First of all, you've built an excellent site with high quality discussions and articles, two thumbs up.
Now, since you seem to be an exceptionally knowledgeable group of people, maybe you can help me. I'm a gamer with a somewhat bad luck when it comes to gaming. longest campaign i've played has been only three scenarios long and most campaigns have been only one scenario, despite being planned as a long campaign and most have been lacking in a way or another. As such, I've decided to methologically build up a campaign that lacks all those propereties that cause campaign failure and for that, I need your help.
The situation:
- I'm most likely a gamist with the subtype of 'bitterest gamer in the world' http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/
- Game is going to be played one on one
- I have only few dozens of games under my belt and the GM is even less experienced player and a first time GM
- We've already decided to extensively plan the campaign on the general expectations level before beginning to play.
Now, into the question itself: Given this situation, how do we optimize the social contracts/expectations so that we will not face unsurmountable problems of differing expectations during the game? We've already discussed about game world on the general level and we're planning on discussing thins such as genre, role of GM, linearity and role of story and railroading, but that list doesn't feel complete. What else should we negotiate about to make sure that the game will proceed smootly and most of all, enjoyably for us both?
Thanks in advance!
- Wallwalker
Hi,
Welcome to the Forge!
First, what system are you guys playing with?
You and the GM are concerned about how play is going to be, but have either of you played/ran this system before? You also mention general inexperience, is this system complex? Wherever the game text itself is least explicit, that's where you and the GM are going to need the most discussion.
Second, since it sounds like you and the GM probably don't have much experience together, why already plan for long term play? It might make more sense to deliberately throw yourselves into some one-shots, or short runs to see how both of you feel about the game itself, each other, and working styles for play.
Chris
System is most likely going to be gurps, and while neither of us has played with it, I've spent extensive time studying it so familiarity with ruleset shouldn't be a problem.
And why I'm planning for long term games? Mostly because what intrigues me the most in RPGs are things that require a long time to achieve, long term plans, goals and achievements. And of course there's the fact that it's either gaming with this GM or not at all because he's the only realistic option (Other potential GMs have vastly different preferences on what game should be, so playing with them isn't going to be an option.)
Wing it...
Your previous experiences seem to have been these epics that sputtered. Maybe you'd have better luck if you just sort of started with a skeleton and fleshed it out over time with the stuff you decided you liked?
Welcome! What's your name?
Quote from: Wallwalker on September 21, 2005, 01:08:59 AM
And why I'm planning for long term games? Mostly because what intrigues me the most in RPGs are things that require a long time to achieve, long term plans, goals and achievements.
That description covers a pretty broad range of preferences. What exactly is it about long-term plans and goals that interests you?
It would help if you could post an example of Actual Play. Is there a game you used to play that hit these buttons for you?
- Pôl
QuoteIt would help if you could post an example of Actual Play. Is there a game you used to play that hit these buttons for you?
Like I said, I haven't had a chance to really play any campaigns long enough for such planning to have a meaning but there's one example of, not exactly actual play, but close enough.
There's an AD&D worldbook series called Birthright, it's basically AD&D where you literally play a king, besides adventuring you get to rule a kingdom amongst dozens others and your job is to become the new emperor.
I've never had the chance to really play it but I still have very fond memories of reading the worldbooks and planning on how I'd play there. Analyzing kingdoms that'd be best to play with, compiling dossiers on weaknesses of rulers and kingdoms, searching for the best ways to defeat every one, finding potential threats and opportunities for likely situations and drafting plans and contigency plans for those. I think I've used (not wasted. it was highly enjoyable) around 40-50 hours on that.
I suppose it's obvious that my original interest for roleplaying rose from traditional wargaming when I wanted to do something that was obviously a good plan but which wasn't usable because the highly limiting ruleset of wargaming got into way.
I hope that answers your questions.
Thank you all for your replies thus far.
Hello,
Good to have you here. For this discussion to continue, you really do have to provide an example of real, actual play you've experienced.
When was it? What game did you use? Who was playing? What happened in the game? What happened socially? Was it fun? Why or why not?
