I've been running RPGs for decades, so I have Habits and Tendencies and Opinions. To some extent GMs attract and keep players who like the games they run, so there is some consensus in long-running groups, but it might not be complete. So I think it's important for GMs to both get feedback from players, and to analyze their games and think about what they can improve.
This is particularly important for DFRPG Arden Vul because it contains several players from the DF Whiterock campaign, that I stopped running after 2+ years and one of the players later picked up and finished. Since I know that one lasted a long time but eventually fell apart, how do I avoid quitting or losing players this time around?
My first goal for improvement is to keep rules consistent throughout the campaign. I made two rule changes in DFW that players didn't like. I thought both made sense at the time, but I was wrong on at least one of them, and not clear enough for the reasons on either.
One was limiting players to 3 attacks per turn no matter what was on their sheet, for a combination of game balance and speed of play. It's not fun when one player's turn takes too long, but that's better handled with an explicit turn time limit rather than indirectly with an attack limit. And it's not fun when the PCs get too powerful and wipe out enemies too easily, but that's fixable by adding more or better enemies. So for Arden Vul I'm removing the attack limit, but might impose a time limit if combat length becomes a big problem, or some players' turns take too long. (But not at the start, because we don't know if we actually have a problem yet, and also because some players are new to GURPS or Foundry and deserve a grace period to learn before being forced to play faster.)
The other was slowing down the rate at which character points were awarded. I never promised any particular number of XP, but players got used to me lazily handing everyone 4 points per 4-hour session, regardless of accomplishments, with maybe some bonus points on top if they did something special. When I saw that PC power was growing a bit faster than I wanted, I first stopped handing out bonus points, which nobody complained about because they were pretty rare anyway. Then I slowed the regular reward from 4 to 3 for PCs over a certain point level, which caused minor grumbling. When I slowed it from 3 to 2 at a higher point level, it caused a revolt. Even if I never promised anyone 4 XP per session, it became expected, and changing the behavior from the expected caused problems. Relevant xkcd.
So this time around I'm going to make it clear that PCs get 0 to 2 XP per session for loot (with 1 being pretty easy to achieve and 2 being hard, and the required threshold going up over time with PC point level, but the exact table of loot thresholds not (yet?) public), 0 to 2 for exploration (again 1 being pretty easy and 2 being harder, but the exact amount of exploration required not (yet?) public), and then again the possibility of bonus points for achievements (which I'd like to make more common this time, but small). So with more variability in reward and more explanation for how the awards are given, I'm hoping that if players want more XP, they try to make their PCs achieve more per session, rather than whining about the GM. I'm envisioning players figuring out the thresholds to get 1 loot XP and 1 exploration XP every session and always aiming to hit those, then going for either big loot or big exploration for a third XP (with loot being easier if you know where some loot is and think you can beat whatever might be guarding it, and exploration being easier if you know where some unexplored territory is), and then looking for things that might get them bonus XP.
My second goal is to actually finish the megadungeon. That's a tough one because it's huge, but I think it's achievable if players are oriented toward accomplishing large goals (rather than enjoying killing wandering monsters and searching for every last copper piece), though I suspect there will be some turnover of PCs and possibly players along the way. Ultimately it's up to the players what they do, though; the GM provides challenges and incentives and hooks but the players act.
My third goal is to play fair in both directions. Players deserve consistent rules and rulings and to be allowed to use all the fun ideas they have and the cool stuff on their character sheets, but NPCs deserve a chance to win too, and if one of them rolls a massive critical hit against a PC who's out of Luck and Bless, no mercy. I'm going to set the scene and then let the dice decide. My one grudging concession to real life on that one is that I sometimes skip wandering monster rolls near the end of a session, if that would force pausing a probably-meaningless fight across sessions and deny PCs access to town, because of an arbitrary real-world time limit. What I should do in that case, now that I think of it, is make the roll anyway but hit them with the wandering monster early next session instead of late this session, satisfying both the players' need to stop at the agreed time and the wandering monster's need to get a fair shot at eating a delicious PC.
My fourth goal is to have an entertaining GURPS recap blog with a few hundred loyal readers, which requires good source material (Arden Vul is awesome), the players doing fun stuff (I'm sure they will), and consistency. Because this will be a voice game, I won't have complete logs to refresh my memory, so I'll try to write the recaps every Saturday morning before I forget too much.
My fifth and final goal is to listen to my players better. A GM can't do everything players ask for because a lot of what they ask for is "let us win more" and if you always do that the game becomes a cakewalk and actually becomes less fun for most players. But you can bend their requests in a way that gives them some of what they want while preserving some game balance. For example, one request I got from a couple of players last time was "if a PC dies my next PC should get all the points my old PC had," which would remove all penalty for death (except the time to make a new PC) and takes a lot of tension out of the game. But starting new PCs all the way back at 125 points might be too harsh the other way, if it causes players to play too cautiously. So I've announced I'm going to award new PCs a fraction of their players' previous dead characters' earned XP, with the exact fraction not (yet?) public. If this rule actually gets exercised multiple times then I need to be consistent, so the players will eventually figure out the formula, but I don't need to tell them yet. Another one is "yes, but". I need to be open to more weird player ideas unless they're actually a threat to the game, rather than just a challenge to my expectations. One player wanted to play a rotating stable of hirelings rather than one consistent PC, so I'm letting him do that. Another player wanted a weird backstory that didn't really fit the setting, but that's fine, Irthuin is a big continent, he's from a remote spot on the map that isn't detailed in the setting, and if any details about that spot become important I'll ask him.
Finally, no plan survives contact with the enemy. Any plan for a perfect campaign goes out the window as soon as you add the chaos of actual players, and GMs need to forgive themselves and their players for mistakes made in good faith and just try to keep things going and keep them fun as best they can. The main GM response to most setbacks should be "Noted, we'll fix that next time, next game scheduled for next week."
First game Friday night, half of the PCs done and the other half mostly done, I've got this huge megadungeon about 1/3 prepped and I'm pretty sure they won't be able to reach the other 2/3 in the first session, let's go.
