| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Trusty
Commander
Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 273
Location: North Little Rock, AR
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:44 pm Post subject: My GM observations, or tips...if you will. |
 |
|
garhkal hread inspired me to write a few ponderngs I have toward Gm'ing.
1. Tell a great story.
2. Don't kill PC's just because you want to kill them.
3. Ask all the players how they'd feel if their character's died. Would they write a new one? Would they quit playing? Etc...
4. Never tell the players the numbers until they give you their rolls...
5. Never tell the players the stats until they have gone a few rounds with something to know for sure what they are up against. Because a character can't know that a stormtrooper is _D or there abouts for sure...so why should the player? But after a few rounds they should be able to get an idea of how "good" or "bad" their opposition is at something.
6. Always help out if it makes the story easier to tell and get the scene to happen in an entertaining way.
7. Be as invested in the characters as the players are. This way, the overall story means more to everyone.
Okay, that's all. I may think of more later and feel free to add to this...whether you agree or have a dfferent take on things. I'd love to read them...not for changing the way I do things...but to ADD to the way I do things and be even more rounded as a GM.
_________________
Growing old is inevitable. Growing up is optional! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sabre
Lieutenant
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's some of mine:
Just because you didn't think of it doesn't mean it can't be done that way. Let yourself be surprised.
Justify your decisions with logic, but only to yourself.
The players are the center of the story, not the universe.
Know where to start. Know where to end. Know a few things in between. The players will fill in the rest.
Take effort seriously, even if the result is poor.
Give the players a reason to trust you and you'll be able to tell the story. Give the palyers a reason to mistrust you and you'll fight over rules and dice.
Failure doesn't mean death. Mishap doesn't mean failure.
Keep the game moving. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14171
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | 1. Tell a great story. |
IMO you should be officiating a game which has a story as central to it, rather than just telling a story. Otherwise at what point does the actions/desires of the players take over fromt eh story you want to tell???
| Quote: | | 2. Don't kill PC's just because you want to kill them. |
I don't. BUT if the situation calls for it, i will not shy. I will also not grant them script immunity or anything of that sort.
| Quote: | | 3. Ask all the players how they'd feel if their character's died. Would they write a new one? Would they quit playing? Etc... |
Just as a question. Why do this??
| Quote: | | 4. Never tell the players the numbers until they give you their rolls... |
I disagree. Many a time i have had the player ask me to tell them the target, so they would be able to decide if they would need to roll or not (or whether they should even bother rolling)... To do it that above way lends to cheating on the gms part (what i refer to as fudging)...
| Quote: | | 5. Never tell the players the stats until they have gone a few rounds with something to know for sure what they are up against. Because a character can't know that a stormtrooper is _D or there abouts for sure...so why should the player? But after a few rounds they should be able to get an idea of how "good" or "bad" their opposition is at something. |
Now this i do agree with.
| Quote: | | 6. Always help out if it makes the story easier to tell and get the scene to happen in an entertaining way. |
??? Please clarify...
| Quote: | | 7. Be as invested in the characters as the players are. This way, the overall story means more to everyone. |
Again i disagree. A gm who is as invested int he players character has imo a tendency to be way to lienient on them in situations where the realistic and believable thing would not have lieniency. Also it lends itself well to favoritism and possible character take over by the gm...
| Quote: | | Just because you didn't think of it doesn't mean it can't be done that way. Let yourself be surprised. |
Agreed. I do like the surprise factor...
| Quote: | Justify your decisions with logic, but only to yourself.
|
Yup.
| Quote: | The players are the center of the story, not the universe.
|
Agreed in part. The players are central to the story you tell, but not the and all of it.
| Quote: | | Know where to start. Know where to end. Know a few things in between. The players will fill in the rest. |
Yup....
| Quote: | Take effort seriously, even if the result is poor.
|
I am not sure i am understanding you here...
| Quote: | | Give the players a reason to trust you and you'll be able to tell the story. Give the palyers a reason to mistrust you and you'll fight over rules and dice. |
Same here.
| Quote: | | Failure doesn't mean death. Mishap doesn't mean failure. |
Was that a subtle jab my way??!? Thems fightin words.... 5 paces at dawn  I will bring the custard pie!
I do agree, not every chance of failure should mean death, but do never have death happen as the result of failure imo is as wrong as making death always be the result. IMO it should be balanced between the 2... Neiher too little nor too much.
