| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Robert
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 105
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I see my self as a somewhat experienced gm, as i played rpg for the last 12 years, but i still wouldnīt either:
1. Roll for every item the character is carrying
2. Decide which items are bruned to crisp.
A compromise between the two position would be rolling randomly a number of items or decide some items which have to roll for resisting. The rolling out can, by the way, be after the combat, so it doesnīt have to slow down the game. I have experienced to often - passive as well as active - that just deciding what negative effects happen unto players starts mistrust and favoritism of different players. With positive effects its somewhat different, yes, and therefore i would stick to a mix of play fast, play fun, but let decide most by the rules and the roll when it comes to negative effects like loss of equipment. This doesnīt prevent the GM from deciding which actions the NPC will take versus the characters, but they will have a chance - and thats imho the difference. If you want to read more about this specific topic you shoudl read the thread " Should they succed"
http://www.rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1043
_________________
"We don't stop playing because we grow old...we grow old because we stop playing." G.B. Shaw |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scott2978
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 220
Location: Arizona, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If your group mistrusts you after you make arbitrary decisions, then you're doing something wrong. What I'm getting at here is that the players readily accept it when you decide to roll for a random encounter, but they feel cheated when you decide that their extra blaster took the heat, saving their medpack (which they might need for the adventure later) then the problem must go deeper than that one deicision.
A good thing to do in all GM decisions is to ask yourself: What would I think of this decision if I was on the other side of the GM Screen?
If a random roll killed my only medpack during a fight in which I just got hit with a flamethrower, I'd surely be more pissed than if my GM gave me the medpack and let my extra blaster burn instead.
Does anyone start to see what I'm talking about here yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
but they feel cheated when you decide that their extra blaster took the heat, saving their medpack (which they might need for the adventure later) |
Who knows theyīll need the medpack? The additional blaster might come in handy, too. Where talking here about rules and not a specific adventure. And if they know they need a special item in this adventure, they better protect it or have dumb luck. Again, after the rules i designed, complete destruction is rare.
| Quote: |
A good thing to do in all GM decisions is to ask yourself: What would I think of this decision if I was on the other side of the GM Screen? |
Giving goodies doesnīt piss of players at first, but later on for sure. What if next time a character is hit, his medpack is destroyed instead of his extra gun? Decisions should have consistency, therefore randomness is better than arbitrariness. Or why donīt you decide whether characters get wounded, incapacitated or run away unhurt but you roll for it? As a GM, i donīt rule after "what suits the players best" but "what is the most consistent reaction to this action". Otherwise, it spoils the players fun as there are no actions which can really fail, as there is no risk and therefore no real gain.
_________________
"We don't stop playing because we grow old...we grow old because we stop playing." G.B. Shaw |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14213
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| scott2978 wrote: | If your group mistrusts you after you make arbitrary decisions, then you're doing something wrong. What I'm getting at here is that the players readily accept it when you decide to roll for a random encounter, but they feel cheated when you decide that their extra blaster took the heat, saving their medpack (which they might need for the adventure later) then the problem must go deeper than that one deicision.
A good thing to do in all GM decisions is to ask yourself: What would I think of this decision if I was on the other side of the GM Screen?
If a random roll killed my only medpack during a fight in which I just got hit with a flamethrower, I'd surely be more pissed than if my GM gave me the medpack and let my extra blaster burn instead.
Does anyone start to see what I'm talking about here yet? |
.
I have actually seen the opposite many a time, where the gm allowing a roll to decide something got less negative responses than when he just decided what happened.
| Quote: | | Giving goodies doesnīt piss of players at first, but later on for sure. What if next time a character is hit, his medpack is destroyed instead of his extra gun? Decisions should have consistency, therefore randomness is better than arbitrariness. Or why donīt you decide whether characters get wounded, incapacitated or run away unhurt but you roll for it? As a GM, i donīt rule after "what suits the players best" but "what is the most consistent reaction to this action". Otherwise, it spoils the players fun as there are no actions which can really fail, as there is no risk and therefore no real gain. |
Well said. And that latter part, is one reason i don't fudge.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
By the way - rules for stabilizing mortally wounded characters without proper equipment circumvenes the discussion about what items better donīt burn. Loss of equipment can then be countered with good ideas by the players. Therefore i can unterstand you, scott2978. If there would be no chance for the players to help their friend without the medpack, which they lost due to bad rolling and my nasty npcs, it would be unfair. But with these rules, they still have a chance.
But back to topic, garhkal. As the threadstarter, what do you think about the item destruction and mortally wounded stabilizing rules presented here?
_________________
"We don't stop playing because we grow old...we grow old because we stop playing." G.B. Shaw |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14213
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well for the Mw stabilizing, i always thought it DID require a med pack to stabilize a character, but i guess i was wrong. So with the medic roll of mod, i can see that, though for me, i would like it harder, say mid level diff (17-18).
