Running Missions

== General ==
*Try to switch the focus between players frequently, so everyone gets time in the spotlight. A good time to do this explicitly is after a "That may not be so easy" check has been completed or a "But surely..." has occurred.
*Use "More details please...", particularly on story critical checks before the difficulty has been set, as it might give players specific ways they can fail without failing the mission.
*You can't force marks on people, so technically at any point the players can decide to only fail for the rest of the mission and it will not kill them. If you want to trap players somewhere, give them NPCs to protect, or a mcguffin to guard, those things may not make it safely out of a mission if the players continuously fail.
*Players must narrate their actions using the trait from which their interest is spent. (If not, use "Do it differently" or "More detail please.")
*All Players are created equal.
**The difficulty system is designed around the idea that every character can solve most problems one way or another. It is also designed to split the spotlight amongst players. 
**GM's should not bias against, for, or around a PC's capabilities. If a player narrates a sword duel with the pirate captain then the check should be as difficult regardless of the character doing it. The GM might suggest "do it differently" if a water elemental has no relevant traits, though the water elemental may offer more detail that makes it relevant. Difficulty should be set on a generic scale of herodom, there's no other way to be unbiased towards certain characters.
*If you use "Are you sure?" in your missions, explain the risks you are trying to warn the players about, and be willing to work with them to mitigate these factors.
*Consequences from succeeding or failing checks, both positive and negative do not have to be immediate. An ally can turn up much later in the mission, and a fire players accidentally started can suddenly cause them issues.
*Try not to keep track of player interest levels when setting difficulty, checking a player's interest tells them that you are deciding if the task can be completed or not rather than telling them how hard it is and letting them decide to go forward.
**Caveat: Having an idea of player interest levels can be very useful for pacing your narrative. If the players are running low you can expect them to fail and things to go wrong soon, and perhaps give them opportunities to invoke their flaws.
*Try to maintain the illusion (no OOC explaining plot or talking about how a mission is structured as you play it)
== Using "That may not be so easy" ==
*If the player failing isn't interesting, don't say it. If it isn't a challenge, don't say it.
*Try to do "Not so easy" on certain ways to solve a problem, not on solving the problem.
**E.g. If the party have to get to the other side of the river, and suggest "we get to the other side", ask how they intend to do so, then tell them that solution is not so easy. "We try and build a bridge". "Building a bridge is not so easy". The players can now safely fail and not be stopped from progressing.
*Try to make the consequences of failure more interesting than "and now do a check to get yourself back out of the situation". If you can't think of anything, DON'T have a check to fix the issue, the players will still tear themselves apart worrying what they've screwed up, and that might be enough.
*If someone succeeds at something, or fails, don't ask them to recheck unless the situation has radically changed. "Do it differently" is appropriate if they retry something they have already failed.
*Be active with your narration both before and during a check. Make bold statements with lasting or even permanent effects even if you think they may be a little unfair, the players have the tools to stop you overstepping the mark.
*Just how hard is "not so easy"?
**If a generic NPC could do it, it's easy.
**If it requires a hero, it's not so easy, difficulty 1.
**If it's particularly difficult and would require the input of multiple D&D heroes, it's probably a harder check, but this should be rare!
== Players Using "That may not be so easy" ==
*You need to make it clear to the player that they are taking an action to oppose what you just narrated. Either...
**Reframe the action they are opposing to make it clear.
**Ask for "More details please" to clarify how they are opposing and then say "That may not be so easy" on whatever they say.
== Using "But surely" (invoking flaws) ==
*Remember it is up to you as the GM to agree these clauses and decide if they are worth interest (and potentially up the ante with counter proposals). Dont let players take interest just for using a flaw if its not interesting and / or not failing.
**Be careful if your players aren't waiting for your approval before regaining interest
*When you agree a "But surely..." the results should:
**be irrevocable within the mission, but not un-mitigatable.
**affect something (maybe the direction of the mission, maybe someone's opinion, maybe something else)
**Players should expect them to have an immediate effect (and they may have further, maybe non-obvious effects).
**be proportionate (i.e. causing Ragnarok from one flaw invocation is overkill).
***A flaw can subsequently make causing Ragnarok easier, but it should be a chain of events, not a single action.
***You should deny a flaw invocation if the consequences are too massive, as well as too small.
*You should redirect the narrative spotlight away from the invoking player after a "But surely...".
