TheRPGSite

OK, so it's well known around these parts that we are Role Players and not Story Gamers. (Well, many of us...) Pundit would say that Emulation is the foundation of the game. We are exploring a fictional place, not trying to construct a story. And one of the examples Pundit has given is along the lines that if the goblin gets a critical hit on your character and kills him, that's the sudden end of your grand story!

But consider this. Many of us probably play games where CharGen takes forty minutes to an hour. Some of us probably play games where CharGen can take a whole session, and players go on to build lovingly crafted backstories for their characters. Some of this might be over the top, on occasion, but a lot of love can go into CharGen.

Now if you then go 4 or 5 sessions and pop your clogs, back to the drawing board for CharGen - fair enough. You've had some mileage out of your CharGen efforts.

But what if literally the first significant thing that happens after CharGen is that through some mildly imprudent choice your character ends up exposed to some common ailment, rolls badly and dies?

Would you rewind the game and say, let's keep the character and start again?

Would you overrule the dice?

Assuming that the players have participated in lengthy CharGen:- Is it acceptable to kill a character in the very first session? Is it acceptable to visibly fudge it so the character doesn't die in the very first session? What about invisibly? What about if you're only ten or twenty minutes into the very first session?

I'm all for expecting players to be robust about character death, but if you make your mate sit down for two hours to gen up a character then straight away roll some dice and tell him he's dead, you're going to provoke some kind of a tantrum at the very least. You might well get punched in the face.

So what's the answer to this, and what implications does it have for the kinds of game we're playing, for immersion, for emulation, for believability, for the "we're not here to tell stories" argument, for "script immunity"?

I usually GM Warhammer, so the PCs are protected against those few first blows.

To be honest, I rarely actually fudge the players, though oddly enough, I am a big fan of John Wick's ideas that a player's death should mean something - but as I said, I usually GM Warhammer or Trail of Cthulhu. In Warhammer, a death to a bandit on the road is but another remark to the cruelty and cold brutality of the world that surrounds the rest of the heroes. In Trail of Cthulhu, I slay the PCs ruthlessly, if only to remind them that they are nothing in the vast schemes of the universe.

So in my games, the characters may have a bit of Plot Immunity - but you can never, ever, rely on it. My last Cthulhu campaign ended after 3rd session - the crew thought that just because we were playing a campaign, their characters were going to be immune from madness and death. Well, I crushed their illusions rather swiftly, and now we're off to Bookhounds of London.

But would you fudge it for sure in an extreme case? Very soon after CharGen? And if you would, what does it say about the types of game we're playing?

I hate 2nd ed Warhammer Fate Points in general precisely because they are a cast-iron guarantee of survival. Hate them, passionately. Still enjoy 2nd ed Warhammer but hate its Fate Point system.

Quote from: Omnifray;503341But would you fudge it for sure in an extreme case? Very soon after CharGen? And if you would, what does it say about the types of game we're playing?

I hate 2nd ed Warhammer Fate Points in general precisely because they are a cast-iron guarantee of survival. Hate them, passionately. Still enjoy 2nd ed Warhammer but hate its Fate Point system.

Oh please, I use 2e's Fate Points ;). Not that they are much different - just bonus lives. Quite useful in the cruel world of WFRP, where Raise Dead is well, impossible.

But to the question - it depends. And not actually on how much the chargen will take.

Did the character die because of PCs decision, such as attacking a bandit armed to teeth despite being offered safe passage for small toll? Then tough luck, you're dead.

Did I just gave the party an unbalanced encounter, and forced them to fight it? Then I will probably fudge the dice just a bit, because it's my fault here.

As a GM I may decide to intervene on a players behalf if there was what I see as a decent reason. It could be poor die rolls; bad tactics-I can't say specifically it's any one thing but I'll know it when I see it. Some players can handle character death better than others.

Character death is part of the game.  I do not care if it is in the very beginning, the middle, or when they are high-leveled.

If the players can handle it, they are good to go.  If they cannot, they can go play Tic-Tac-Toe with a sloth.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;503352If the players can handle it, they are good to go.  If they cannot, they can go play Tic-Tac-Toe with a sloth.

I get the sentiment, but unfortunately my available pool of players isn't so great I can afford to be that cavalier towards it. This isn't to say it's a huge issue at my table-most of my group is pretty mature, experienced gamer's. But yeah we have a few cats who despite what would seem like every reason in the world to act like adults just can't seem to pull it off at the table. (Good cats away from the table mind you, and more often than not productive at the table-just every once in a while their elevated estrogen levels get in the way of our good time. Briefly, because I'm a tyrant when it comes to acting like a broad at the table.)

Any ways the long and short of it is while uncommon, I have in the past intervened on a players behalf.

The answer is to have a character generation tbat takes 10 mn tops.

Quote from: Benoist;503362The answer is to have a character generation tbat takes 10 mn tops.

or make multiple characters...

I haven't had too many players make up multiple characters-one cat does, the rest seem to be a little more linear in that respect. But we do have character generation down to a science. With the character generators it is about 10 minutes or less.

Quote from: Benoist;503362The answer is to have a character generation tbat takes 10 mn tops.

Not necessarily.  I can get a lot of enjoyment from a lengthy chargen (though I'm also happy to sling 3d6 six times with the best of them) and I'm certainly not alone there.  I think the OP has a faulty premise, however.  Chargen should be its own reward.  E.g. I invest the time into chargen because I enjoy doing so.  What happens to the character in the first session doesn't matter as I've already had fun.

So my answer is that if the dice (or action) says death then death it is.  I can think of at least two occasions where I killed off a character in the first session.  In both cases the player shrugged it off and had a new character ready for the next session.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;503364or make multiple characters...

Or that, indeed.

Quote from: Fiasco;503367Not necessarily.  I can get a lot of enjoyment from a lengthy chargen

Or that, if you are so inclined.

Quote from: Fiasco;503367... I think the OP has a faulty premise, however.  Chargen should be its own reward.  ...