That's right - describe it like a journalist would, or maybe an autobiographer. Without this, we can't continue with this thread, and your bigger, planning-questions, cannot be answered.
Best,
Ron
QuoteWhen was it? What game did you use? Who was playing? What happened in the game? What happened socially? Was it fun? Why or why not?
That's right - describe it like a journalist would, or maybe an autobiographer. Without this, we can't continue with this thread, and your bigger, planning-questions, cannot be answered.
Let's see...
Last time I played a serious game was about a year ago, over irc, with people I've known for some years. D&D 3.5, with some minimal preliminary planning (we're going to go for a standard dungeon crawl, okay?) 6 players and a GM of around 16-21 years of age, half of the players and the GM were true veterans of roleplaying and another half (me included) were completely or mostly new to it.
The game itself started in a small village where we had all gathered in an inn and we got hired into searching strange happenings near a small cave and as such, we started a march towards it. If I remember correctly, this all happened quite fast and didn't have any particular feeling of importance over me. All this had a "we need to go through this to get into the business of dungeon exploration"
After we got into the cave itself I started meticulous mapping and note taking in case my life later depended on my ability to make quick decisions but this was not to be the case (mostly because the whole dungeon was Y shaped meaning I couldn't get lost in it anyway) Our first encounter was with few goblins inside a small break room who we got a surprise on, as they weren't expecting trouble and we quickly crushed them (on hindsight, maybe prisoner taking might had been a prudent option.)It was a mechanical combat but it was fun.
Next combat (Against goblins again) got me a bit worried because both my personal, and our collective hitpoints had gone down and I was beginning to feel serious worry about our combat potential as a good hit could take some of us down from that on althrough the combat itself left a good aftertaste as we were able to surprise a goblin once again, this time with a portable battering ram (thinking about it now, it might not have been perfectly realistic but it wasn't completely unrealistic and either. And most of all, being able get an advantage over enemy with quick thinking is always fun and positive.) After that engagement we rescued a prisoner from the cells (a player who arrived late) and went to the other end of the Y shaped cave, mostly because we didn't have any options as running away would have propably meant the end of the game despite the fact that it felt foolhardy to press on and I would have preferred to gather our strenghts and return after healing and resting, despite losing the advantage of surprise.
Now the third engagement was great, yet it was not a combat. Yet it was the best ten or so minutes of play I've ever experienced. We came across a gorge which we couldn't cross as the retreating goblins had destroyed the bridge leading over it. Now it was truly my time in the sun as I quickly took over the situation, questioned the GM over the situation (my solution was propably unexpected as he didn't seem to understand the points of my questions) and utilizing skills present in the team I quickly rebuilt the bridge and crossed the threatening chasm, completely risk free. For this feat someone (I don't remember who, possibly the GM) asked whether I dual classed into a fighter/engineer, which I took as a badge of honor which I carry with pride. Now that was what a good game is all about to me, analyzing the situation, drafting a strategy that min/maxes threats and rewards and enjoying the sweet fruits of successful plans.
Fourth engagement was once again a battle, this time against some goblin, their psionic leader and some sort of mutant goblins (decander goblins or something like that). This battle started very badly. GM basically stole from us the chance to react to the makeshift fortifications of the goblins and pretty much stated that we were assaulting them, which was quite irritating as I would have preffered to device a strategy behind a curvature of the cave, given a chance. But I suppose it can be seen fair to state "you engage the goblins" when we didn't explicictly state that we're advancing with extreme care and trying to avoid being ambushed. Regardless, we pushed through these fortifications into the main cavern where we killed the remaning footsoldiers while trapping the leader and his elite decander close combat monsters into a dead end with a flanking manoever. At that point I organised an ambush at the door since the that gave us a huge advantage since that would force the enemy to charge into our ambush because if they stayed there, our archers could have picked them away. Again I tasted sweet fruits of victory, only for it to turn sour as the GM declared that the enemy threw a firebomb at our ambush. I felt cheated as that felt like fudging the odds to challenge us then a realistic turn of events (if they had a firebomb, why didn't they use it when we were much more vulnerable?). Regardless of whether they had that equiptment from the beginning or whether it was added to them at that moment to spite us, I couldn't risk taking more bombs and had to turn our ambush into a charge, despite the fact that my HP was really down. And I would have been cut down, if not for Lady Luck smiling on me as the charging enemy failed critically and crashed on my feet where I cut it down. But it felt like a hollow victory as I didn't earn it with my wits.