As to the item distruction, i am more for things, like rolling for the bkpack, and if it is gone, then rolling for the contents.... but not arbitrarily deciding.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scott2978
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 220
Location: Arizona, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Robert wrote: | | Who knows theyīll need the medpack? |
The answer is that YOU DO! You know everything! At the very least, he did just get hit by a flamethrower!
| Robert wrote: | | Decisions should have consistency, therefore randomness is better than arbitrariness. |
Randomness is only good for all cases if the players don't trust your judgement. Also, while I agree it's important to not change the rules of the game during the game, a player whose character just got fried by a flamthrower shouldn't mind too much if his medpack is the only thing that survived... of course this depends on how valuable the other stuff in the backpack is, and you should weight that accordingly. As yourself this: If I gave the player the choice of "all your important things are safe but everything you don't need is gone" versus "roll with a chance of loosing everything" which would the player probably like better? Several people are telling me that their players prefer randomness over all manner of arbitrary decision, but I can only deduce that either we are not understanding each other or your players seriously don't trust you.
| Robert wrote: | | Or why donīt you decide whether characters get wounded, incapacitated or run away unhurt but you roll for it? |
Actually you are deciding. It's your choice to have NPC's shoot at the characters. It's your choice what the difficulty of their shots is, and what kind of weapons they are shooting. It's your choice what their skill dice are with those weapons. It's your choice what the damage dice of their weapons are. Again, if you have ever let a PC live when they should have died, made an NPC fail to notice something, or fudged a die roll, then you have made an arbitrary decision. Heck, everything that happenes in the whole galaxy is nothing more than an arbitrary decision made by you! Do the players complain when they see a customs corvette? Why not, it was YOU that arbitrarily decided to put it there! Do they complain that it takes too long to fly to Tatooine? It was YOU that decided how far it was! You arbitrarily decide almost EVERYTHING! Not only is it ok, it's your job to be arbitrary. You are "arbitrating" the game after all. Keeping the game going smoothly and making it fun and fair for everyone is what's important, not ensuring that every outcome of every action in the universe is actually random. If your group feels that the outcomes of every action must be randomized (and thus taken out of your hands) is the only way to be fair, then you have a credibility problem! If you can make "arbitrary decisions" that are based on the character's skills, knowledge, and the situation (when a decision is needed) then your group won't complain about it. If they cry "favoratism" every time you make a decision, you shouldn't ignore them. There's a reason they think you're not being impartial.
The dice aren't for making decisions Robert, that's the GM's job. The dice are for introducing an element of randomness into just a few things that keeps the game from seeming contrived. Things like did you hit your target, and how well did you sing that ballad. Not things that would impede the game. You can't go deciding everything arbitrarily, but some things that shouldn't be random or that would bog the game down, should just be decided by the GM.
Why should you decide that the medpack survived? Maybe you know something the players don't! If randomness was as important as you say it is, players could just roll dice for everything and there would be no need for a GM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see, we are walking rigth into a huge misunderstanding. I donīt have the opinion the gm has no right or no duty to decide. I tried to say his decisions have to be consistent. The most used way of bringing in some variation in consistent rules is randomness. That the GM has to allocate the result of the roll to reactions of the gameworld is not contrary to consistency - if there are consitent guidelines how he is doing this.. Breaking this consistence is arbitrariness, at least as i see it. Maybe this might be our point of discussion? The decision why the blaster burns first has to be made sound and consistent with the game world. Then i and i hope my players donīt have problems with my decision.
I often whish i knew everything that will happen, but those treacherous players are often more inventive than i am. 
I donīt know whether they will need a medpack or not. There were no further informations given by garhkal like if its campaign relevant. Therefore i tried to design fair item destruction rules. There are ways to circumvene the complete destruction of items. First the damage limit, second inventive players. With other word: Players who stick all their medpacks to one player and then grouch when they burn together with him just donīt earn a free goodie.
_________________
"We don't stop playing because we grow old...we grow old because we stop playing." G.B. Shaw |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14213
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | As yourself this: If I gave the player the choice of "all your important things are safe but everything you don't need is gone" versus "roll with a chance of loosing everything" which would the player probably like better? |
I feel that this is a 'stacking the deck' question. Of course a pc is going to pick the 'save all the important/valuable things'. Who wouldn't. I feel the question should be;
Would the pc rather leave the decision to the whims of the gm, even if he is having a bad day, or the randomness of the dice...
| Quote: | | I see, we are walking rigth into a huge misunderstanding. I donīt have the opinion the gm has no right or no duty to decide. I tried to say his decisions have to be consistent. The most used way of bringing in some variation in consistent rules is randomness. That the GM has to allocate the result of the roll to reactions of the gameworld is not contrary to consistency - if there are consitent guidelines how he is doing this.. Breaking this consistence is arbitrariness, at least as i see it. Maybe this might be our point of discussion? The decision why the blaster burns first has to be made sound and consistent with the game world. Then i and i hope my players donīt have problems with my decision. |
Well said robert. Most of the time i have seen gms making those type of "ill decide rather than roll" situations, they inevitabily go in favor of the pcs.
| Quote: | | There are ways to circumvene the complete destruction of items. First the damage limit, second inventive players. With other word: Players who stick all their medpacks to one player and then grouch when they burn together with him just donīt earn a free goodie. |
Again, well said. It is like for AD&D. They put all their eggs in the one basket, going with the single cleric, then realise the stink they are inwhen the cleric dies, and leaves them without healing.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scott2978
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 220
Location: Arizona, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Robert, I guess we essentially agree then. It's not how you arrive at the decision that's important, it's how you apply it to the game world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am happy we both agree about this topic then.
_________________
"We don't stop playing because we grow old...we grow old because we stop playing." G.B. Shaw |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scott2978
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 220
Location: Arizona, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| @ garkhal - I rather think it's best when in doubt to decide in the PCs favor (if their actions warrant it of course) sine they have to survive every battle but your NPC only has to survive one. If we always used real-world math to calculate the survival probability of a PC in any RPG, it would be very low. The chances of surviving enough fair fights to make it through an average campaign is slim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
