Quote from: cranebump;971610I got news for you and Pundit. The PCs are the center of the universe, as far as the game goes. Regardless of system, it is all about what they do.

I see you're unfamiliar with RPGs.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;971662Maybe there's a Domino theory for RPGs. If you let D&D start with player facing rolls, pretty soon the rest of the game might fall under the influence of communism...I mean, storygaming.

I know you were trying to be funny, but that's exactly the reason why the Storygamers, having found that trying to push heavy-handed obvious storygames with no success at all for years, have now dedicated themselves to making games that pretend to be popular styles of regular-RPGs (OSR games, Cthulhu, etc etc) but are altered with storygaming elements.  It's entryism.

Depends on how you define storygame I guess. Seems like a story/boardgame like Tales of the Arabian Nights or T.I.M.E Stories probably far outsell any TTRPG with the exception of D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;972226I see you're unfamiliar with RPGs.

An weak, albeit unsurprising, response, as is your insipid insinuation that "dice control=world control." The dice aren't part of the game world. They're an adjudication mechanism whose results cannot be controlled once rolled, no matter whose hands do the rolling. (Why is this not obvious to you?)

The way your responses read, it sounds like your beef isn't about the game world. It's about the real world, and you wanting to be in charge of it. It's about your own sense of self-importance in your role as GM. Evidently, you see your game as a power struggle or a turf war with the players. So, rather than just admit you like to roll dice, and be done with it, you have to make this ridiculous argument about usurpation of your "mother, may I?" power.

Take it easy, Duncan. Your players aren't Macbeth. But they are certainly more important than the make believe shit in your campaign. Without them, you're just some dude sitting alone at a table with a gazetteer and some notes.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;971751PCs being POV characters and PCs being the center of the universe are two different things. (Which is not to disagree with your overriding point: PCs being point of view characters is more than justification enough for the mechanics to be player-faced. Not that it really requires justification.).

That's an accurate interpretation of my point. And you know what? I want them to believe it's all about their characters. Because, in the end, who gives a flying fuck about my "finely tuned" campaign creation? I swear, there are GMs out there who value their maps and notes more than the people at the table. I'm sure some aspect of GMing is ego, but the other side of that is sublimating a good portion of that for the sake of your table, which is exactly what we expect players to do (and what some GMs, evidently, have difficulty doing).

P.S. I'd like to give up on this dice argument, but Pundit's bullshit responses have me incensed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;972226I see you're unfamiliar with RPGs.

QuoteI know you were trying to be funny, but that's exactly the reason why the Storygamers, having found that trying to push heavy-handed obvious storygames with no success at all for years, have now dedicated themselves to making games that pretend to be popular styles of regular-RPGs (OSR games, Cthulhu, etc etc) but are altered with storygaming elements. It's entryism.

Lol. Is this guy for real?

Quote from: Itachi;972295Lol. Is this guy for real?

Like I said: it's a lot cooler if you picture Tony Montana saying it, rather than Daniel Plainview.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;972299Like I said: it's a lot cooler if you picture Tony Montana saying it, rather than Daniel Plainview.

Sound advice. Now about a thread lockdown! Stat!

Well this escalated quickly. :confused:

Anyhoo, a useful question came up about what to so with PC v. PC combats. At first I gave pause, because each PC rolling for attack and then defense basically meant contested rolls, which sorta short circuits the hack's reason for being -- reducing busywork. But then I just realized it's easily resolvable by just making it either attack rolls or defense rolls only, or alternating between the two in successive rounds! The point is resolution, not granular pyrotechnics, so the GM's judgment is what matters in moving the game forward from everyday in-fighting.

Quote from: Opaopajr;972416Well this escalated quickly. :confused:

Anyhoo, a useful question came up about what to so with PC v. PC combats. At first I gave pause, because each PC rolling for attack and then defense basically meant contested rolls, which sorta short circuits the hack's reason for being -- reducing busywork. But then I just realized it's easily resolvable by just making it either attack rolls or defense rolls only, or alternating between the two in successive rounds! The point is resolution, not granular pyrotechnics, so the GM's judgment is what matters in moving the game forward from everyday in-fighting.

I'd probably go the contested rolls route actually. Unless you have a very unusual campaign model, PC vs. PC combat will be rare enough to offset that it takes just a little longer to resolve. In fact, the contested rolls will add to the sense of drama.

In any case, it is a case of how simple systems make it easy for the GM to bend the system as needed for unexpected situations.

Quote from: cranebump;972250The way your responses read, it sounds like your beef isn't about the game world. It's about the real world, and you wanting to be in charge of it. It's about your own sense of self-importance in your role as GM. Evidently, you see your game as a power struggle or a turf war with the players. So, rather than just admit you like to roll dice, and be done with it, you have to make this ridiculous argument about usurpation of your "mother, may I?" power.

Take it easy, Duncan. Your players aren't Macbeth. But they are certainly more important than the make believe shit in your campaign. Without them, you're just some dude sitting alone at a table with a gazetteer and some notes.

Guy who thinks GMs must not be trusted with rolling dice accuses regular gamers of being paranoid.

If a GM rolls dice straight up no fudging. What the difference between the GM rolling it or the player? Isn't the same thing being accomplished?

Secondly if removing dice from the GM somehow removes their empowerment. What happens to a game that removes dice from both sides altogether?

Quote from: RPGPundit;972618Guy who thinks GMs must not be trusted with rolling dice accuses regular gamers of being paranoid.

I never said GMs should not be trusted with rolling dice. I said you can't control the dice results, so it doesn't matter who rolls the dice. I also said that you're a control freak, in case that got lost in translation.

Until you actually run a system where you don't roll as a GM, I humbly suggest you STFU about whether it disempowers you or not. Seeing as how I have, and you haven't, your qualifications to make actual relevant comments on that subject are nil. You STILL only have to say, "I prefer to roll dice," and we're done here. Instead, you've turned this into, "I sense something outside my comfort zone, and I am frightened and angry."

For the record, my foray into "non-regular" gaming over the last 30 yearns is a 20-something session Dungeon World campaign we wrapped up in May. The rest has been typical, old school shit, same as you play, albeit without the Everest-sized chip on the shoulder, the incredibly thin skin, the ego all out of bounds with actual accomplishment, and the permanently closed mind.

Quote from: Ronin;972673If a GM rolls dice straight up no fudging. What the difference between the GM rolling it or the player? Isn't the same thing being accomplished?

Secondly if removing dice from the GM somehow removes their empowerment. What happens to a game that removes dice from both sides altogether?

There isn't. However, our resident fascist also doesn't like that the attack and defense rolls in Black Hack are character-centered. He also seems to believe that player-centered is disempowering for the GM, despite never having actually played that way.