Now to add my own.
Never let the story dominate the game. Otherwise, you have removed the need for the game to exist. I have seen many a great gaming session disolve into nothing more than the GM/DM/ST take over everything ruinging the fun for the players, cause all he wanted to do was tell a story.
If a rule does not make sense, throw it out. BUT TELL the players when and why. As a linked part, always have house rules to clarify little known or obscure rules. Makes things easier.
Death happens. Shy from it, and they will notice. Some may like you for it, others will not. Linked to that, is nevre subscribe to the belief the players should always win. No one always wins or gets there way. And if they are expecting it, then there is no need for them to even do anything...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sabre
Lieutenant
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="garhkal"] | Quote: |
| Quote: | | Failure doesn't mean death. Mishap doesn't mean failure. |
Was that a subtle jab my way??!? Thems fightin words.... 5 paces at dawn I will bring the custard pie!
I do agree, not every chance of failure should mean death, but do never have death happen as the result of failure imo is as wrong as making death always be the result. IMO it should be balanced between the 2... Neiher too little nor too much.
|
 Not a jab at all. Just how I run my games. Failure doesn't equal death, but failure plus lack of effort or effort against the team or blatant stupidity does equal death. Not everyone subscribes to this, but I don't believe in simply killing characters because the dice or the voices tell me to. Not when a player has invested a lot of time and energy into developing the character, and I've spent a lot of time and energy pulling the plot strings together. Not when it isn't the dramatically appropriate moment.
But if that isn't the case and the player is just coasting or is disrupting the others in a way that disrupts the game (it's possible to antagonize the characters and not the players in a way that advances the game), I have nothing against letting the dice do as they please.
Anyway, there are far more interesting things to do to a character than kill them, some of which can shock complacent players just enough to get them to think a little bit harder. One example from my own experience is, a player was rushing in to melee range to fight enemies with blasters, taking no cover while the others did. A killed result was scored, but instead of killing the player character, I had an NPC with minor force skills (who was teaching not only the player in question but a couple others as well the basics of the Force) tackle the PC in an attempt to save him, which resulted in the NPC's death (no rolls, the killed result was already scored). That was the last fight that PC failed to take some sort of evasive action in.
As for taking effort seriously even when the result is poor... Some players are just better than others when it comes to roleplaying, or other contributions to the game. The most common example I can think of is, some players propose plans that flat out would never work. I've been in games where this sort of player gets mocked whenever they try something or propose an idea. They either end up saying nothing and playing in the shadow of the other players or leaving the game entirely. This happens with players who propose ideas that are simply mediocre or consistently not as good as others too, maybe not mocking but being ignored or not listened to. It's important to acknowledge and reward roleplaying of any quality, especially when you get to know your players and their limits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14171
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Not a jab at all. Just how I run my games. Failure doesn't equal death, but failure plus lack of effort or effort against the team or blatant stupidity does equal death. Not everyone subscribes to this, but I don't believe in simply killing characters because the dice or the voices tell me to. Not when a player has invested a lot of time and energy into developing the character, and I've spent a lot of time and energy pulling the plot strings together. Not when it isn't the dramatically appropriate moment. |
Damn. There goes my pie duel!!! 8)
I cannot subscribe to 'not killing' unless it is dramatically appropriate. To me that is basically saying that nothing will stop or otherwise hinder them until the end fight. If that is the case, then why even have the other fights??
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darius
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 57
Location: Aucks, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| and never let a bad dice roll get in the way of a good plan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darius
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 57
Location: Aucks, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
ps: and you dont have to save the players if theyre being really stupid
ask the esoomian about how our jedi lost his lightsaber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14171
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I let the dice fall where they may... for good or ill. EG. If they wish to do something the rules do not cover, i just tell them what skill (or attribute) to roll and the TN. If they get it, congrats.. If not, well they tried. But on the flip side, if that means the st got a 60 for damage and you only got 4, oh well.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedi Skyler
Moff
Joined: 07 Sep 2005
Posts: 8440
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That was the last fight that PC failed to take some sort of evasive action in. |
That's a great point; you don't need to kill off someone's character just to make a point. Asking why you shouldn't kill a character if at all possible? Because it usually isn't necessary to take such a drastic step. Killing off the NPC Force user was great; it killed someone close to, but not actually in, the party, and it robbed that character and a couple others of a valuable resource- an instructor in the Force. You bet that guy's gonna think twice from now on about the consequences of what he does, and he didn't have to lose a character to learn the lesson. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Again i disagree. --garhkal |
"And that is why you fail." - Yoda
The points brought up by both Trusty and Sabre are valid and useful points. All of them, I can look at and say "Yes, that is correct". Nearly all of them need to be looked at from a certain point of view, though. You, garhkal are looking at them from an aspect of "I wouldn't do that because I've never done that before", and that is a sure way to get into a rut in your GM style. Ruts can be a bad thing.
