NagoyaHammer.com

Hi all,

Waaay back in the days of Rogue Trader (the first edition of 40K, not the current RPG with the same name), it was suggested that games have someone running them as well as the two people playing them. Recently, having demo-ed some games for people (Cutlass, Black Powder), has got me thinking that having a Games Master may not be a bad idea.

Think about the games you have played, be they Warhammer, Flames of War, Warmahordes or something else. In all those games, how, if at all, did you handle hidden units, reserves, and ambushes. I have yet to find a system that handles hidden units well. Warhammer 40k allows units to stand on top of hidden forces without penalty for example.

Naturally, it makes for a fair game if both forces are balanced against each other and both players know what units their opponent has held in reserve, but why should you know that a unit of sneaky skaven or yrmgral genestealers is waiting to ambush you. Enemy generals usually dont announce to their opposite number that an assassin will appear mid-battle and take a swing at them. Simply put, keeping such things secret doesn't seem particularly fair in pick up games.

But how about in a scenario? How about if neither player had the information beforehand but an impartial 3rd party held all the cards?

Of course, said 3rd party would have to be careful to ensure that neither player walked away feeling like they got shafted. Balancing things would be a tough job, but one that done right could give a very different gaming experince. Wars have been lost by generals misreading their opponent, trusted allies switching sides at the pivotal moment and sudden outflanking manouvers that caught the enemy completely by suprise.

In all the history books and fictional novels we read as part of our hobby (or audio books in some cases), the protagonists usually dont line up with equal sized forces across a field with equally distributed terrain. Where are the glorious last stands in your games? When was the last time you went into a mission knowing that you were destined to lose but determined to hang on to the bitter end? How many times have you honestly suprised your opponent with a pincer movement, or seen the cavalry charge in just in the nick of time?

With a Games Master, all of these things suddenly become possible. The Fog of War can descend upon the battlefield and suddenly the game can change from a god like view of everything to a tense conflict where neither side knows exactly what will happen and when.

At NagoyaHammer 2012 I plan to run a participation game based around this idea of having a GM determining the forces of fate in the game, allowing the players to battle it out as commanders on the ground and not gods in the sky.

So, am I just nuts in thinking that GMs might be a good idea in a game or is this something you would like to try? Is narrative as important as rolling dice? Do you feel that balanced armies with total freedom of information is best or do you long to see a little more suprise in your games? Or maybe you are somewhere in the shades of grey in the middle? I am sure that there is no right or wrong answer about this and that many of you will have differing views, but what do you think?

I really agree with this. Why is an RPG the only game in town with a GM. Why a war games not full of story. Only be cause we lack the creativity.

Most sensible thing I have heard all day.

I think it could be a goer. It would require planning, and players would need to have very different expectations to a regular game. Essentially, it should NOT be seen as a competition. As soon as folks get to thinking "how do I win?" the game would be a bogey. As long as people are thinking "how would my army general get his lads out of there?" then it could be a lot of fun.

I could well be up for it, but would like to know more about specific scenarios n stuff beforehand, in order to get into the mood

suggestion: FW books are loaded with this kind of thing, only without the GM (if you know what I mean.) They might be a good place to look for scenarios for 40k? (speaking as a generally 40k player, I mean.)

While there is certainly a place for GMs in Wargames, especially when demo-ing games or trying out a new system etc, IMHO they aren't really necessary even if players want to add additional Fog-of-war type elements.

I don't want to sound dismissive, but what can a GM add to a table top wargame that two reasonable opponents can't come up with themselves? Weather, special deployment, reserves, fate-decks etc etc What about them needs a GM's involvement? Some of them don't even require much input from the players either. There is plenty of stuff on-line and in the back of rule-books etc for the more popular systems. Even hidden troops aren't too much of a stretch if the players are mutually agreeable, reasonable folks. As for special scenarios, what's to stop the two players from coming up with something themselves?