We do not live in a world of shoulds and oughts, but in a world of is and is not. You may enjoy CharGen, and so may I, but some of my players are not such huge fans, and I recognise that. What's more, if I end up pre-genning everyone's characters, that's a lot of effort to go to if they then snuff it straight away.

Quote from: Omnifray;503396We do not live in a world of shoulds and oughts, but in a world of is and is not. You may enjoy CharGen, and so may I, but some of my players are not such huge fans, and I recognise that. What's more, if I end up pre-genning everyone's characters, that's a lot of effort to go to if they then snuff it straight away.

If you want your players to respect characters longer, make them do their characters.

They'll not be so trigger - happy, if only because they know it's a trip to WritingLand if they die.

Quote from: Omnifray;503396We do not live in a world of shoulds and oughts, but in a world of is and is not. You may enjoy CharGen, and so may I, but some of my players are not such huge fans, and I recognise that. What's more, if I end up pre-genning everyone's characters, that's a lot of effort to go to if they then snuff it straight away.

It would be unthinkable for me to do pregens for my players unless it was a one shot or something like that.  But you are correct, there is no should or ought. Clearly our play groups are very different, that's cool.  I would be concerned, however, if my player's enthusiasm was that tenuous.

The only reason chargen might take more than 20 minutes is lack of books, or it's the very first time that people have ever played and are trying to learn the rules simultaneously to make meaningful choices.

I also don't start games off with combats, and I don't introduce new PCs to replace old ones until there's a reasonable break or pause, to avoid a meat-grinder effect.

Because of this, everyone gets at least a little while to play their PC before they're slain (if they are slain).

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;503461The only reason chargen might take more than 20 minutes is lack of books, or it's the very first time that people have ever played and are trying to learn the rules simultaneously to make meaningful choices.

With your guys maybe, but not with everybody, mate. With my players for the Ptolus campaign we had for two years, the whole character design and upkeep afterwards was a drag. I think that stems from the fact that the players just went interested in playing an accounting game of their imaginations, but wanted to play the fucking game and kick ass already, if you see what I mean (that was an all female, teachers group, btw LOL). In hindsight, I should have played B/X at the time. That's a lesson learned on my part.

The OP poses a lot of 'ifs'. If we had just gone through a long char-gen process and someone popped their clogs in the first session, we as a group would probably fiat them back to life.

I'm sure the Pundit would agree that FUN through emulation is the foundation of the game - not just emulation for emulation's sake - so let that be your guide.

Quote from: Benoist;503465With your guys maybe, but not with everybody, mate. With my players for the Ptolus campaign we had for two years, the whole character design and upkeep afterwards was a drag. I think that stems from the fact that the players just went interested in playing an accounting game of their imaginations, but wanted to play the fucking game and kick ass already, if you see what I mean (that was an all female, teachers group, btw LOL). In hindsight, I should have played B/X at the time. That's a lesson learned on my part.

Once you get super familiar with 3.5, the choices, especially for low level characters, are usually so obvious that char gen speeds up rapidly.

The ones I find take the longest are RQ-likes, since there's less optimisation than in 3.5, which means that people really need to make choices without a clear idea of which choice is "better".

1. Quick character generation.

2. Character generation which is a fun part of the game itself, so if you die at the end it's all part of the "narrative".

3. Otherwise, fate points, but still have an element of chance. I mean, if DM fudging is going to save your ass in game 1, that's a guarantee isn't it? Worse, if the DM doesn't do it in an edge case, you're going to have ill-will. So go ahead with the fate points, but avoid uses that guarantee outcomes, or make it very tempting to use them, so that after a few sessions, they're gone anyway.

4. Or, multiple characters per player...though this usually isn't gonna work if you have lengthy chargen and players who write pages of backstory for their special snowflakes.

5. In that case, maybe you should play a stakes-setting game, and just never put death on the table. Or similar, as in DitV, where death can't be a stake, but can be a consequence. Or as in The Shadow of Yesterday, where PC death only happens in extended conflict.

6. Like 5, but more subtle, don't force the PCs into situations where they can die, in the first few sessions. If they start a fight, sure. Otherwise: capture, talk, enemies run away, etc. Develop character and situation so that if death happens in session 3, it means something.

7. A game system that has a big buffer between being hurt and being dead. I.e., not original D&D played straight (but D&D has other features among those listed above, which make this not a concern).

Obviously some of these approaches are more story gamey than others, it's up to you and your group how to work things, it's mainly a matter of knowing the trade offs and consequences.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;503474Once you get super familiar with 3.5, the choices, especially for low level characters, are usually so obvious that char gen speeds up rapidly.

I agree, but the fact is, many players are simply not interested in getting that familiar with the game mechanics.

The game's baseline needs to assume you can just roll up a character, play, and worry about the rules as a player later, or not at all. Yet, have the stuffing for all those players who DO want this stuff nonetheless. They matter too.

A game that assumes for its baseline that the player will read the entire rules book to create a character is a non-starter in my mind.

Quote from: Benoist;503482I agree, but the fact is, many players are simply not interested in getting that familiar with the game mechanics.

The game's baseline needs to assume you can just roll up a character, play, and worry about the rules as a player later, or not at all. Yet, have the stuffing for all those players who DO want this stuff nonetheless. They matter too.

A game that assumes for its baseline that the player will read the entire rules book to create a character is a non-starter in my mind.

I agree, and it's one of the reasons that I won't play 3.5 anymore. When I was asked to run what is now my Emern game, I essentially had a totally free choice of what system I wanted to run - most of the guys have never roleplayed before, or if they have, it was just under ten years ago, back when 3.0 was still really new.

My decision at the time was to play S&W Complete because 1) I was interested in the system and hadn't run a game of it yet 2) Teaching six people how to play 3.5 without being able to assume any prior knowledge of the game was overwhelming, especially since I would have to not only teach them the basics of the game, but ideally at least set them on the path to playing it well.

Though, to be fair, playing D&D 3.5 with a group that knows it really well and is able to really pull full value out of the system can be a real pleasure. It's the fun of watching a very complex piece of machinery with lots of moving parts performing smoothly.