I'll address some of the things you disagreed with, and see if I can't explain things a little more thoroughly so that you can understand better.
Tell a great story
| Quote: | | Otherwise at what point does the actions/desires of the players take over fromt eh story you want to tell??? |
The adventure, campaign, the entire game is a big story. Contrary to what you are envisioning, though, it does not have one author. The GM is NOT the sole author of a story in an RPG. The GM AND THE PLAYERS are the authors. The GM sets the scenes, prepares the plot, and interprets the actions/rolls of the players to weave a story. The players interact with the plot, create the dialogue, and provide unexpected twists and turns in the overall story. A good roleplaying game should FEEL like it's a story, one where the players feel as if they have an invested interest in what occurs. To strive to achieve something like this will lead to better GMing skills and happier players.
I'm not saying railroad the players. I'm not saying don't call for die rolls. I'm not saying don't let the players do something because it doesn't fit YOUR idea of the story. As I said above, and I'll say it again...The GM and the players are the authors. So telling a great story on your part will get them to help you create a great story on everyone's part. Any GM can run a hack and slash game where everyone dies. Many GMs can run a combat oriented game where no one dies. Both have flaws because they're not good stories and either the GM or the players are not working to make it a better story. A good story has tension, has theme, has character, has danger and even death, but none of them are vastly greater in quantity than the other.
Don't kill the PCs just because you want to kill them.
| Quote: | I will also not grant them script immunity or anything of that sort.
|
I think you misinterpret here. Killing PCs because you want to means gaining and holding grudges, or simply being a power hungry GM. Some GMs just don't get it...they can kill the PCs, it's that simple. The GM has so many things at his disposal that if he wants to, nothing can stop him from simply snuffing the life from the characters. But why would he want to? Some do it because they're holding a grudge against the player for some past wrong-doing. Others do it because they want to feel all-powerful and make the players respect the power of the GM. Both are silly, and is basically what is meant by the original intention of the statement. Script immunity, which you mention, basically falls into the realm of a GM who succumbs to the feeling that, as mentioned with the first statement, they are the sole author of the story.
What you need to understand is that death should occur in a game, but it should be "appropriate" to the story being told and the setting the game occurs in. If you're playing a military style game, death will be a greater part of it, and the players should be aware of that. If you're playing in a more subtle, perhaps gangster type setting, with backroom dealings and smuggling, then death won't be as prevelent. Don't rule out a character death in a game completely...UNLESS THE GAME CALLS FOR IT. Just realize that simply becuase you're playing a game where weapons are present, doesn't mean that a character will die every other game session. If this occurs, and you're not running a strictly military style of game, then you NEED to start swallowing your pride and fudging some die rolls, otherwise your players will start to shy away from your table.
Now I'm not saying don't kill characters. I'm not saying provide them script immunity. I'm not saying YOU go out of your way to kill characters. What I am saying is that some GMs tend to turn a blind eye to overzealous character death, claiming "it's how the dice fell" or "I'm not going to give them script immunity". Danger, and fear of death, can still be portrayed in a game without the final result being death of a character. Removing death entirely, however, belittles the ultimate price a character may pay if they make the wrong decision.
Never tell the players the number until they give your their rolls
| Quote: | I disagree. Many a time i have had the player ask me to tell them the target, so they would be able to decide if they would need to roll or not (or whether they should even bother rolling)... To do it that above way lends to cheating on the gms part (what i refer to as fudging)...
|
There is a fine line, in the GMs job, between cheating and running a game fairly. Of all the people, GMs are the most tempted to cheat, because they know all of the "behind the scenes" stuff. If you are the type that likes to take advantage of players, that goes out of your way to create bad guys strictly geared towards defeating what your players have for characters, or that doesn't trust himself to be honest, then it's fine to tell your players the target number.