Case in point: One of the best gaming experiences I have had was a summer long narrative campaign between Chaos Marines and The Ultramarines back in the days of yore. My mate and I agreed upon some additional details and the victor of one game would come up with a scenario for the next etc. I also had a great game a few years back against Dungeon lord using a scenario he found somewhere or other involving random teleporters etc. Neither required a GM.

And as Prim so wisely states, the GM would have to find the right balance too or there is a very real danger of the game becoming more about the GMs stack of cards and random events tables than anything else. That said, striking the right balance is also key for two players coming up special rules/scenarios etc too. Also, to be honest, I find watching someone else play a wargame dead boring after a while. I can't understand how Prim does it at Nagoyahammer.

By the way, I seem to recall someone or other complaining about an uneven scenario he had taken part in and how ridiculous it had been. Something about Tyranids not being allowed Synapse creatures etc and all his creepy crawlies ran off the board after a turn of shooting or some such. Sounded like great fun. Who was that again?

That's my two cents worth anyways. Not particularly against GMs but can't really see the point most of the time.

I really agree with this. Why is an RPG the only game in town with a GM. Why a war games not full of story. Only be cause we lack the creativity

Speak for yourself mate

Most sensible thing I have heard all day.

Spent the day over at the Admiral's house, did you?

@Mike the Pike.
That would have been me. And that was a prime example of not balancing things out well. Setting up a scenario where one army runs on autopilot or making things too random would both be potential pit falls for a GM. Of course, with two reasonable, sensible players you can play special scenarios or introduce new rules, but where are you going to find them?
As for how I stand to watch people playing at my events, I admit it is kind of boring. At the same time, I have never run an event where I didnt have some input into games through adjudicating rules disputes or the like and that is another thing a GM can do. Whilst it wont be as much fun as playing the game directly, having some input into the game is much better than just watching from afar. Likewise, it solves the issue of having 3 players at the same time without the 2vs1 or three way scenarios which tend to wind up with two players wiping each other out or ganging up on the third.
As M_i_J suggests, you would need to have different expectations going into the game. And as Pikey suggests, two players could easily do it themselves if they so wished. Both of these points are totally valid and bear thinking about. A GM isnt a necessity by any means, but perhaps it could be another tool in the way we set up our games?

We used to do that all the time "back in the old days". We had a 40K "campaign" called "The Beer Machine". A couple times a year one of us would put together a small skirmishy, often more than a little silly, 5-7 player game of 40K, or Necromunda, once Gorkamorka!. The gamemaster would either write all the army lists (knowing beforehand who most of the players were and what they had in their collections) or set a points limit and restrictions. The GM would set objectives and special rules. It was a blast. It was fun to create the missions and as it was a big messy, multiplayer skirmish game, you really needed someone to oversee the whole thing.
Dammit Prim, you got me all nostalgic and thinking about Beer Machine Japan. Now how am I supposed to get any work done today?

Im with Konrad on this one back in the day there were very key special rules that only the GM could employ with out someone getting all bent out of shape. Currently Jus and I are working on a new fb campaign that is based on each player using a character AKA lord. The character will make the army theme. We are finding that the work going into making a system that is fair for all the players and their respectful armies. Is much harder than meets the eye. If we just had a GM for the whole campaign and if players were happy just being part of the story. Then it would be much easier.

I was dreading the Black Powder game as the deployment, scenario and arrival of troops were out of my hands completely. The reality was quite the opposite to what I expected would happen. I had a very enjoyable game where I didn't have to look things up, the GM set me straight on any rules I was unsure of, I could sit there and happily roll dice without having to worry about if I had the right amount. And despite my fears of it being a set up, I won!
GM's are definitely the way to go for a stress free game and a more relaxed atmosphere. If the GM doesn't mind doing the work this is very good for the players.
Also me and Rob had a game last Summer that Frans umpired improptuitively. He had his ipad 2 working over time as we thought we knew the rules. This definitely sped the game up otherwise it would have taken us all day and we would have constructed a new set of rules by the end of the game