After that, it was the looting, I didn't find any firebombs despite especially looking for them. Irritating. Then we returned to the village to claim our reward which was handsome... or would have been, but our Paladin said that the virtue of doing a good deed was reward enough for all of us. That turn of events was certainly surprising but I didn't get angry. Instead I formed a contigency plan for next time (I would have recruited an little kid to cry for help from the paladin while the rest of us went to claim for the reward) but alas, the problem of finding a time which we all 7 could agree on to play at meant that I never got to play again with them.
After that the session in itself ended we leveled up (I and the Paladin got 1500 xp, rest got 1000-800) Which was good, but expected (I had chosen to roleplay heavily my actions and character in the hope that GM might reward me with that XP but (yet this wasn't the only reason, I also wanted to make the other players and myself, enjoy the game) and that was pretty much that adventure.
Is that sufficient? all serious games before that happened more then five years ago so trying to remember them would unfortunately result only in extremely vague descriptions of railroading (I couldn't but help to notice that path takes us past the village of dark elves. what about the north path. "there's war in the north" what about the southern path "the bridge is broken" but what about... "your guide suggests the middle path" we have a guide? "you do now) And yes, that was unfortunately the spirit of what happened in that particular adventure.
Hey There,
I don't have a huge amount to add to the discussion, though I'm watching it with interest. Mostly I just wanted to ask whether you've had the chance to look at Donjon (http://anvilwerks.com/?Donjon), and if not I think you may want to.
-Tim
Great actual play writeup. One thing that jumps right out is that you want the opportunity to be presented with a tactical type of problem, and be given the room to come up with a creative solution. You got to do this with the bridge, but the GM blocked you twice with the goblin ambushes.
This writeup doesn't quite address your desire to get a longer campaign, but I'll make a guess that your dissatisfaction with being overridden like this is an impediment to a long running campaign.
Back in your first post, you asked about how to create a social contract to get what you want. A real good way to open that social contract discussion would be to share this writeup with your GM. That gives the two of you a basis to discuss what you want from the game, and from that discussion will flow the social contract.
Something to watch out for in trying to "plan" a long campaign. If too much structure is built into the campaign, you may find your ability to problem solve neutralized by illusionist techniques trying to force the "story." That may be part of what was going on in the session you described. Your bridge crossing might have worked because the GM needed you to cross somehow. The ambush bits might have failed because the GM needed the combat to happen under certain conditions to meet his "story."
Frank
It seems you really enjoy the tactical challenges presented by D&D 3.5. Lucky for you, that ruleset is pretty good at that kind of thing but it works well only when all the players are on the same page. The problem with D&D is that experienced players bring so much baggage to the table from their old experiences (using older versions of the rules). I'm not saying this happened in your case, but a couple of your examples point to a mismatch in what we call Creative Agenda.
Basically, you seem to have the most fun when you're presented with a challenge and you get a chance to use the tools you have available to you (your character's abilities, the circumstances of the setting and situation, and even the abilities of other characters) and overcome obstacles. And earn recognition at the table for your accomplishments. "The best ten or so minutes of play" you mentioned was the one time where you were presented with a challenge and got to use your tools and succeed.
In the other situations you describe, you seem cut off at the knees. You start mapping, but the dungeon's Y shape is not challenging or important. Running away was a game-ending option, not a viable tactic. You wanted to sneak up on the psionic goblins but the DM railroaded you into a different choice. Possibly, the DM failed to play his side to the hilt by not using the firebomb -- or he made it up later as a fudge -- and you felt cheated either way.
Talk to the people you want to play with. I think a lot of DMs don't understand that some players would rather have their characters die in a fair fight than be strung along by DM cheating. And some players do want "script immunity." You just all have to get on the same page, set some rules, and stick to them.