Never, ever, should you tell your players the target number BEFORE they decide if they will roll. That falls into the realm of player cheating. Call for a roll. If the player asks what the target number is, tell them. Do not tell them if they can choose to simply not roll. What would be the point of a target number if they didn't even have to roll? You seem to be falling into the area of believing that anything the GM does that isn't open for all to see, is considered cheating. This is simply not true. Honest and fair is where a GM should fall when it comes to running a game, and especially when it comes to calling for rolls. Is it fair to tell the players before they even choose to roll, what their character needs to succeed? No. It IS fair to tell them the target number AFTER they have decided to roll.
So what do you do in a situation like this? Be Honest. A player wants his character to try swinging over an open chasm by a grappling wire. He asks you what his target number would be if he attempted such a thing, trying to decide it he could even attempt such a thing with his PC. Honestly, he wouldn't know, so give him an honest answer. "You're not sure, but it looks really difficult and you'd be lucky to pull it off." That gives the player a judgement, without ruining the mechanics of the game. If the player decides he's going to do it, call for the roll, and when he asks what his target number is, be fair and tell him 29. This would then allow him to use character points or a Force Point to attempt the action. Do NOT provide this number UNLESS the player asks for it, though, as sometimes the sheer excitement of doing something is calling for a roll, making the player roll, and then watching them sweat it out as they're counting up and deciding whether they need to use CPs or not. They may come out with a 30, barely squeaking over the requirement, and you can tell them, with appropriate excitement, that they swing over, barely getting their foot on the other side and scrambling to stay upright as they touch down.
This falls to YOU, as the GM, to be honest and fair to not only them, but also to yourself, and STICK TO THE NUMBER YOU DECIDED, whether announced or not. If they rolled a 28, don't be dishonest and reduce your target number just to allow them to succeed. Likewise, if they rolled a 29, don't be unfair and decide that you will bump it to 30 "just because it was so close". Both cases would be what you would call "fudging", and I would call cheating, and we would probably both agree is not right for a GM to do. Withholding a target number until a roll is called for the and target number is requested is NOT fudging or cheating.
Be as invested in the characters are the players are.
| Quote: | | A gm who is as invested int he players character has imo a tendency to be way to lienient on them in situations where the realistic and believable thing would not have lieniency. Also it lends itself well to favoritism and possible character take over by the gm... |
This can best be summed up by meaning that if YOU realize how important the character is to the player, you will not be so callous as to fickle fate of the dice or the inexact decisions of the players. Realize that the players are playing a character that does not exactly fit the player. Realize also that the player has probably spent some time thinking about their character to make it into something they enjoy running. To simply come along and the first mistake they make, or the first flubbed die roll they make, to snuff their character out like it was nothing more than a knat, shows that you, as the GM cares little for the interest of the players.
This is what it means to be invested in the characters. It means to not pass harsh judgement on a decision the player makes, resulting in loss of the character, IF the intent of the player, or the benignness of the situation, would simply have resulted in a much less final failure. Sometimes death, or dismemberment, of a character isn't always necessary, and if you understand how the character would handle things, and understand how the player views his character, then you can better gauge the level of failure that best fits a given situation.
Am I saying that if you're in combat, and the character sticks their head up, to not take a shot at it? No. Am I saying that if a character decides to charge a Rancor with nothing but a vibroblade, they will get away with only some scratches? No. If the situation is dangerous, then the outcome of a bad decision should reflect the situation. As was mentioned by Sabre, though, "Failure doesn't mean death. Mishap doesn't mean failure." It's not leniency if you don't kill a character in a combat situation. Failure doesn't always mean death, even in combat. A GM is also NOT taking control of a player character if they allow a flubbed roll or bad decision to slide by with less than serious reprecussions. If a GM goes as far as to start controlling the character, or altering what the player decides for the character to do, then the GM is at fault and suffers from a case of power madness.
Having an awareness, and a small connection with the characters, and your player's investment in them, will help you understand what is both interesting and challenging, as well as what will make the best "story" for the whole group. You will not drift towards controlling the characters, and you will not eliminate death as a factor, but you WILL understand that not everything should have a final, terrible cost if you realize what the character means to the both player and the story overall.
