Items, Armour and Weapons.

[Mr. Death]

Yeah, I tried that... And they decided they'd just lounge around their apartment for a few days.

Have the badguys finish some part of their plan or otherwise do something big while they're faffing about. The whole time thing is meaningless if it doesn't make some kind of tangible consequence. It shouldn't just be, "Okay, three days later, you meet with the guy." It should be, "In the three days you spend waiting for the deal, turns out Lord Evilbad was able to capture the first of the Big Balls of Doom."

[sinker]

I'm not advocating that you punish choices, but rather give choices that have teeth in them. That's a lot more in the spirit of the fiction and the game.

I wouldn't even call it punishing. All choices have consequences, even good choices (which usually have good consequences). You're merely creating a more life-like story.

[devonapple]

I wouldn't even call it punishing. All choices have consequences, even good choices (which usually have good consequences). You're merely creating a more life-like story.

I feel it is still a worthwhile differentiation to make. Some GMs - in a moment of frustration, unpreparedness, or egotism - inadvertently or intentionally opt to "punish" a player decision rather than leverage realistic narrative consequences: it's a thing that does happen, and it is important to know what is happening and to differentiate between reasonable narrative consequences and (intentional, accidental or reactionary) GM vengeance.

[Orladdin]

Yeah, I tried that... And they decided they'd just lounge around their apartment for a few days.


The thing we as GMs occasionally forget (or neglect) is that while the PCs are lounging around making phone calls, the bad guys should be hard at work. It's easy to keep the pressure on Harry in the stories because the writer is in charge of everything, and it can be a challenge as a GM to do the same running the game version.

The key is to make choices meaningful. And I see this all the time when I'm playing "Skyrim": if there is no time constraint, no loss for procrastinating something, then that thing will be put off until it pleases the player. My Skyrim character has a huge pile of unresolved quests, and none of them are really hurting to be solved immediately, even though in a real-world analogue of that fantasy game, those things would expire as other adventurers stepped in to resolve them in a more timely manner, or the bad guys' plots worked through unchallenged to their ultimate conclusion.

So when a group makes a choice to sideline themselves for a few days, that should really free up the bad guys to make great strides in their machinations. The good guys shouldn't just automatically lose in those cases, of course: the conflicts and stakes will just get harder and higher until the players align themselves to the urgency of the situation. But the plot shouldn't have to wait on them to finish shopping: life happens all the time.

I'm not advocating that you punish choices, but rather give choices that have teeth in them. That's a lot more in the spirit of the fiction and the game.

Punish them; just don't surprise them with something world-shattering.

As storyteller, you are perfectly in your right to hit them with consequences for their actions-- but fair play would suggest that when they go, "Hey, we'll order these anti-air missile batteries.  They'll take 6-8 months to get here?  Ok, no problem," you respond with, "You know, this will give the villain 6 to 8 months to bomb your base.  You know that, right?"  If they still go ahead with it, it's on them. 

I feel it is still a worthwhile differentiation to make. Some GMs - in a moment of frustration, unpreparedness, or egotism - inadvertently or intentionally opt to "punish" a player decision rather than leverage realistic narrative consequences: it's a thing that does happen, and it is important to know what is happening and to differentiate between reasonable narrative consequences and (intentional, accidental or reactionary) GM vengeance.

^ This. 

[sinker]

I feel it is still a worthwhile differentiation to make. Some GMs - in a moment of frustration, unpreparedness, or egotism - inadvertently or intentionally opt to "punish" a player decision rather than leverage realistic narrative consequences: it's a thing that does happen, and it is important to know what is happening and to differentiate between reasonable narrative consequences and (intentional, accidental or reactionary) GM vengeance.

Agreed, though some GMs take it to the opposite extreme, fearing negative consequences to actions being viewed as GM vengeance.

[Mr. Death]

It doesn't have to be something as obvious as, "While you sat around for three days, the bad guy won." Have it come back later, in some subtle manner, that if the group had been more active earlier, they'd be in a better position to stop whatever's going on. Clues were spirited away instead of discovered; a witness was eliminated; someone was paid off. Something where they can look back and say, "If only we hadn't been sitting around waiting..."

It's a balancing act, sure, but one core tenet of Dresden is that choices have consequences, intended or not. It's as much a part of the setting as wizards and fae. You don't have to drop the hammer on'em, but it should be clear to them that if they sit around doing nothing, the bad guys will take advantage of it.

[devonapple]

And, they're all new to RPGing. I can't be too difficult on them, or they'll just quit.

That makes sense.

Ultimately the fun is what is most important. If this is the first game, there's no bad guy yet, no awareness of a bad guy, and no hook to pull them into the plot, then as a GM, you *may* want to either handwave that they got that taken care of offscreen, before the adventure started, or say "wait."

You may also choose to have the plot happen to them *while* they are in the apartment waiting for their stuff to work out, putting their machinations at risk. It happened to Harry in one story that he made all these preparations for a ritual, and right when he was about to start it, a friend got in trouble and he had to abandon his preparations. Later, he needed to do that same ritual, but without his pile of preparations, so he had to wing it and open himself up to potential failure or consequences.

So yeah: have a friend burst into their apartment with a gunshot wound. Or an enemy with a gun. Or one of the player's contacts starts getting leaned on by the bad guys for some reason.

[Mr. Death]

So yeah: have a friend burst into their apartment with a gunshot wound. Or an enemy with a gun.

Or if you really want to confuse'em, an enemy with a gun and a gunshot wound.

Or, go by the old Nanowrimo standard: When in doubt, throw in ninjas.

[devonapple]

Or if you really want to confuse'em, an enemy with a gun and a gunshot wound.

nice!

[Becq]

Yeah, I tried that... And they decided they'd just lounge around their apartment for a few days.

The rich guys trouble is "on the run from the Illuminati". So I make him fail a contacts roll (with all relevant modifiers) any time he uses his contacts, because the aspect he often tags to get bonuses is along the lines of "gone, but not forgotten". that has kinda helped, as it means he is only willing to buy the legal stuff, and rarely the illegal.

Wow.  The guy who is throwing around his diamond-encrusted credit card while the Illuminati is actively looking for him must be brave.  Instead of compelling him to fail rolls, why not use the "Yes, but..." approach mentioned in the book?  Ie, he's able to throw around enough money that he can find people willing to sell him stuff ... but wouldn't those folk with the black suits, shades, and oddly-styled tie pins be looking for just that sort of thing?

Obviously, you don't want to frustrate your players, but this is a compel and as such its under their control.  When they start throwing money around in such a way that you feel might come to the attention of the MiBs, offer the player a Fate point (or possibly escalate for really big purchases) and mention to him the risk of discovery.  He can choose to accept the complication or buy it off...