Quote from: Omnifray;503396We do not live in a world of shoulds and oughts, but in a world of is and is not. You may enjoy CharGen, and so may I, but some of my players are not such huge fans, and I recognise that. What's more, if I end up pre-genning everyone's characters, that's a lot of effort to go to if they then snuff it straight away.

I agree.  In a game I am actually a player for once, the DM wanted to make PRE-GENS and I stated I will not play a PREGEN, plain and simple.  I will make my own character because it is mine, I made it, and simply stated, character generation is a personal thing to me.

Quote from: Omnifray;503396We do not live in a world of shoulds and oughts, but in a world of is and is not. You may enjoy CharGen, and so may I, but some of my players are not such huge fans, and I recognise that. What's more, if I end up pre-genning everyone's characters, that's a lot of effort to go to if they then snuff it straight away.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;503544I agree.  In a game I am actually a player for once, the DM wanted to make PRE-GENS and I stated I will not play a PREGEN, plain and simple.  I will make my own character because it is mine, I made it, and simply stated, character generation is a personal thing to me.

The thing is, as Classic Traveller showed me, when you want to use CharGen as a minigame that is great, but a minigame CharGen system can inadvertantly kill the character you are trying to create to enable you to go do some Actual Play - which is what most Players really want to do.

Bah, I'm totally hippy on this one. I can appreciate the logic and appeal of a gritty, live or die by the dice kind of game; I just prefer games where casual character death is explicitly off the table and where fights are about something more interesting than survival.

Superheroes games are great for that. Say your character loses a fight with a supervillain and as a result the bad guy gets away with the major has his hostage; you don't get to just roll a new character and have a fresh start; your character should actually have to deal with the consequences of his failure and clean up his own mess. Killing off the character in that instance is just a cop out.

That said if casual character death is on the table, it should be always be so - even when it is inconvenient like at the start of the game or when it affects the entire party.  However you chose to run a game it should be open and coherent. The sort of "I'd fudge the dice to prevent a TPK but not to save a single character" approach I find is the worst of both worlds.

The problem posed is caused by high lethality systems with long character generation.  If your character generation is "3d6 down the line, now pick a name and class," high lethality doesn't matter that much because you can have Jane Fighter replacing Joe Fighter in just a few minutes.  If your character generation is "point buy, now select your race, class, feats, skills, spells, alignment, religion, and a handful of miscellaneous bullshit," you are going to have a much longer character generation process and thus players are going to automatically be more attached to their characters.

Solution: pick fast generation/high lethality or slow generation/low lethality.  Don't mix and match.

To the question in the OP: I would probably allow the player to reroll/rewind, but only once.

I am a storygamer. I let the dice fall where they fall. I don't fudge, cheat or roll behind a screen.
If your character dies 5 minutes into the game, well tough luck, but the story goes on. There are other characters at the table that will have to react to that death, NPC your character was connected with etc etc.
But I have to admit that there are no random fights against goblins in my games, so my style might not be applicable to most of you.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335But what if literally the first significant thing that happens after CharGen is that through some mildly imprudent choice your character ends up exposed to some common ailment, rolls badly and dies?

Been there done that. Playing in a Arduin Grimore game in 1986 in Waukegan, IL(at Friends Hobby and Computers). Rolled up a Fighter, with a Wild Psionic Talent(Levitation). Awesome stats, he had a 19 INT and a 19 DEX, He met up with the party as they were traversing a mountain trail. We had to go single file along a long ledge way up the side of a cliff. We had to roll a Dex check(1d20, roll under Dex). "No problem!" I proclaim. ~clatter of a d20, "20?!" I was in shock as the GM described that I fell to my death on the rocks far below. It took me a minute and then I said, "Hey, what about my Psi ability of Leviation, wouldn't I had used that?" The GM said, "Well you didn't say you were going to use it but I'll allow it if you make a INT Check." "No problem," I say again. ~clatter of a d20, "20?! Again?! ARRRGGHHHHhhh!!!"

And thus my awesome Fighter I had named "Blade" due to a sword blade tattoo on his right arm, died after only 10 minutes of game play. Was I sad? of course. Did I ask the GM to fudge anything, of course not. After a couple of minutes of letting the shock wear off, I grabbed my dice and rolled up another one.

Also, you should know that "Blade" wasn't the only character death I had that night. For the longest time, and I'd have to call the owner to verify but I'd bet that I still hold the record of "Most Character Deaths in one night." I lost 4 PCs that night. We used to play for several hours and I think the rate was about 1 Character/3 hours or something like that. But Blade is still the shortest lived character I ever had.

Before that my personal record was in my first year of gaming. My first game group(30? years ago), we were all very new to AD&D. The group made up characters and we received the first part of our quest. We had been given notice to travel to the Kingdom Capital to see the King to learn what quest we were being summoned to do. On the way there the DM rolled a Random Encounter and got 3 Red Dragons. So, we scattered hoping that some of us would live but the Dragons chased down all of us and had cooked PC snacks that afternoon. I still remember the shock of that first Random Encounter for the campaign and the DM describing how the smallest of the Red Dragons chased down my Halfling Thief and used his breath weapon. The DM actually rolled dice even though the minimum damage of the Breath Weapon was twice as many HPs as my character had...

Dexterity check or die?  Sounds like a shitty GM.  Dexterity check or slip is another thing, but telling you straight off the bat that your character falls to his death unless you pass a check is junk.

I hope that DM made sure to describe the heaps of skeletons beneath that ledge...

Quote from: B.T.;503765Dexterity check or die?  Sounds like a shitty GM.  Dexterity check or slip is another thing, but telling you straight off the bat that your character falls to his death unless you pass a check is junk.

Yeah, I agree. He missed an opportunity to describe your character holding on for dear life while his companions do their very best to safe him, with rope or a chain of people and all that good stuff.

Here's my take on the dex check or die.