D&D 3.5 complicates things a bit by hedging a bit about the process the DM uses to come up with "fair" challenges and plenty of D&D literature still talks about DM-fudging. I submit that D&D 3.x is best played with a group of people with a Gamist Creative Agenda, and that means the DM, too. The DM should create fair challenges, be free with the information about what challenges the players might face (even telling the players the Challenge Ratings or Encounter Levels), then let the players decide to wade in or not. If the PCs fight, the DM should fight back, to the death. And if they choose to flee, there are other challenges for now, and they can come back in a level or two.
So see if that's the kind of thing your friends are interested in doing. If not, find different people to play D&D with.
Hi,
Quote from: Wallwalker on September 21, 2005, 01:08:59 AM
System is most likely going to be gurps, and while neither of us has played with it, I've spent extensive time studying it so familiarity with ruleset shouldn't be a problem.
Although you know the rules very well from reading, sometimes actual play can provide a very different experience. And it sounds like you know the rules better than the GM. Do you think the GM will be able to provide a good challenge without familiarity of the rules?
A common problem with some games is that a GM cannot gauge how tough or easy a challenge will be without extensive play experience. The term "TPK(Total Party Kill)" comes from inexperienced GMs as much as "Killer GMs". GURPS and other point-build systems tend to have this problem especially, since characters are often focally specialized in one set of abilities to the deteriment of others.
The other key issue is to answer Ron's question, "What happened socially?" Not between "Kozar the barbarian and Esther the cleric", but "John and Tom at the table". Since you're asking about Social Contract, this is where it begins. What experiences have you had socially in your gaming history? Have you had any problems in the past? Anything that has been really cool? Is there a common reason you haven't gotten regular play? Or that you're choosing to play 1 on 1 for this?
Chris
I don't have anything to add to this thread but encouragement. That's an excellent Actual Play report, and furthermore, it sounds like you know what you want from some perceptive analysis.
Just a few things I might mention:
- focus on quality and not quantity
- find out what external factors might sabotage the game and plan around them
- set a schedule (how long and how often)
- say to the GM what kinds of things you would like to do. Do not be afraid to use movies, books or TV shows as examples.
- practice
- when it goes in the toilet, figure out why - don't do that again - practice some more - old timey role-players have made mistakes and also have successes, this is something we all have to go through
- have fun
- the more experiences you guys get under your belts, the more you'll have to talk about and analyze (this is how you learn the most about what works)
- try not to have too many expectations - remember, the GM is NOT you and will never run a game quite like you would - that's what makes it exciting and unexpected
- expect that you'll like some bits more than others
- say to the GM that you like to look for creative solutions and solve problems; make sure he/she likes that kind of game
- communicate often
Good luck!
QuoteQuote from: Adam Dray on September 21, 2005, 12:36:10 PM
So see if that's the kind of thing your friends are interested in doing. If not, find different people to play D&D with.
Unfortunately all people I know (except for my current DM-to-be) have vastly different preferences and I've yet to find another person who shares them with me, despite looking.
Quote from: Bankuei on September 21, 2005, 01:44:00 PM
Hi,
Although you know the rules very well from reading, sometimes actual play can provide a very different experience. And it sounds like you know the rules better than the GM. Do you think the GM will be able to provide a good challenge without familiarity of the rules?
I know and I agree, but, how do I gain that play experience if not by playing? And yes, that is true, like I said, the GM is a beginner so that is likely to be a problem, but I don't see a solution to it as a beginner he doesn't have a rulesystem he understands.
Quote
A common problem with some games is that a GM cannot gauge how tough or easy a challenge will be without extensive play experience. The term "TPK(Total Party Kill)" comes from inexperienced GMs as much as "Killer GMs". GURPS and other point-build systems tend to have this problem especially, since characters are often focally specialized in one set of abilities to the deteriment of others.
True, but to me, that isn't a problem, it's a good thing! I believe it's my job to find challenges that suits me and not the GMs in the "I see burn marks and huge claw marks around this cave of dragons? I think I'm going to go hunt rats instead."-sense. And as such, I'd consider it perfectly fair to kill my character if I didn't consider the potential dangers of the mission and walked right into them.