*You could write personal promises that a character makes on their character sheet to remind the player and let other GMs know.
*Feel free to write things down and cackle.
== Using "What are you prepared to sacrifice?" ==
*If requiring a player sacrifice to do something isn't interesting, don't say it.
**Also applies to if the thing being done isn't as interesting as the player thinks it is.
*If the task wouldn't result in heavy mental, physical or spiritual damage to the character doing it, consider "That might not be so easy".
*If the task is killing an NPC that wouldn't be difficult but you don't want the players to kill, either "Do it differently" or re-write the death into part of your story (see Deaths of NPCs).
*Try to use this phrase sparingly.
*If a player suggests what you feel is an unreasonably high sacrifice for a task let them know.
*If you are using the phrase to "punish" players, don't say it.
*If you are using the phrase because you dislike a PC or their player, don't say it.
*If you are using the phrase because you dislike a PC's actions or choices, unless they would also result in heavy mental, physical or spiritual damage to the character doing them, use "Do it differently".
== Pacing ==
*Frame scenes, that is say where the characters are, who's there and what they are doing.
*When framing a scene try and be aggressive with the pacing. Unless there is a good reason otherwise don't play through a journey, instead jump straight to arriving somewhere interesting.
Make sure you use the phrases as they appear in the rules. Say the actual words.
*Make sure your players do the same.
== Republic Stat Flavouring ==
When running missions, try to keep the current republic stats for your region in mind. Low numbers suggest an area is under stress and possibly going to break or fail soon, high numbers suggest that area is fairly strong and we might make gains there soon.
This is not compulsory, but can add nice flavour and improve setting integration.
Here is a table of suggested narrative options:
 	Low 	Mid	High
Military 	Enemies meet little to no resistance	 	Enemies are on the back foot
Infrastructure	Terrain / supply is a big problem 	 	Supplies are easily obtained
Loyalty 	Locals might betray you 	 	Locals will happily aid you
Purity 	Things may not be what they seem 	 	Things that are wrong stand out and are easily located
Unification 	 	 	
== Running Diplomacy ==
*This applies both to missions and audiences.
*If the diplomacy itself isn't interesting enough introduce sub plots to be resolved.
**The classic is foiling an assassination plot.
**You don't even need to run the diplomacy fully in this case.
*Think about what your NPC wants, what they can offer and what they are willing to compromise on.
**I.e. granting favours, changing faction opinion, hexes, pride, missions, promises, relics, motion voting and grievances.
**Try to make sure that the NPCs or plot element have some sort of conflict with the PC which will create drama and tension within the mission.
*Try breaking things up. Finding the right person, getting an audience, breaking the ice and bringing gifts are all things that can happen before the bargaining starts.
**Not everything in diplomacy has to be speaking to people.
*You can (and should) use one or more "That might not be so easy" phrases on players, like in a combat.
*"What are you prepared to sacrifice?" can skip hard diplomacy much like a hard fight, but the costs are just as terrible.
== Running Combats ==
*If the target is particularly tough, proactively preemptively present the players with sub goals.
**I.e. Breaking down defences, disarming, finding weaknesses, countering powerful abilities.
*Make the terrain interesting.
**Crowds, labyrinths, cliff sides, underwater, etc.
*If the fight itself isn't interesting enough introduce sub plots to be resolved.
**For instance putting civilians in jeopardy.
**Otherwise it's not a check.
*Try breaking things up. Track the target, find their weaknesses, disable their worst attacks and bypassing minions are all things that can happen before the enemy can be killed.
== Giving Advances ==
*GMs can give out specific fluff and suggest what it may be used for as an advance, but players can suggest alternative fluff, and they ultimately make the decision on the advances they create.
*Advances cannot give infamy. Try not to give people advances that cause infamy by their use.
*Advances can be used as personal advances, or organisation advances, or given to NPC factions as advances. It is the player who receives them who chooses.