DM: There's a single-file trail around the mountain.
Me: Okay, I take the trail.
DM: Dex check or fall and die, sucka!
Me: You said this was wide enough for us to go single file. Space for one person is 5 feet - why am I making a dex check?
DM: No, it's a narrow ledge, only inches wide, and there's a howling wind!
Me: Oh, then I'd have driven pitons into the wall, and I'd be roping myself along.
DM: No way, you said you took the trail, you didn't mention the pitons.
Me: And you didn't mention 'inches wide' and 'howling wind'. I guess it's just a day for missing important bits of communication, isn't it?

I would say that Emulation with Fun is the way to think of things; however, I also do agree that the OP scenario explains why generally speaking, fast character creation is better than lengthy character creation.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kaldric;503952Here's my take on the dex check or die.

DM: There's a single-file trail around the mountain.
Me: Okay, I take the trail.
DM: Dex check or fall and die, sucka!
Me: You said this was wide enough for us to go single file. Space for one person is 5 feet - why am I making a dex check?
DM: No, it's a narrow ledge, only inches wide, and there's a howling wind!
Me: Oh, then I'd have driven pitons into the wall, and I'd be roping myself along.
DM: No way, you said you took the trail, you didn't mention the pitons.
Me: And you didn't mention 'inches wide' and 'howling wind'. I guess it's just a day for missing important bits of communication, isn't it?

This is a great example of a pathetic DM...

Omnifray, has this actually happened to you as player, or been done by you as GM?

Because I'm not that interested in hypotheticals, I like to hear what's happened at the game table. Until I hear that, we can leave comment aside. Anything might happen. What has happened?

Most of the rest of the posters in this thread have confused an individual character death with a TPK. Those are different things. One PC dies, big deal, make another one, game on. Whole party dies, well could be time to reassess... tactics, players and their style, GM style, whatever - depends on circumstances, which Omnifray has rather unhelpfully omitted.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;504330Omnifray, has this actually happened to you as player, or been done by you as GM?

Because I'm not that interested in hypotheticals, I like to hear what's happened at the game table. Until I hear that, we can leave comment aside. Anything might happen. What has happened?

Most of the rest of the posters in this thread have confused an individual character death with a TPK. Those are different things. One PC dies, big deal, make another one, game on. Whole party dies, well could be time to reassess... tactics, players and their style, GM style, whatever - depends on circumstances, which Omnifray has rather unhelpfully omitted.

I know what's a TPK, mate. In fact, if anything - if party blows itself up on their own will and stupid, obvious mistakes, I prefer TPKs, since it saves me the time of figuring out how to introduce the new character.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;504330Omnifray, has this actually happened to you as player, or been done by you as GM?

Because I'm not that interested in hypotheticals, I like to hear what's happened at the game table. Until I hear that, we can leave comment aside. Anything might happen. What has happened?

Most of the rest of the posters in this thread have confused an individual character death with a TPK. Those are different things. One PC dies, big deal, make another one, game on. Whole party dies, well could be time to reassess... tactics, players and their style, GM style, whatever - depends on circumstances, which Omnifray has rather unhelpfully omitted.

It's a real case but not my personal story so I don't want to be broadcasting the details on the Internet. Suffice to say CharGen had not been a ten minute job, there were other questions surrounding the GMing decisions and then there was a player death before anything interesting had time to happen in the game. I wish I could tell you more but it wouldn't be right.

I don't think the solution is simple CharGen. Simple CharGen restrictions what you can do with the game. I am comfortable with an hour's CharGen. In fact the way I GM, though the players constantly claim to be terrified, I have a very low fatality rate, even without fudging. But I don't want to design a game with lengthy CharGen then get people to GM it in a way which kills off their mates' PCs within 2 minutes. What a waste of everyone's CharGen time - even if they find CharGen moderately agreeable in itself, it's hardly the point of the game.

Well, as I like to say - a GM should  really always allow the players to make their own ropes to hang themselves with. Killing people 10 minutes in if you FORCE them into life or death situation is a bit lame.

Unless it's Doomtrooper game, or any other battlefield simulation one.

Yes, there is definitely a minimum play : preparation ratio that most players will tolerate. If it takes 5-10' to make a character, most people won't care if they die in the first hour of play. But if it's something complex minimaxed thing with a backstory it took 6 hours to create, well that bastard better survive a two year campaign!

Situations should not be automatically inevitably fatal, nor automatically inevitable harmless. It should be up to the players and the dice. The whole point of a roleplaying game is that you get to use your wits to influence the outcome. If the outcome is predetermined, it's pointless - whether that outcome is TPK or Monty Haul.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;504303This is a great example of a pathetic DM...

Since I didn't tell the entire scenario, only what happened to my character, why do you assume that? Of course there was more to it. I was the cocky player character(with a 19 DEX) who figured that I didn't NEED any safety precautions... ;)

Quote from: DominikSchwager;503700I am a storygamer. I let the dice fall where they fall. I don't fudge, cheat or roll behind a screen.
If your character dies 5 minutes into the game, well tough luck, but the story goes on. There are other characters at the table that will have to react to that death, NPC your character was connected with etc etc.
But I have to admit that there are no random fights against goblins in my games, so my style might not be applicable to most of you.

What does you being a storygamer have to do with letting the dice fall where they fall?

Quote from: greylond;504606Since I didn't tell the entire scenario, only what happened to my character, why do you assume that? Of course there was more to it. I was the cocky player character(with a 19 DEX) who figured that I didn't NEED any safety precautions... ;)

SO why could not hear the HOWLING WIND???   Do you have to make a check to hear the howling wind or feel it as it as tearing into you???

The DM is LAME.

Nope, the DM was very good. I was just being Cocky thinking that I could make it along the ledge. It WAS my fault. Why do people have to assume the DM was lame? I'm telling you, it WAS my fault. I was young, and hadn't learned enough of RPG tactics... ;)

Now, the friend that hit us with 3 Red Dragons as a Random Encounter with No WAY out, that was a poor GM. In that case we were still in our first year of playing RPGs and back then there wasn't a lot of easily accessible info on gaming, i.e. No Intrawebs... :)

Quote from: Omnifray;504886What does you being a storygamer have to do with letting the dice fall where they fall?

