focus in other areas and not need to hand hold.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I wouldn't at all worry about the "granular" nature of Hero's rules, since that only takes effect in combat interaction.  Its there to help structure combat and give it a nice simulation of comic book action, not to force your story playing style.

[Spence]

For myself I prepare for a campaign by outlining the “events” using a flowchart against a time line to give me a general idea of when events happen.  These are all written in a very general way.  Just enough detail for me keep the ideas in mind.  Because no story plot ever survives contact with the players

Each “plot arc” has its own flow and I move the events forward or back depending on what the players do.  Such as “Villain A robs Badass Technologies for a McGuffin A on Week 2” could be moved to Week 1 or 3 depending on what the players do.  But somewhere Villain A will attempt to lay hands on McGuffin A. 

Using a simple flow chart which I generally have printed out on one 8x11 page lets me easily see where the 2-5 plots are on their time lines.

 

The only specifics I write up are high detail for Major Villains and NPC’s

Medium details for Villainous Lieutenants and middle NPC’s

Loose stat blocks for mooks and general cast NPC’s.

[Spence]

I wouldn't at all worry about the "granular" nature of Hero's rules, since that only takes effect in combat interaction.  Its there to help structure combat and give it a nice simulation of comic book action, not to force your story playing style.

 

Absolutely.  I play a really loose style of Champs.  Especially out of combat.  

[bigdamnhero]

I've seen Hero run very fast & loose, and it works very well that way. Most of these have already been stated, but restating them for emphasis:

 

Make sure your players are on the same page - some people love Hero because of all the crunch, and I've seen people get cranky when it's not there. As long as your player who is "super* into Hero" isn't going to play the "Well actually 6e2 page 237 clearly sez..." game, you'll be fine.

 

Keep the number of Optional Rules in use to a minimum, at least at first. You can always add in more later if you want once you've gotten the hang of things a bit.

 

And I'll second the comments about the importance of a playable character sheet. Make stuff the player needs easy to find, but minimize or leave off stuff that rarely comes up in combat, like point costs. The bulk of Hero's complexity is in character creation, so if you front-load a lot of the info onto the character sheet you'll make everyone's life a lot easier. Run a search for threads on character sheet formats - some good ones have been posted here.

 

Speaking of other threads, here are some good ones on simplifying Hero:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/93169-suggestions-on-running-champions-at-a-convention/

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/92692-bare-bones-hero-%E2%80%93-an-experiment-in-oversimplification/

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/92913-looking-for-hero-6e-cheat-sheets/

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/92584-fledgling-gm-seeks-help/

 

Always remember the rules are there to serve the story, not the other way around. Have fun!

 

* I see what you did there.