Quote
The other key issue is to answer Ron's question, "What happened socially?" Not between "Kozar the barbarian and Esther the cleric", but "John and Tom at the table". Since you're asking about Social Contract, this is where it begins. What experiences have you had socially in your gaming history? Have you had any problems in the past? Anything that has been really cool? Is there a common reason you haven't gotten regular play? Or that you're choosing to play 1 on 1 for this?
What happened socially is a somewhat vague question to me, but I'll try to answer. Personally I adopted a "this is business"-stance from early on and tried to keep everyone informed on the situation and plans, and to discuss them for improvement. I'd also say that it was me who held the 'party initiative' in the sense that I don't remember anyone else taking the lead in the "we need to do this and this for this effect!"-sense which I did on several occasions. I don't think anyone resented that or otherwise had anything against me, well, except maybe the GM, he seemed to have something against my engineerish efforts. Otherwise, the social relations within the group seemed to be good, which was to be expected as we all knew each others well. And metagaming? I didn't do any of it, I would consider it.. ah. inappropriate.
And my past experiences in the social aspect of gaming? Very discouraging. every GM I've had or asked to be a GM for me has either had very different ideas of what kind of game we should play or they haven't actually been all that interested in the business of GM:ing. And other players? Discounting the few times I've had to play with people who don't take the game seriously, my experiences have been okay. So I guess the common reason for not gaming regularly is the fact that I haven't found a GM that'd fit my gaming style and would be active.
And why one on one? Certainly I do not have anything against playing with others, as long as the logistics of handling too many players doesn't get into the way of the gaming (7 people seemed too much, waiting times for your own turn grew too long) But I don't feel like they're essential to the game. Actually I can't find any single thing which I'd need another player for, which couldn't be replaced with an NPC ally, with the assumption that the GM is fair. If the GM isn't playing fairly (in the "i don't care if you live or die, my job is to simulate the orcs, not to help or hinder you") then I'd prefer to discuss my plans with another player instead of an NPC. So to me, other PCs are almost completely replaceable with NPC allies yet don't bring logistical problems with them (NPCs don't get tired of gaming, don't get late and don't get pissed if you get them killed) so I don't actually see the Point of getting a big gaming group, there's nothing in it for me personally.
Again, that you all for your replies!
Ah. that's supposed to be thank you. And it seems I somehow failed at using the quote feature, can a moderator fix this?
And yes, yes, i'm supposed to use the preview *ashamed*
Hi,
Totally cool, just trying to get a better idea of where you're coming from in order to get a better idea of how to help you.
With regards to the "challenge issue", it's not so much about your character dying, as much as it is for the GM to best be able to figure out what an appropriate challenge is. If you lose a tough challenge, that's just a possibility, but if you lose to an impossible (or near impossible) challenge, that's no fun for anybody. On the flip side- inexperience can also create a
lack of challenge, so it's important for the GM to have that as well. I agree that play is the best way for both of you to get that experience, though it might be best to figure on a shorter "test run" to get that experience before highly investing effort or emotions on either side with the expectation of long term play.
I think a very important statement is this:
QuoteVery discouraging. every GM I've had or asked to be a GM for me has either had very different ideas of what kind of game we should play...
Which is pretty much the root basis for a great deal of theory here. Fact is- there's lots of different ways to do this thing "roleplaying", like different sports, and simply saying, "We're going to play sports" doesn't say much, which is generally how most people go about getting a game group together and actually playing... Since you've got a good handle on what you want, and hopefully have communicated this with the GM, and he or she is also interested in the same thing, I think mostly its going to be about keeping an open communcation about
what you as players, really enjoy.In terms of "challenges" and GURPS, are you going to be using the hex maps and such for tactical movement?
Chris
Quote from: Bankuei on September 22, 2005, 02:07:09 AM
Hi,
Totally cool, just trying to get a better idea of where you're coming from in order to get a better idea of how to help you.