Fudging dice is something only certain trad gamers do.

For me, it depends. If, as GM, I failed to describe something appropriately or my minor encounter with a bandit ends up wiping out the party due to insane dice rolls, I'd likely just restart using the same characters.

If the players are doing stupid crap even after I've warned them, then they die.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505003Fudging dice is something only certain trad gamers do.

To me the essence of a storygamer is that that is someone who wants to participate in flexing their creative muscles in an actively creative way during the game - dreaming things up --- someone for whom the telling of the "story" is part of the game and thus something they want to be involved in as much as possible (which therefore means not strictly limited to choosing their character's actions/intentions). I can see that that would generally mean not wanting the kind of Viking Hat GM / final arbiter GM who can fudge rolls without the players knowing about it, or who can overrule the dice on his own... but why would it mean that the players as a group (including the GM) can't fudge the dice-rolls if it's more fitting to the "story"? Is it because you wouldn't put something to a dice-roll unless you were willing for it to go either way --- you wouldn't risk consequences which you didn't want to risk? I suppose that means you don't need to fudge, because nothing has been rolled for which wouldn't be acceptable to the group. But if these storygamers were using a system which wasn't designed for that kind of play, and it gave results nobody wanted, might they not agree as a group to fudge it? How is that any less storygamey?

Obviously difficult for me to empathise with, because to me when I'm playing I'm interested in experiencing the game-world through my character, not making the game-world up as I go along...

I will TPK in session 1. I have done so, in 4e D&D last year.  The player can always reuse the stats for their next PC.

Quote from: Omnifray;505025but why would it mean that the players as a group (including the GM) can't fudge the dice-rolls if it's more fitting to the "story"? Is it because you wouldn't put something to a dice-roll unless you were willing for it to go either way --- you wouldn't risk consequences which you didn't want to risk?

There is no fudging dice rolls in storygames because you don't make up a story, you play one. There is a difference.
Die roll fudging and storygaming are anathema to each other for this very reason.

The dice fall as they fall, be it right after chargen or a lot further down the line.
.
If the player gets in deep right off the bat then hopefully he will learn from it and the next character will survive longer.

Even new players get the treatment. We will encourage them to keep playing and freely give them advice to stay alive, but if they make bad choices or fate is against them, it is as it is.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505040There is no fudging dice rolls in storygames because you don't make up a story, you play one. There is a difference.
Die roll fudging and storygaming are anathema to each other for this very reason.

I don't buy that logic.

A roleplaying game is also there to be played, not simply narrated by the GM.

I'm very trad really, and I far prefer dice-rolls to be made in the open whenever that doesn't create problems in terms of in-character versus out-of-character knowledge for the players.

It seems to me that there is no logical reason why a storygame (in the sense of a game being played for the story) shouldn't involve an element of fudging in the right circumstances, once you divorce the notion of storygame from the Edwardsian dogma and doctrine which tend to cluster around that concept. IF that element of fudging makes the game the poorer, I would say that's no different to in a trad game, where it also does so.

Thus for instance you could cheat at Fiasco to make the final narration more satisfying. And other players could overlook it cos it makes the story end better.

Quote from: Omnifray;505093I don't buy that logic.

A roleplaying game is also there to be played, not simply narrated by the GM.

I'm very trad really, and I far prefer dice-rolls to be made in the open whenever that doesn't create problems in terms of in-character versus out-of-character knowledge for the players.

It seems to me that there is no logical reason why a storygame (in the sense of a game being played for the story) shouldn't involve an element of fudging in the right circumstances, once you divorce the notion of storygame from the Edwardsian dogma and doctrine which tend to cluster around that concept. IF that element of fudging makes the game the poorer, I would say that's no different to in a trad game, where it also does so.

Thus for instance you could cheat at Fiasco to make the final narration more satisfying. And other players could overlook it cos it makes the story end better.

You can "not buy" that logic all you want, that doesn't change the way things are. You will probably never find a storygame that comes out and proclaims a rule zero or something like the gamemaster has the power to fudge die rolls. However it is fairly easy to find trad games with these rules and most trad gamemasters just assume they have this power out of tradition.

I am not saying one thing is superior, I am just saying that when you think storygames are about a predecided story or a collaborative story writing, then that is a misconception. Sure, in a storygame you usually decide the setting of your story together, but after that, you have to back up your stuff with die rolls.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335Many of us probably play games where CharGen takes forty minutes to an hour.

Not if I can help it.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335Some of us probably play games where CharGen can take a whole session . . .

I won't play a game where chargen could possibly take that long to complete.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335. . . and players go on to build lovingly crafted backstories for their characters.

I encourage players to stick with minimal backstories. If they don't heed that advice, then the consequences are on them.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335But what if literally the first significant thing that happens after CharGen is that through some mildly imprudent choice your character ends up exposed to some common ailment, rolls badly and dies?

Like the guy who's dwarf fighter sank into a hole in the bottom of a stream and drowned on the way into the dungeon?

Quote from: Omnifray;503335Would you rewind the game and say, let's keep the character and start again?

No.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335Would you overrule the dice?

No.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335Assuming that the players have participated in lengthy CharGen:- Is it acceptable to kill a character in the very first session?

Sure.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335Is it acceptable to visibly fudge it so the character doesn't die in the very first session? What about invisibly?

Neither one is acceptable to me.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335What about if you're only ten or twenty minutes into the very first session?

Then we've likely had our first memorable moment of the campaign.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335I'm all for expecting players to be robust about character death, but if you make your mate sit down for two hours to gen up a character . . .

Please tell me you see that as the real problem here.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335. . .  then straight away roll some dice and tell him he's dead, you're going to provoke some kind of a tantrum at the very least. You might well get punched in the face.

Seriously? These are the kind of people you play with?

Quote from: Omnifray;503335So what's the answer to this, and what implications does it have for the kinds of game we're playing, for immersion, for emulation, for believability, for the "we're not here to tell stories" argument, for "script immunity"?

