Quote from: The Shaman;352817Perhaps because it's a game, and not life?

But make no mistake, my reaction was very similar to yours when I read that same passage. I do think, both as a game and as emulation, that the element of surprise and uncertainty in threat evaluation are a desireable feature of gaming.

I'm all for a game holding surprises. Uncertainty is one of the reasons I play. The challenge of knowing each fight/adventure might be my last before I end up back at the drawing board.

Quote from: Jason Coplen;352855I'm all for a game holding surprises. Uncertainty is one of the reasons I play. The challenge of knowing each fight/adventure might be my last before I end up back at the drawing board.

YES.
The ability to create anxiety and uncertainty is also mirrored by the glow of achievement and enjoyment on the other end.  What is epic, defeating something the rules say should be a good fight for you, or facing the unknown?

(then again, my igbar group has had a ridiculous PC kill ratio lately...)

Quote from: Jason Coplen;352851Ok, let me touch upon what I quoted. I'm seeing stylistic differences here between how we view games.

I'm not so sure a person can tell who would be a match for them until combat begins.

I, also, think you might roll the dice too much. Might your problem be with the dice themselves? I mean, sense motive, really? That must be 3E or later because I don't recall that. Much of your complaint seems to be against the assholitude of a DM. I'm not sure rules can ever fix that.

You wouldn't be the first person that tells me I let the dice rule my games. I roll everything in the open and if I have to make a decision that isn't already in my note book but could be detrimental to the party, I usually roll for it.

For example, if the party knew someone was looking for them and they ran off, I'd roll his Tracking in front of the group. If he failed, I'd roll a scatter dice in front of the group to show what way he went. While they wouldn't know the details, they might know a one or two would keep him on their trail on accident.

Secondly, I think a good fighter, such as a player character, can tell when someone is a match for them. Someone without levels that doesn't have any experience with fighting can tell.

In real life, I have pretty tough shins. I can tell when I spar with someone if I can safely click shins with another person just by how they stand, even if I never met them before. I'm not a real fighter though. Really experienced people can do way better than me.

Let alone some crazy, fantasy killer that lives by the sword.

Quote from: LordVreeg;352862YES.
The ability to create anxiety and uncertainty is also mirrored by the glow of achievement and enjoyment on the other end.  What is epic, defeating something the rules say should be a good fight for you, or facing the unknown?

(then again, my igbar group has had a ridiculous PC kill ratio lately...)

I think what is epic is knowing that something you are going to fight will be hard, making preparations, and then going after it. Boss fights in 3.x d&d, for example, can be 2-3 levels higher than the group, which can kill player characters with good dice alone, even without the GM really trying to be smart with it. Just surprising the players by applying arbitrary stats to something isn't epic. It is trite.

Quote from: Cranewings;352866I think what is epic is knowing that something you are going to fight will be hard, making preparations, and then going after it. Boss fights in 3.x d&d, for example, can be 2-3 levels higher than the group, which can kill player characters with good dice alone, even without the GM really trying to be smart with it. Just surprising the players by applying arbitrary stats to something isn't epic. It is trite.

Cranewings, I certainly agree that sounds epic.  I also like the bit about prep, as I love it when my PC's research and use Lore CC rolls to gain some knowledge and take advantage.

however, if the PC's know it is a 'boss fight', and that they are prepping because it is a 'boss fight', knowing that it 'can be 2-3 levels higher than the group', I would consider it a little less epic since that is metagaming.  Sometimes the leader of the guard has been tougher than the ruler, sometimes the advisor is the power behind the throne.

And as I am positing in this thread, making up encounters and hiding behind the screen reeks of the players playing against the players, as opposed to with the players.  It is the type of GMing that caused all the rules I am talking about.  The rules that reduce the authority of the GM to screw the players reduce his autonomy to create a fully realized setting.

It looks to me like one of the underlying questions here is "when is it okay for a character to die?" Should it only be when players can kind of see it coming, should it ever be the result of random chance, or should it be the result of the player making a visibly bad choice? I think every group answers these questions differently. Personally I have more fun, when death is harder to predict. At least as a player.

Quote from: Jason Coplen;352855I'm all for a game holding surprises. Uncertainty is one of the reasons I play. The challenge of knowing each fight/adventure might be my last before I end up back at the drawing board.

And when you ease up as a GM, you get that sort of surprise in that role as well.

Seanchai

Quote from: Cranewings;352865You wouldn't be the first person that tells me I let the dice rule my games. I roll everything in the open and if I have to make a decision that isn't already in my note book but could be detrimental to the party, I usually roll for it.

For example, if the party knew someone was looking for them and they ran off, I'd roll his Tracking in front of the group. If he failed, I'd roll a scatter dice in front of the group to show what way he went. While they wouldn't know the details, they might know a one or two would keep him on their trail on accident.

Secondly, I think a good fighter, such as a player character, can tell when someone is a match for them. Someone without levels that doesn't have any experience with fighting can tell.

In real life, I have pretty tough shins. I can tell when I spar with someone if I can safely click shins with another person just by how they stand, even if I never met them before. I'm not a real fighter though. Really experienced people can do way better than me.

Let alone some crazy, fantasy killer that lives by the sword.

It's preference. You're all for rolling dice when I'm not. Seeing as how we don't play in the same game, it's fine. We might argue too much if we did.

Ok, I don't fully agree with your assessment about fighting. Or would you mean once the combatants begin moving around? I can buy that much better than I can buy you can tell as soon as you see someone.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;352876It looks to me like one of the underlying questions here is "when is it okay for a character to die?" Should it only be when players can kind of see it coming, should it ever be the result of random chance, or should it be the result of the player making a visibly bad choice? I think every group answers these questions differently. Personally I have more fun, when death is harder to predict. At least as a player.