I felt it necessary to address some of these points because I agree with all that was said by Trusty and Sabre, while you disagreed with quite a bit. Therein lies a reason for you to grow as a GM. It's like I mentioned in another thread (I believe on the Holonet). A GM should always be learning, and always be evaluating themselves, ever mindful of what they need to do to better themselves so that they provide the best game for their players. I've gone through many stages as a GM, and seen some of the problems that you, garhkal have brought up in questions. I'm always looking to my own style and own methods of GMing to make sure I'm not stagnating or saying "this is the best I am going to be". A GM should always be learning, and always look for ways to improve themselves, even if they think they don't need to improve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
To add some of my own:
The actions of the PCs never happen in a vacuum.
Take notes.
NPCs are more than just window dressing.
Never settle for what you can do now.
Move around the table. Don't let one or two players run the game. Everyone plays.
Use EMOTION! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedi Skyler
Moff
Joined: 07 Sep 2005
Posts: 8440
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grimace is imparting a whole lot of wisdom here. He's obviously someone who's GMed a lot, and has taken the time to learn from what has gone before.
It is CRUCIAL that you, as the GM, show your players that you've invested at least a little in their characters. It's not so that you become more prone towards leniency vs. harshness where the dice are concerned. It's so you become more prone to having a desire to provide the absolute best game that could possibly be played. It's so that your players feel fulfilled and happy when they make their rolls, so they're not cowering at every dice roll fearing it'll mean the death of their characters, and so that you, as GM, have the satisfaction of having taken them through but a small chapter in a huge epic. This is your chance to assist these players in not only developing their characters' skills, but also their backstory. I personally have a few characters that I created well over a decade ago... but my favorite one is one that I still work with- I use him in writing, I work out more and more pieces of his backstory as I go, and work them into both his present and the SW universe in general. I enjoy this a great deal and would hope that ALL gamers have at least one character that they like even half as much. You, as GM, have the power to give that to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trusty
Commander
Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 273
Location: North Little Rock, AR
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, this is all going to make me sound like a dork, but oh well...
garhkal, I think Grimace fleshed out more of what I was trying to say. I see where you are coming from and maybe I came off as a push-over when it wasn't what I intended. I mean, I kick my players rear almost every session it seems (to them at least). But, when I say tell a good story...I did mean as in the whole game needs to be a good one.
I am not against killing a character...but in the best stories the characters are always growing and learning while trying to overcome seemingly impossible odds. Luke, Han, Leia, Lando, Chewie, etc... lived all the way through the movies...  When players spend the time to generate a character, they generally make it an extension of themselves...even if it is a part of themselves that they do not express in their own personality on a day to day basis. They get excited to see what they can do with that character. To die within four sessions or so of that character generation is counter-intuitive to someone who wishes to play consistantly. To play off a Stephen King term: The Constant Gamer.
I guess our game is different than a lot of games as we play every Monday for about 9 hours and play the same characters every week. As players (and me as GM) in our game; we like complexity...we try to have a good balance of combat, politics, suspence, humor, tension, and really high stakes over a long and ever evolving story arc.
A good game can be like a good book, tv show, or movie. As role-players, we like to tune in once a week to our game to see what happens in the next episode. Maybe we take it too seriously, but when you are married with three kids and the Monday night game is your only source of 'outside-the-family' entertainment with the guys...why not make it the best it can be?
I think tabletop roleplaying in general has been dying out lately simply because people didn't take it seriously (not in the serious-serious sort of serious...but you know what I mean) when they played and didn't allow themselves to be immersed into a world outside of their own reality. As a form of escapism, or what have you. Maybe people thought playing pretend with die and a pencil was too silly, I don't know...But I've seen people who never played before get hooked on tabletop roleplaying because they see the value of it as opposed to a video game where you either do A or B and follow pre-determined sequences. And Lord knows some people will wipe out an entire Sunday in front of the X Box...so I have no idea how that is any more or less silly. But silly or not doesn't matter to the person who finds enjoyment from it. Anyway, if a GM can help generate an atmosphere, more and more players will stick with this kind of gaming. I mean, it is fun to be involved. RPG'ing isn't too expensive, and it is good entertainment. Like a movie, book, or video game.
So, random killing of characters that the players enjoy seeing what adventure they get into week after week isn't going to be fun for them (or me) when it is their outlet from reality. When you play weekly as we do, killing someone's character robs them of seeing "what happens next". I could kill off their characters easily, they know that (the old evil dark jedi with 50D in control, sense and alter shows up, uses a darkside point and swings at everyone...good luck). I don't think there is any less tension though with them not dying. I told them that characters may die. But like good episodic television, the main characters rarely ever die.
