1st time DM questions

[Haru]

so much fail in one post

That comment is absolutely unnecessary and just poisoning the discussion. You should watch your tone.

[Taran]

so much fail in one post

The fact that you can't come up with anything constructive to say leads me to believe that the opposite of your statement is true.

I didn't mean to be insulting but, in case you actually didn't get my point, I'll summarize:

Just because you don't like another gaming system doesn't mean other people don't.  It's also not a failing in the system because lots of people bring different gaming styles to all kinds of systems.  I've seen gamers play DFRPG as a hack n' slash.

Telling someone that D&D isn't (in your opinion) fun isn't addressing the OP's question. He's asking for helpful hints for GMing DFRPG.  Saying, "don't do it like D&D" is not constructive and I don't think it's necessarily true.  It's different but it doesn't mean the skills he's learned DMing won't cross over to DFRPG.

I'll leave it at that.

[fantazero]

Maybe you weren't playing right...

Ad hominem attacks.

[Taran]

Ad hominem attacks.

I apologize for that.  I suppose it was a shot, although, when I wrote it, it wasn't intended to be.

I think my point still stands.

[fantazero]

DFRPG has social combat.  So, really, an argument can be made that the game has turned rping into a mechanic that can be min/maxed.  Why role-play when you can just roll your +7 rapport and win? 

GM: The man is asking you to leave.
Player: "I attack with Rapport"


Sorry if this has come across too strong, but I think you should leave your prejudices out of your posts.

If you rolled REALLY well you MIGHT get to a 7 Rapport, or you tagged a lot of aspects.
"I attack with rapport" if you're playing the game like that, you're doing it wrong. "I try and convince the White Court lord that our party is there to sell him Cookies /roll rapport (You fail) "My lord we're here to sell...um....cookies?"

Can you point to the social mechanic in D&D? Can you point out in D&D how you're encouraged to Role Play? So good for your group, you were able to Roleplay "around" the board game that is D&D.

[Taran]

If you rolled REALLY well you MIGHT get to a 7 Rapport, or you tagged a lot of aspects.
"I attack with rapport" if you're playing the game like that, you're doing it wrong. "I try and convince the White Court lord that our party is there to sell him Cookies /roll rapport (You fail) "My lord we're here to sell...um....cookies?"

What's the trope for D&D?  "I attack".  next round  "I attack"
I've seen lots of groups get very creative with combat and very descriptive.

Meanwhile, I've seen that exact type of playing in DFRPG
"I attack him with Rapport"

Can you point to the social mechanic in D&D? Can you point out in D&D how you're encouraged to Role Play? So good for your group, you were able to Roleplay "around" the board game that is D&D.

D&D skills:

Gather information
sense motive
Diplomacy
Bluff
Intimidate
Forgery
Decipher script
pick pocets

These skills are the ones you use for intrigue and social interactions.

You want to convince someone to give you safe passage: diplomacy
You want to question someone or scare them enough to avoid combat: intimidate
You want convince the local government that you're Aristocracy with Titles to land?: Forgery
You want to lie to someone or convince them of something outlandish?: Bluff
Etc...etc...

The GM sets the difficulty or is opposed by the NPC/Player.  (just like every mechanic in D&D)
It can be done as a single roll or as a series of rolls depending on how big the conflict is going to be.

If you want to convince someone your name is Gunther, it might be a single opposed role
If you want to convince someone to "lend" you their prize-winning, pure-bred horse, it might be an extended conflict where you have to succeed on a few rolls.

When you use these skills, generally, you have Role-play it because there is no stress-track to attack.  Usually a GM modifies the roll based on how you RP'd it.  If you're insulting someone and then tell the GM you want to use diplomacy, you're unlikely to succeed since the penalties will be too high.  This encourages role-playing to the skill you're going to use.  Whole sessions can get played without any combat.  Also, the "board-game" you mentioned doesn't exist because you can't use mini's for social interactions.

I find it hard to believe you've actually played if you didn't even know these skills and mechanics existed.

If we're going to have a drawn-out discussion, we should move it to PM.

[Mickey Finn]

This post is getting back on keel; don't tip it over again in the future, please.

[blackstaff67]

One thing to keep in mind as a 1st-time GM is that the players get to have a more significant say in what happens in game, especially with Declarations.  I strongly recommend reading up on those.

Also keep in mind that unlike some games (regardless of genre) rewards won't be in the form of vast monies or firearms but in solving things.  Also keep in mind that in the Dresdenverse combat is fast and deadly and that there are NO MEdbots or clerics to help you should you become badly hurt. 

More to come when my sleep-deprived mind thinks of them.

[dplanken]

What helped me a lot when I GMed the Dresden Files for the first time, is asking my players to describe what they are doing. This sounds like a no-brainer, but many players have trouble with this.