One answer is, Don't play games that require lengthy cargen.

Another is, Set clear expectations at the outset.

Another is, Don't throw the dice if you're not prepared to accept the results.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505166You will probably never find a storygame that comes out and proclaims a rule zero or something like the gamemaster has the power to fudge die rolls. However it is fairly easy to find trad games with these rules and most trad gamemasters just assume they have this power out of tradition.

Speaking as a pretty trad gamer, I roll in the open, and the results stand.

Quote

QuoteMany of us probably play games where CharGen takes forty minutes to an hour.

Not if I can help it.

I am kewl with it.  It is not like we are in a hurry anyways.

Quote

QuoteSome of us probably play games where CharGen can take a whole session . . .

I won't play a game where chargen could possibly take that long to complete.

Hmmm, extremely unusual because in over 36+ years, I never had that happen.  What game is this you speak of???


 

Quote

Quote. . . and players go on to build lovingly crafted backstories for their characters.

I encourage players to stick with minimal backstories. If they don't heed that advice, then the consequences are on them.

I prefer decent backstories but not a novel.  I encourage it.  Personalization of characters is important in my game.

Quote

QuoteBut what if literally the first significant thing that happens after CharGen is that through some mildly imprudent choice your character ends up exposed to some common ailment, rolls badly and dies?

Like the guy who's dwarf fighter sank into a hole in the bottom of a stream and drowned on the way into the dungeon?

Crap happens...


 

Quote

QuoteWould you rewind the game and say, let's keep the character and start again?

No.

Nope.  Never.


 

Quote

QuoteWould you overrule the dice?

No.

Oh hell no.  Never.

Quote

QuoteAssuming that the players have participated in lengthy CharGen:- Is it acceptable to kill a character in the very first session?

Sure.

Absolutely...


 

Quote

QuoteIs it acceptable to visibly fudge it so the character doesn't die in the very first session? What about invisibly?

Neither one is acceptable to me.

I do not fudge rolls.  Why fudge them if you roll in front of players.  Poor decision if you do.  The die lands where it rolls.  

Quote

QuoteWhat about if you're only ten or twenty minutes into the very first session?

Then we've likely had our first memorable moment of the campaign.

Have you ever played with a group of players in S1 The Tomb Of Horrors???


 

Quote

QuoteI'm all for expecting players to be robust about character death, but if you make your mate sit down for two hours to gen up a character . . .

Please tell me you see that as the real problem here.

It is what it is.  If not, find another hobby to play.


 

Quote

Quote. . . then straight away roll some dice and tell him he's dead, you're going to provoke some kind of a tantrum at the very least. You might well get punched in the face.

Seriously? These are the kind of people you play with?

Are these people at your table?   They would punch you in your face.  Hope you have a lot fo makeup to cover the bruises.


 

Quote

QuoteSo what's the answer to this, and what implications does it have for the kinds of game we're playing, for immersion, for emulation, for believability, for the "we're not here to tell stories" argument, for "script immunity"?

One answer is, Don't play games that require lengthy cargen.

Another is, Set clear expectations at the outset.

Another is, Don't throw the dice if you're not prepared to accept the results.

I disagree with the first part about games that require lengthy character generation.  If that is what the players want, who am I to say otherwise.

I agree with setting expectations.  Let them know how you are as a DM.

I agree with the third point wholeheartedly.

Quote from: B.T.;503765Dexterity check or die?  Sounds like a shitty GM.  Dexterity check or slip is another thing, but telling you straight off the bat that your character falls to his death unless you pass a check is junk.

I have no issue with save-or-die situations.

The question in my mind is, did the adventurer have an opportunity to do something which could've reduced the risk? #greylond notes that the adventurer in the ledge example could've roped up but neglected to do so out of a sense of invulnerability.

Turning the situation into, 'Roll to slip. Now roll to wave your arms and regain your balance. Now roll to grap the edge with your fingertips. Now roll to grab a shrub sticking out of the cliff,' annoys me no end. If I was refereeing the example, I'd consider allowing someone else's character to try to roll to grab the falling adventurer - at considerable personal risk - but if that's not reasonable under the circumstances, the adventurer is buzzard bait. Here's a blank character sheet, and let me know what you come up with so I can work the new guy in.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;505498Speaking as a pretty trad gamer, I roll in the open, and the results stand.

And I salute you for doing so.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505166You can "not buy" that logic all you want, that doesn't change the way things are. You will probably never find a storygame that comes out and proclaims a rule zero or something like the gamemaster has the power to fudge die rolls.

If that's true at all, it's only because they all worship at the shrine of the Forge, where "system matters", etc. etc. If trad gamers become attached to characters and may be tempted to fudge to save them, why not storygamers becoming attached to themes and tempted to fudge to save them? I'm thinking of a post-Edwards world here, where people are liberated from the shackles of The "Big" "Model".

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505166However it is fairly easy to find trad games with these rules and most trad gamemasters just assume they have this power out of tradition.

In fact AD&D 1st ed DMG specifically gives the example of, where a player has been tactically sensible and careful, changing a death into a devastating injury, because people build up attachments to their characters.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505166... I am just saying that when you think storygames are about a predecided story or a collaborative story writing, then that is a misconception. Sure, in a storygame you usually decide the setting of your story together, but after that, you have to back up your stuff with die rolls.

I'm not saying they're necessarily about a predecided story (though in some cases, e.g. Montsegur 1244, there is a heavy element of that... in a sense it compares very neatly to a heavily railroaded trad game except that the GMing role is shared out around the table). I'm not saying that they're necessarily about collaborative story writing (though Fiasco is essentially that). People seem to play storygames to "get creative" and "explore themes" and because the focus of their enjoyment is the developing "story" they want to have a hand in it.

Suppose (as a thought experiment) that they're not playing a tailored storygame system but are in effect storygaming with the written rules for a trad RPG. They would be "fudging" things all the time by, for instance, not rolling for a random enounter in D&D if it would interfere with the pace of the "story", or not rolling for a goblin to hit the 1 HP magic-user because it's not a fitting time for him to die. How is that different, in principle, to having a tailored storygame system which allows you, for instance, to dictate the stakes in advance of rolling dice?