We have players who come in and out of our game sometimes. We have four players there every week, and usually one to three more that come every so often with the understanding that they can't be central to the main story arc. Those guys I have no problem killing.
As with all good stories the journey is always more important than the destination...so even with death being a possible destination, if the journey is more important; why not make it last as long as everyone wants to last?
But that is why I think story has to be most important. Role-playing isn't and never has been a game about winning or losing. It is about playing the game period. As a GM, I move the story, but not dictate it completely. And if anyone knew how much die rolling is involved in a good story (a good story also is full of suprises...that is where the die matters most...success or failure) there wouldn't be much criticism of story over rolling and character spontaniously changing the events as they unfold. But GMs always adapt to keep the story moving despite the outcome of one or two rolls that cause a sudden 180. I mean, most of us at our game have opted to the new d6 die code simplification chart due to all the rolling involved in our game. It speeds things up to get back to the story sooner as opposed to spending too much time counting die. As if success or failure isn't as important as what happens because of the success or failure.
Anyway, I am just rambling...you all don't mind me. 
_________________
Growing old is inevitable. Growing up is optional! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14171
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ahh. Nice to hear from you on this Grimmy.... Missed our conversations on the holonet.
| Quote: |
"And that is why you fail." - Yoda |
LOL 
| Quote: | | The points brought up by both Trusty and Sabre are valid and useful points. All of them, I can look at and say "Yes, that is correct". Nearly all of them need to be looked at from a certain point of view, though. You, garhkal are looking at them from an aspect of "I wouldn't do that because I've never done that before", and that is a sure way to get into a rut in your GM style. Ruts can be a bad thing. |
Actually, a number of those points i did use to do, but both myself and the players did not feel right continually using them (like the fudging the dice issue and script immunity)..
| Quote: | | I think you misinterpret here. Killing PCs because you want to means gaining and holding grudges, or simply being a power hungry GM. Some GMs just don't get it...they can kill the PCs, it's that simple. The GM has so many things at his disposal that if he wants to, nothing can stop him from simply snuffing the life from the characters. But why would he want to? Some do it because they're holding a grudge against the player for some past wrong-doing. Others do it because they want to feel all-powerful and make the players respect the power of the GM. Both are silly, and is basically what is meant by the original intention of the statement. Script immunity, which you mention, basically falls into the realm of a GM who succumbs to the feeling that, as mentioned with the first statement, they are the sole author of the story. |
Nicely put. Though i don't feel i have grudges... maybe some might see it that i do though... I just don't perceive i am that way.
My 2 main reasons for killing are 1)imo that is what the npc or situation is calling for (eg, hitting a wall at flank speed on a speeder bike, or they just peeved off a MOFF) and 2) I just let things fly where they may, and if death is a result.... (in best emperor voice) SO BE IT! But i do agree, a gm out to willfully kill, just cause of power trips or holding grudges is wrong.
| Quote: | | otherwise your players will start to shy away from your table. |
Understood. THough to me, compromising what i am, just to keep people is wrong. It is just how i feel on that aspect.
| Quote: | | What you need to understand is that death should occur in a game, but it should be "appropriate" to the story being told and the setting the game occurs in. If you're playing a military style game, death will be a greater part of it, and the players should be aware of that. If you're playing in a more subtle, perhaps gangster type setting, with backroom dealings and smuggling, then death won't be as prevelent. Don't rule out a character death in a game completely...UNLESS THE GAME CALLS FOR IT. Just realize that simply becuase you're playing a game where weapons are present, doesn't mean that a character will die every other game session. |
This i understand... well. especially as i am military 8)
| Quote: | There is a fine line, in the GMs job, between cheating and running a game fairly. Of all the people, GMs are the most tempted to cheat, because they know all of the "behind the scenes" stuff. If you are the type that likes to take advantage of players, that goes out of your way to create bad guys strictly geared towards defeating what your players have for characters, or that doesn't trust himself to be honest, then it's fine to tell your players the target number.