I'd say that the death of a PC is handled differently by different people.  And some of this is pure the differential of human nature.
 We talk about 'asshole GM's a lot...  
but just there are sore losers who should not play cards or other games, these people are are even worse in multiple-session campaign games.  

At my worst, I blame much of the directional shift towards sharing authority on immature, petulant players.  For every 'asshole GM' claim, I think there is a pretty high priority of a crybaby player.  
"Everyone says my character died fairly by the rules?  Fine, I want easier rules!"

But my logical side understands different people find different types of games gratifying, or even at different times in their life.  One thing about my game or D&D, dice can kill a PC.  it's one thing when you can look at a player and say, "Smooth Move, Ex-lax", and they know they died based on a tactical mistake/stupid move.  (I can say this with Igbarians lately...).
But it DOES suck when bad rolling casues or heavily contributes to the death of a PC.  It sucks hard.  So there is that side to the story.

PC death is just handled differently between people, but it can also change with the same people but differnet games. My recent Marvel Super Hero games was explicitly non-lethal. My Pendragon was horrendously lethal. My current Fudge post-apocalypse game is lethal but players have some mechanical safeguards which the can use - so its very much in their hands. In each case I think i is as it should be for that specifc campaign, but when you move to a new campaign, it's a whole new set of ground rules.

I think virutally all discussions about roleplaying games boil down to "it depends" which makes it very difficult to talk in abstract terms.

Quote from: Jason Coplen;352885It's preference. You're all for rolling dice when I'm not. Seeing as how we don't play in the same game, it's fine. We might argue too much if we did.

Ok, I don't fully agree with your assessment about fighting. Or would you mean once the combatants begin moving around? I can buy that much better than I can buy you can tell as soon as you see someone.

We might argue a lot (:

As far as fighting, I can personally tell once someone puts their dukes up, so to speak. Sometimes, I can tell before hand, but you could argue that is all psychological.

A lot of characters from books and T.V. shows can tell just by looking. I'm not saying you need to know their attributes, but it is nice to know if someone is way above, below, or in the same ball park as you. A 4th level guy might not be able to tell that a 5th level guy is better than him, but he should be able to tell when someone is 8th level. The intensity, confidence, scars, cunning, and stare and the awareness with which he watches his environment should work together to create a sense of power that a 4th level character would notice and probably fear. For another thing, no one gets to 4th level by being a dummy.

Quote from: LordVreeg;352875Cranewings, I certainly agree that sounds epic.  I also like the bit about prep, as I love it when my PC's research and use Lore CC rolls to gain some knowledge and take advantage.

however, if the PC's know it is a 'boss fight', and that they are prepping because it is a 'boss fight', knowing that it 'can be 2-3 levels higher than the group', I would consider it a little less epic since that is metagaming.  Sometimes the leader of the guard has been tougher than the ruler, sometimes the advisor is the power behind the throne.

And as I am positing in this thread, making up encounters and hiding behind the screen reeks of the players playing against the players, as opposed to with the players.  It is the type of GMing that caused all the rules I am talking about.  The rules that reduce the authority of the GM to screw the players reduce his autonomy to create a fully realized setting.

Could you elaborate on your last paragraph? I'm having a hard time following it.

I do on occasion use BBEGs that are much more powerful, but it becomes a part of the game to bust them down or find another way to win. What I don't like doing is forcing a fight with someone that powerful.

There should at least be a chance ahead of time to avoid it. I'm all for punishing blown chances... but I don't like the idea of the party walking in on a natural fight and getting demolished just because I gave the bad guy too many bonuses.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;352876It looks to me like one of the underlying questions here is "when is it okay for a character to die?" Should it only be when players can kind of see it coming, should it ever be the result of random chance, or should it be the result of the player making a visibly bad choice? I think every group answers these questions differently. Personally I have more fun, when death is harder to predict. At least as a player.

How do you define when it is ok to kill a player character?

I personally don't see much wrong with killing a player at anytime. What I distinguish is when they get to keep their experience or when they come back at a lower level.

In general, if the player is role playing a good character that is compelled to do something by the plot and dies, if they die because of GM fiat, or they die after making a good plan and are betrayed by the dice, I let them retain all of their experience, though they wouldn't have much in the way of magic items.

On the other hand, if they die from being ignorant or in an avoidable fight that they started because they thought they could gain something better or easier, they come back a level lower than the lowest level original character.

Quote from: Cranewings

Quote from: VreegAnd as I am positing in this thread, making up encounters and hiding behind the screen reeks of the players playing against the players, as opposed to with the players. It is the type of GMing that caused all the rules I am talking about. The rules that reduce the authority of the GM to screw the players reduce his autonomy to create a fully realized setting.

Could you elaborate on your last paragraph? I'm having a hard time following it.

I have a tendency to over-write a bit, coupled with me trying to do it when I have no time.

It can be exposited down to 'making up over-tough encounters to screw the players and then hiding behind the GM screen reeks of a GM playing against the PCs, as opposed to playing with them.  Thak kind of attitude is one of the things that caused many games to create rules to scale back GM authority. Sadly, those same rules are the ones that also rein in GM autonomy.'

The rest of your comments fall right into line with this.  the Dungeondelver also touched on it, in that it's great as a GM to be able to place encounters where they are logical...but the PC's should never be railroaded into fighting something too tough for them.  That's not going to keep players around too long.

I hear you. That makes sense.