With regards to the "challenge issue", it's not so much about your character dying, as much as it is for the GM to best be able to figure out what an appropriate challenge is. If you lose a tough challenge, that's just a possibility, but if you lose to an impossible (or near impossible) challenge, that's no fun for anybody. On the flip side- inexperience can also create a lack of challenge, so it's important for the GM to have that as well. I agree that play is the best way for both of you to get that experience, though it might be best to figure on a shorter "test run" to get that experience before highly investing effort or emotions on either side with the expectation of long term play.
That is true and I agree with you that it is unfair to start the game from the assumption that "all your characters will die" but to me, the game doesn't start when I enter the cave complex, instead it starts the very moment when I get the challenge to do something, to decide whether I'll face the legion of doom in their fortress or not. And as such, the existance of practically unbeatable dungeon isn't a problem as long as I don't have to go there. If I wish to fight to fight the ruler of that dungeon I can, after all, utilize different methods. I can ambush his troops that leave the fortress, destroy his supply routes, harass his allies, help his enemies and so on. I can even flee, after all, discretion is the better part of valor. To me, 'the dungeon' starts the very second first in game word is uttered, not the moment we actually enter the physical dungeon. I believe we agree on this?
Quote
In terms of "challenges" and GURPS, are you going to be using the hex maps and such for tactical movement?
Chris
Maps propably, at least for the beginning. But hex maps in themselves add quite a bit of complexity (or so I've understood, can someone with actual experience on using them comment on that?) so we won't use them, at least not untill we've both got some experience... but that's something that isn't going to become topical very soon.
Quote from: Wallwalker on September 22, 2005, 04:46:20 AM
And as such, the existance of practically unbeatable dungeon isn't a problem as long as I don't have to go there.
Hi Wallwalker,
Got a real name we can call you by? :-)
I think what Chris was driving at was that unbeatable (or far-too-easy) dungeons may become a problem if the GM creates them
without realising just how deadly/easy they are.
If the GM is running a fair game, he or she will try to give you warning of how dangerous an encounter is likely to be (like having burn marks and huge clawprints show up outside the dragon cave, as you said above) - but the GM can do that correctly only if he knows how dangerous the he has created really is. If he overestimates the danger he'll give you "scratch marks" that'll make you go into convoluted tactics to avoid a head-on encounter - only to realise in the end that the challenge was easily beatable for you. If he underestimates the danger he'll let you run into it without special warning - and you may get your character killed without having had much of a chance to deal with the dangerous situation in a smarter way. Neither of these situations are fun for you or for the GM if they happen by accident, rather than as the outcome of smart or dumb tactics.
Because of that it might be worth considering playing a few sessions as some kind of training run for both of you: make up a character, have the GM set up tactical situations and throw them at you, and play through them. Agree to do, oh, say, half a dozen sessions, with the understanding that once you've both found your feet with how to get fun challenges out of GURPS and out of playing together,
then to start a "proper game" that's aimed at being a long-standing campaign. Those half a dozen sessions could be one scenario, or six smaller dungeons, or whatever you two find most fun. Just agree that you're not playing "forever" yet. I know you want a long-term game -but doing a short practice run first and then adapting what needs to be adapted before you embark on the long voyage may be the best way to set up a long-term game that's really going to be fun for you two.
And btw if you haven't already pointed your GM to this thread, you might do so so he or she can join the discussion. Might gain things out of it, too.
Kerstin
Caveat: I've never hex-mapped GURPS. I have played quite a bit of hex and square-mapped (A)D&Dvx.y, as well as some hex-based war games.
Short answer: If you have a combat that is at all complex (more than a very few partcipants and/or tactical terrain) you want a map. You really want that map. It avoids so many silly arguments of the form "But I thought he'd be behind the pillar" or "I didn't know I could get to the chair in time". You can, quite literally, see what you're doing. Far from making the game more complex to run, it makes it easier. All that brain power that you were devoting to keeping a map in your head is suddenly freed to do fun things like find that amazing maneuver that makes everybody else's jaw drop.
Yes, you do have to learn the mapping rules, but
- in comparison to the rest of the combat rules, that's peanuts
- if you're not using the mapping rules, you'll be improvising all that stuff in the actual combat, which is a lot harder than following the mapping rules.
