"Trust the System" is not the way to make great GMs

soviet · February 02, 2013, 10:22:38 PM

Quote from: jeff37923;624304No, I did not understand that. Now I do. The concept seems counter-intuitive because with PCs dead through an arbitrary die roll at the start of a game session, it would seem to suck the fun right out of a game. Indeed, they would be a minority.

I would have let the dice fall where they may.

Why play with rules that have a chance of a total party kill if that isn't what you want?

Phillip · February 02, 2013, 10:23:44 PM

Quote from: soviet;624298I'm not sure what any of this is based on, doesn't sound right to me....

... we agreed that the failure stakes would be that if he failed the reroll his character would die.

Such negotiation between GM and player is usually not role-playing per se (the exceptions being when a PC is actually negotiating with an NPC).

The way such discussion is treated in some games -- which may or may not correspond to what you were doing -- might be more notably intrusive from a role-playing-centric perspective than more common "table talk."

Whether it is really motivated by desire to tell a story, or by something more like the desire for role-conflation among wargamers that I mentioned earlier, or perhaps by something else again, is a conclusion to which one might wisely hesitate to leap on scant information.

soviet · February 02, 2013, 10:24:44 PM

Quote from: ggroy;624306Technically the DM isn't the only one with "veto" power.

In principle, a player (or several players) can "veto" the DM by just getting up and walking away from the game, and not coming back.

If the premises the game is being played at is not the personal residence of the DM, then the DM can be "vetoed" by being thrown out of the premises by the owner/renter of the premises.

What does this have to do with anything?

By the same token, if I get run over on the way to a session I won't be rolling any dice, therefore system doesn't matter.

ggroy · February 02, 2013, 10:26:52 PM

Quote from: soviet;624310What does this have to do with anything?

These methods have been used to "veto" the DM in several D&D games I played in previously.

soviet · February 02, 2013, 10:26:56 PM

Quote from: Phillip;624309Such negotiation between GM and player is usually not role-playing per se (the exceptions being when a PC is actually negotiating with an NPC).

The way such discussion is treated in some games -- which may or may not correspond to what you were doing -- is pretty notably intrusive from a role-playing-centric perspective.

I accept that for some people it's intrusive. For me and my group it isn't. And in any event such activities are a small part of the general thrust of play, just like moving figures and planning rules-based strategies is a small part of the general thrust of something like 3e.

soviet · February 02, 2013, 10:27:50 PM

Quote from: jeff37923;624302Effects on the game or effects on the story? Isn't the purpose of a storygame to create a story? So what you and the Player were doing was negotiating the plot of the story.

I guess. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

jeff37923 · February 02, 2013, 10:41:34 PM

Quote from: soviet;624307I would have let the dice fall where they may.

Why play with rules that have a chance of a total party kill if that isn't what you want?

I bet you wouldn't have Players for long....

Quote from: soviet;624314I guess. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

The POV changes the game play experience. If you are role-playing a character it is different from authoring a story.

soviet · February 02, 2013, 10:46:43 PM

Quote from: jeff37923;624316I bet you wouldn't have Players for long....

Again, why are you (and they) playing a system that doesn't do what you want it to?

If I'm playing a system that kills PCs it's because me and the rest of my group want there to be a chance of PCs dying.

Phillip · February 02, 2013, 10:57:23 PM

Quote from: jeff37923;624316I bet you wouldn't have Players for long...

Just long enough to make Dungeons & Dragons and Traveller the premier brands in their fields, eh?

soviet · February 02, 2013, 10:58:53 PM

I seem to remember that one of the litanies of the RPG site is that if you can't have a TPK against the will of the players, it isn't an RPG?

Phillip · February 02, 2013, 11:05:10 PM

Note that a misjump starts out impossible (13+ on 2d6), and one that destroys a ship requires a modified roll of 16+.

How do you get the +4 or more necessary to make the "instant TPK" possible? By jumping when too close to a planet. Barring something quite unusual that the GM has chosen to introduce, that is a matter of player choice.

jeff37923 · February 02, 2013, 11:22:14 PM

Quote from: Phillip;624327Note that a misjump starts out impossible (13+ on 2d6), and one that destroys a ship requires a modified roll of 16+.

How do you get the +4 or more necessary to make the "instant TPK" possible? By jumping when too close to a planet. Barring something quite unusual that the GM has chosen to introduce, that is a matter of player choice.

You are talking about Classic Traveller.

d20 Traveller has different die rolls for a misjump. Once a ship has been determined to misjump, you then have to roll on a random table in which the top 10% of results are TPK catastrophic. All together, about a one in a thousand chance. My group just happened to roll particularly "well" that night.

jeff37923 · February 02, 2013, 11:30:01 PM

Quote from: soviet;624317Again, why are you (and they) playing a system that doesn't do what you want it to?

Because my sound judgement as a GM allows me to veto stupid shit that would be a campaign killer.

Quote from: soviet;624317If I'm playing a system that kills PCs it's because me and the rest of my group want there to be a chance of PCs dying.

Quote from: Phillip;624320Just long enough to make Dungeons & Dragons and Traveller the premier brands in their fields, eh?

Having a chance of the PCs dying as a result of their active involvement and risk taking in the game, yes. Dying by just a bad dice roll for a common occurrance, no. That is where the judgement and improvisation ability of a good GM come in.

soviet · February 02, 2013, 11:32:06 PM

Quote from: jeff37923;624333That is where the judgement and improvisation ability of a good GM come in.

No, this is where not playing shit systems comes in.

jeff37923 · February 02, 2013, 11:35:46 PM

Quote from: soviet;624334No, this is where not playing shit systems comes in.

So, because a single random table in an entire game can have bad results for Players it is a shit system to you? Not much earlier in this thread you were championing "let the dice fall where they may", what happened?