Sometimes they struggle with a description and then the other players pipe in with awesome suggestions. Especially in those situations where my players work together to create something cool, they have the most fun. It's not the story YOU want to tell, it's the story your PLAYERS (plural, don't let one person dominate the game) want to tell.

That's the best advice I can give a starting DFRPG GM!

PS. Someone said something in the line of "when you throw a fireball at a mortal, have the mortal concede to die. But as far as I know concessions need to be accepted by the other party. Wouldn't the wizard simply not accept the concession?

[blackstaff67]

The way magic is portrayed takes a little while to get used to but is well worth it.  Just be prepared for some very flexible spell-casting (I personally favor "element" flavored/themed stuff for my Thaumaturgy rather than specialize in one particular area (cryo/pyro/geo-mancies instead of Ward, Summoning or Way-making specialists).

[blackstaff67]

I forgot who said it here in the Forums, but the poster said, "The best way to describe your High Concept is to ask what other people would describe your character as." 
Person A: "Who's he?"
Person B: (describing your PC) "Oh her.  She's (Insert High Concept here)."

[g33k]

  PS. Someone said something in the line of "when you throw a fireball at a mortal, have the mortal concede to die. But as far as I know concessions need to be accepted by the other party. Wouldn't the wizard simply not accept the concession?

So far as I know, a "concession" is entirely under the control of the conceding party... no "acceptance" (by the winner) is needed.  It's an alternative to "Taken Out" -- letting the conceding party retain narrative control of his character's fate... at the cost of a "sure loss" of the conflict at hand.

Or am I mistaken in this?

[Haru]

A concession usually happens before a taken out result, not instead. If you see a fight not going your way, instead of fighting until you are taken out, at which point the winner can do pretty much whatever he pleases with you, you can offer a concession.

A concession first and foremost means that your character loses the fight. But the big difference to a taken out result is, that you can negotiate the terms. So your opponent gets the McGuffin, but you get away alive, would be an example of that. But you can also offer up something in exchange for the actual goal. Say the McGuffin is important enough for your character to die over. In a concession, you could offer your life as the price for the McGuffin to stay with your side. Or something else, if it is something that your opponent might want.

It is important to note, that a concession is not a character decision, it's a player decision. And the players negotiate it, not the characters. It can bleed into the narrative of course (the typical "take me instead"), but it can have nothing to do with it as well. So when you say you sacrifice your character to safe the McGuffin, you could be holding on to it, while part of the cliff breaks and you plummet to your death, without any doing of your character. Your allies can retrieve the McGuffin later, as they fish your lifeless body out of the sea.

[Cadd]

It is important to note, that a concession is not a character decision, it's a player decision. And the players negotiate it, not the characters.

I think this is a pretty important thing to think about in other situations aswell. Other RPG's I've played haven't really spelled out like DFRPG the fact that you really want to keep in mind the two different "levels" of playing - there's what the characters knows and acts on, and there's what the players knows and acts on.

Concessions are firmly on the Player level (can of course bleed over like Haru wrote); Invokes and Compels sort of straddle the line, they are mostly player-level negotiations, but has a higher tendency to be "visible" on the character level - think all compels Harry takes on his "Chivalry is not Dead, Dammit" aspect. As the books go on, he gets more and more aware that he has issues making him do thoughtless things (in game terms - accepts a lot of compels on that aspect). But even when they are visible on the character level, they are negotiated between Player and GM - out of character does not mean it's out of game.

Personally, I would say that both Taken Out and Concessions take some amount of negotiation in order to make it fun for everyone. The difference is how much, and most of all - who has the upper hand in that negotiation.

Also, on timing of Concessions: I've understood it like this - a Concession can be offered any time between the moment your character has suffered stress/consequences and the moment the dice hits the table for another attack on him/her. Once that attack is rolled you follow through on whatever stress is inflicted, including the risk of a Taken Out result. Basically - you can't Concede in response to an attack that will take you out, but you can do it as a response to the declared (but not yet performed) attack.

[g33k]

A concession usually happens before a taken out result, not instead. If you see a fight not going your way, instead of fighting until you are taken out, at which point the winner can do pretty much whatever he pleases with you, you can offer a concession.

Of course -- I phrased that badly, implying otherwise!

I looked up the rule (YS p.206) and I see that I was mistaken, sort of.  It's not specifically that the winning party gets to negotiate the terms of the concession -- the entire GROUP at the table has to agree to it.  The conceding player, the player whose PC won, and everyone else too.

I guess this implies that the terms of such negotiations had best be pre-agreed-to by the group... does a simple majority vote "ratify" a concession?  Can the "winner" veto any insufficiently-victorious-to-them concession?  Does the GM get any special vote or narrative power?  Etc...