Any deviation from simulationist-probabalistic randomisation of tasks/fights could be regarded as a bit of fudgeroo. This is not to say that fudgeroo is necessarily a bad thing - what I want for instance is immersion and atmosphere (excitement, fear, mystery etc.), not necessarily pure simulation.

Anyway by that measure, story games are the ultimate in fudgeroo, because they are so vehemently anti-simulation. For instance, if we weren't "fudging" things in Montsegur 1244 by giving central characters script immunity, they might be trying silly heroics and getting killed before the story reached its fruition. In Fiasco, you might easily get to a situation where the most likely outcome is for a character to die before the end of the game. Yet that isn't permitted. It's like a big fudge, but oh no, honest it's not a fudge, because it's written in the black and white rules! How is that different to a fudge in a trad game if the GM's fudgeroo power is also written in the black and white rules? It's a pretension, a conceit, a vanity, a self-delusion to think that storygamers don't fudge. They hardwire the fudging into the rules!! - and call it script immunity or whatever.

That's why storygamers often come across as munchkins to those trad gamers who don't really understand what storygamers are about or can't empathise with them. The storygamer's unwillingness to have realistic probabilities dictate the outcome of the game, just like his unwillingness to submit to the rule of an all-powerful GM, makes him seem like a total whinger. I'm not saying that that's a fair assessment of the storygamer, just that from an insular trad gamer's point of view, munchkins and storygamers can often seem similar.

[Rant over!]

Quote from: Black Vulmea;505497...
Seriously? These are the kind of people you play with?
...

No, but someone once told me face to face about how he wanted to break a game designer's face in because the game design had in effect set the situation up to happen which I described in the OP. I doubt he would have actually done it though if he'd had the chance - he seems a nice enough guy.

I've never seen an RPG session degenerate into real-world violence as far as I can recall (heated discussion, sure, and maybe a couple of times in my life I've seen people make threats of violence), but I've heard of it happening.

I ought to add, I've gamed with hundreds of different people. It's not as if anyone I currently game with regularly has ever threatened anyone with game-related violence that I'm aware of. If you game with enough people eventually you will meet a complete fruit loop.

Quote from: Omnifray;505564Any deviation from simulationist-probabalistic randomisation of tasks/fights could be regarded as a bit of fudgeroo.

Yeah, you and me both know that you are not really thinking that and that you know full well that rules for genre emulation are not the same thing as fudging and that you picked two very specific examples that have no analogue in the majority of storygames... and that even those two examples are kinda weak.

As for your first paragraphs... I can't answer to that, I don't read the forge. Personally, I think system matters, because that is my experience in actual play and I don't like changing the rules, because well, we had a thread about that and I am not going to summon the trolls again.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505632Yeah, you and me both know that you are not really thinking that and that you know full well that rules for genre emulation are not the same thing as fudging ...

...

To me, the line between "fudging" and rules for "genre emulation" is a thin one... you're twisting common sense / logic / internal coherence to make the game go a certain way, it's fudgeroo

Quote from: Omnifray;505645you're twisting common sense / logic / internal coherence to make the game go a certain way, it's fudgeroo

Ummm, storygames are internally coherent and logical. They just don't try to emulate real world physics. Which all RPGs fail at anyway, so I really don't see your point.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505728Ummm, storygames are internally coherent and logical. They just don't try to emulate real world physics. Which all RPGs fail at anyway, so I really don't see your point.

Well for instance the way how apparently according to something I read online recently in AW having sex can increase your chances in a fight... presumably out of all proportion to a natural testosterone boost (!)

Actually what I'm really getting at is that fudgeroo can still be internally coherent and logical - it's when you move away from simulationist-probabalistic reality modelling that you are getting into "fudge" territory because you are fudging probabilities/simulation if nothing else. Not saying this doesn't happen to some degree in ALL RPGs but storygames are teh suxxorz in this regard.

Quote from: Omnifray;505759Actually what I'm really getting at is that fudgeroo can still be internally coherent and logical - it's when you move away from simulationist-probabalistic reality modelling that you are getting into "fudge" territory because you are fudging probabilities/simulation if nothing else. Not saying this doesn't happen to some degree in ALL RPGs but storygames are teh suxxorz in this regard.

So you are really thinking that there are RPGs out there that model reality and not a genre? If that is really the case then I have several bridges and mountain ranges to sell to you.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505788So you are really thinking that there are RPGs out there that model reality and not a genre? If that is really the case then I have several bridges and mountain ranges to sell to you.

No, I'm saying that all RPGs exhibit some element of fudgeroo, but it's a matter of degree how much fudgeroo there is. The closer an RPG stays to modelling reality (or at least basing itself on simulationist-probabalistic task-resolution rather than what storygamers seem to be pleased to call "conflict resolution"), the less fudgey it is. I'm certainly not saying that any RPG is primarily a model of reality but storygames tend to be the furthest from that IMHO.

Quote from: Omnifray;506025No, I'm saying that all RPGs exhibit some element of fudgeroo, but it's a matter of degree how much fudgeroo there is. The closer an RPG stays to modelling reality (or at least basing itself on simulationist-probabalistic task-resolution rather than what storygamers seem to be pleased to call "conflict resolution"), the less fudgey it is. I'm certainly not saying that any RPG is primarily a model of reality but storygames tend to be the furthest from that IMHO.

Every storygame is just as far removed from reality as every other RPG, i.e. the two (reality and games) have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

You forget, Omnifray, that for true hardcore "stories", fudging is a terrible, terrible crime, as it is a province of GMing, and a GM is someone who should not be allowed to tamper with the beautiful story that is being told at the table. In fact, it's best that GM just narrates occasionally, and leaves everything else to the dice & players. Fudging dice would be using the GM's "powers", and that's something terrible, for the GM should be powerless, because the GM is a terrible tyrant, who only waits to crush the players under his fist, if he is allowed to roam unchecked by rules.