SR
--
Dear Wallwalker;
I see you know that you want to play one-on-one. That is an excellent step. As far as actual play goes, in my experience, there is only so much preparation you can do before a game. It's just like swimming; you don't learn how to swim unless you get wet.
That being said, playing one-on-one is excellent because problems can be solved immediately (you don't have to wait until your turn or rush) and you are the star. NPCs, as long as they add something, are useful. Try not to have too many NPCs or it turns into a mess. KEY NPCs are excellent, or fodder, etc.
Make sure your GM is cool with taking time-outs if you run into an issue, so you guys can figure something out during a game, as opposed to just before the campaign. Make this part of the process of role-playing rather than something to be frowned on. This makes your experience exceptionally customized and rewarding. Again, since you aren't sharing the GM, this is easy to do. In a time-out it is understood that you are out of character until the game resumes.
Tell the GM you like to (a) come at things different ways, this is the challenge and enjoyment to you; (b) that you might go off path and would like things to be open (or what you would like). See what the GM says, and hash out an agreement that lets him do some prep and gives you some initiative.
You need to say if you want the GM to have a well thought-out continuing story or one-offs. THIS IS CRITICAL - if the GM thinks you want a story, you might not be able to change it much without it screwing up the GM's plans - if you want to have it open-ended, it should be understood that you can effect the story or even leave without finishing the story, or whatever combination you guys hash out.
As far as difficulty levels, being one PC, you can't really take on hoardes of monsters. The GM needs to make sure that battles are fair - more like in the manner of a video game first person shooter for instance, with things like stealth to contact, hide-and-seek, and cover, sneak attacks and the like. Due to the fact there is only one of you, you can take advantage of combat rules for PCs and NPCs. This can really enhance your enjoyment of the game. Make sure you and the GM are both familiar with the rules, and make it permissible to help each other out with the rules, in order to blossom in combat.
Major opposition should be about equal to your average skill level or below. It may be very difficult to take out opposition that is more than 2 points higher than your level, though not impossible. Make sure your GM knows how often you want a lethal challenge like that - i.e., once a week, once a month, etc. It will be helpful for the GM to know how much danger you are willing to take. Like in karate practice, you need to say if it's too much, but the GM will have to learn how to lay it on without it being too thick.
Remember, in a one-on-one GM-PC situation, you guys are really partners. Take advantage of this unique partnership and prepare for some hard fast play. You can really get into to cool strategies and life-and-death situations with the heat turned all the way up because you have no one to rescue you.
I'm not sure what your other questions may be, perhaps you can ask something in specific?
Hi Wallwalker,
I developed this in a recent thread. What would you do with it in play?
QuoteDanger Point System
1. The GM can add a Danger Point cost to any piece of loot or goody in the game, by clearly stating it has that cost. If the players take or use that item, the GM earns a Danger Point (DP). If the players decide not to take the item, they themselves invent the reason why.
For example:
GM "You enter the cave and on the floor is a rotted corpse, with an ammo clip next to it (and I get a danger point if you take it)
If the players didn't take it, they would have to invent some reason why, like saying the clip is rusted and would damage their weapons.
2. During normal play, if players think a situation/encounter/trap/whatever is too unbalanced/deadly, they can call a Danger Rating (DR). The DR can be any number, but players who call large numbers all the time are probably being wimpy.
The GM has to beat the DR or otherwise he has to withdraw the stated situation/encounter/trap/whatever. Each Danger Point the GM has is worth 1D6. The GM chooses how many points he'll use, if any (he might decide to just withdraw the situation). Sixes are exploding, in that each six rolled means you keep that and roll again. Dice that come up with a one remove one Danger Point from the GM's total (he can't have a negative total though).
If the GM's total roll beats the Danger Rating the player called, the situation/whatever stays. If the roll equals the DR or fails, the situation/whatever is removed.
For example: A player decides to call a Danger Rating of 15 on falling down a rather deep pit because of the damage of the fall. The GM decides to use two Danger Points and rolls 2D6. He only gets a total of four and one of them rolled a one, so the GM loses one Danger Point. The damage is removed, but the GM could still say the PC has fallen down it (a previous, dead victim broke his fall and removed the damage). Then again, the player could still call a Danger Rating on that.