Never, ever, should you tell your players the target number BEFORE they decide if they will roll. That falls into the realm of player cheating. Call for a roll. If the player asks what the target number is, tell them. Do not tell them if they can choose to simply not roll. What would be the point of a target number if they didn't even have to roll? You seem to be falling into the area of believing that anything the GM does that isn't open for all to see, is considered cheating. This is simply not true. Honest and fair is where a GM should fall when it comes to running a game, and especially when it comes to calling for rolls. Is it fair to tell the players before they even choose to roll, what their character needs to succeed? No. It IS fair to tell them the target number AFTER they have decided to roll. |
Well said, and interesting point. Part of why i do that, now days. Is back in my history of gming, i had many a session, where the npc they were against had a real high roll, (whether from lots of die, or just cause of the bonuses the situation called for). When i let them roll, and afterwards they asked what the diff # was, they kind of whined about why did i even bother having them roll (or letting them roll) when there was little to know chance of making it.
EG, in one game, we had the best 'searcher' with 7d in his search (s) tracking skill. The person they were tracking, had 9d in his sneak, PLUS was gaining 2d bonus from the rain (messing up the tracks), 1d (from the boot types he was wearing) and 1d from something else (cannot remember exactly what at this time. HIS roll was 78 iirc. Even maxing out, the pc could not come close (as this was first edition where there was NO wild die).....
| Quote: | | This falls to YOU, as the GM, to be honest and fair to not only them, but also to yourself, and STICK TO THE NUMBER YOU DECIDED, whether announced or not. If they rolled a 28, don't be dishonest and reduce your target number just to allow them to succeed. |
Trust me, i have no problem there.....
| Quote: | | you will not be so callous as to fickle fate of the dice or the inexact decisions of the players. |
Come again??? Maybe i am misunderstanding what you are getting at here...
| Quote: | | To simply come along and the first mistake they make, or the first flubbed die roll they make, to snuff their character out like it was nothing more than a knat, shows that you, as the GM cares little for the interest of the players. |
Ahh. Now i realise. But (always have to have one of those.....and if i do say so myself, mine is rather nice ) Most of the time when i have seen gms get as interested in the pcs, to the level above, and they don't just let what happens (via the situation or the dice), it winds up getting to where the gm has just handed basically 'scrip immunity' to that character.
| Quote: | | It's not leniency if you don't kill a character in a combat situation. Failure doesn't always mean death, even in combat. A GM is also NOT taking control of a player character if they allow a flubbed roll or bad decision to slide by with less than serious reprecussions. If a GM goes as far as to start controlling the character, or altering what the player decides for the character to do, then the GM is at fault and suffers from a case of power madness. |
I guess i have a problem distinguishing which is which.....
Continued next post...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14171
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Take notes.
NPCs are more than just window dressing.
|
Very good points...
| Quote: |
It is CRUCIAL that you, as the GM, show your players that you've invested at least a little in their characters. It's not so that you become more prone towards leniency vs. harshness where the dice are concerned. It's so you become more prone to having a desire to provide the absolute best game that could possibly be played. |
Ahh. Thanks for that bit of wisdom... I will try to take that to heart.
| Quote: | | garhkal, I think Grimace fleshed out more of what I was trying to say. I see where you are coming from and maybe I came off as a push-over when it wasn't what I intended. I mean, I kick my players rear almost every session it seems (to them at least). But, when I say tell a good story...I did mean as in the whole game needs to be a good one. |
Apology accepted captain needa!! 
Ok. Yes, i guess i snipped at you for what i percieved as a push over... To me those people who are that way are almost as bad as a gm who is only gaming to see how badly he can kill the party...
| Quote: | I guess our game is different than a lot of games as we play every Monday for about 9 hours and play the same characters every week. As players (and me as GM) in our game; we like complexity...we try to have a good balance of combat, politics, suspence, humor, tension, and really high stakes over a long and ever evolving story arc.
A good game can be like a good book, tv show, or movie. As role-players, we like to tune in once a week to our game to see what happens in the next episode. |
Understood. I guess part of where i am coming from, is many a time, when previous gms (or even current ones) try to make their games into movie like things, they have a large tendency to flat out give party members script immunity. Heck one gm was so bad at it, that the party realised it within 3 games and started to just walk into the midst of the enemy with nothing but thermal detonators on them, knowing they would not die...
| Quote: | But like good episodic television, the main characters rarely ever die.
|
Which to me is like saying they have script immunity. TO me, the only people in the game who should have it, are the main npcs (for continuity sake, eg vader for starwars... or Kelben blackstaff for forgotten realms ad&d)...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