And after all, a combat where a hero may die, has no place in the real game, lest the player allows his hero to be engaged in such a conflict, of course.

In other words, Omnifray - you are using too much common sense and logic here. Care about your Sanity points, if not about me.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506028You forget, Omnifray, that for true hardcore "stories", fudging is a terrible, terrible crime, as it is a province of GMing, and a GM is someone who should not be allowed to tamper with the beautiful story that is being told at the table. In fact, it's best that GM just narrates occasionally, and leaves everything else to the dice & players. Fudging dice would be using the GM's "powers", and that's something terrible, for the GM should be powerless, because the GM is a terrible tyrant, who only waits to crush the players under his fist, if he is allowed to roam unchecked by rules.

And after all, a combat where a hero may die, has no place in the real game, lest the player allows his hero to be engaged in such a conflict, of course.

In other words, Omnifray - you are using too much common sense and logic here. Care about your Sanity points, if not about me.

So you are still drunkenly rambling. Good to know.

Or in other words: You stupid cunt, stop talking out of your ass like you are some oh so great sage of RPGs. You are a non-gamer on the internet armchair gamemastering and if you actually played games you would know that you were talking shit just now.

Fudging is what people do to "keep it interesting" or "prevent the players or their actions from spoiling the plot" or "keep a character from dying". So it is actually the exact opposite of what you are saying. People who fudge want to prevent tampering with their beautiful story, not people who don't fudge.

And stop bringing up your gamemaster martyrdom, it made you look ridiculous when you tried your stillborn gamemaster pride booklet and now it only emphasizes that you have actually no idea what the fuck you are talking about. There are tons of storygames with strong gamemasters. Being Anti-GM has nothing to do with not liking fudging. There are tons of very traditional players who abhor fudging, because roleplaying games are well, games and in games you don't cheat. Simple as that.

@Omnifray: My apologies for that outburst. I thought about what you said and came to the conclusion that we use fundamentally different definitions of fudging. For me fudging is, when you change the game rules/ignore the dice in play to influence events in the game. For you fudging is every deviation from what you percieve as a realistic simulation.
I am not saying yours is worse than mine, I am just saying with definitions that different we probably won't find common ground and perhaps should just agree to disagree.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;506041So you are still drunkenly rambling. Good to know.

Ah, another classic counter - argument of a true gentleman. No substance, and no panache.

If you want to go ahead and insult me - balls to the wall, lad. Call me a pleb who does not understand what RPGs are all about, and who should read The Big Model rather then post his bollocks on forums, as you are so tempted to do with the "Oh, my games are not for everyone" attitude.

Imagination, lad. In Internet, there's no magical ruleset to save your ass. If you want to insult me, at least be amusing in your attempts. I'll give you a clue - I'm fat, you can shoot some jokes down that aisle.

Or, you can, like the rest of your likes, claim that fudging dice is some great evil of RPGs.

QuoteOr in other words: You stupid cunt, stop talking out of your ass like you are some oh so great sage of RPGs. You are a non-gamer on the internet armchair gamemastering and if you actually played games you would know that you were talking shit just now.

Fudging is what people do to "keep it interesting" or "prevent the players or their actions from spoiling the plot" or "keep a character from dying". So it is actually the exact opposite of what you are saying. People who fudge want to prevent tampering with their beautiful story, not people who don't fudge.

And stop bringing up your gamemaster martyrdom, it made you look ridiculous when you tried your stillborn gamemaster pride booklet and now it only emphasizes that you have actually no idea what the fuck you are talking about. There are tons of storygames with strong gamemasters. Being Anti-GM has nothing to do with not liking fudging. There are tons of very traditional players who abhor fudging, because roleplaying games are well, games and in games you don't cheat. Simple as that.

Awww, the baby's finally out of the water - U MAD? You are wrong for a simple reason - what if I fudge the dice to REWARD roleplaying? If the players did all they could, and invented a cunning and splendid plan to solve a mystery, why should I not fudge the dice in their favour? They worked hard, they deserve a break from time to time. Dice don't kill people in my games - I do.

Or what if the players are doing really terribly in combat, despite great tactics, and actually thinking for once? I think such an occasion is deserving of giving them a little hate. I mean, of course there are those who will scream "NO FUDGING", but I have yet to see one in real - life.

Of course, it's another thing that a good GM will make sure that his players will never notice that dice were fudged. Because games, are not, dun dun dun - real life. Emulation is emulation, but if a guy keeps rolling bad dice all day, even I can feel a bit bad for him - and if he's not having fun, I'll help him out, if he roleplays well.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506045Ah, another classic counter - argument of a true gentleman. No substance, and no panache.

Ah another classical try to dodge the point. You have been served. You know it, I know it, everyone who reads the posts knows it.
You and your theory bullshit can come back and try again when you have actually played some games.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;506048Ah another classical try to dodge the point. You have been served. You know it, I know it, everyone who reads the posts knows it.
You and your theory bullshit can come back and try again when you have actually played some games.

If by served you mean "Proved that you are just a pretentious douchebag who can not stand a bit of sarcastic criticism", then yes, I indeed had been served. As for the accusations of me being a BNG - well, here you go, here are my ToC campaign notes so far (in Polish for  the most part, sadly)

QuoteIn 1862, Dante Gabriel Rossetti
buried the only copy of his poems
in Highgate Cemetery with his
wife Elizabeth Siddal, a rumored
suicide by laudanum after a
stillbirth. In 1869, Rossetti’s
friend, the forger and blackmailer
Charles Augustus Howell,
exhumed Siddal’s body at night
and claimed to have recovered
the book of poems, partially
eaten away by a worm. Rossetti
published the poems as his, but
the scandal nearly destroyed
him; Howell turned up with his
throat slit in Chelsea in 1890, a
ten-shilling coin in his mouth.
Now, Evander Corder, a wouldbe
necromancer and wannabe
poet, believes the poems Rossetti
published were “collaborations
with the dead,” and plans his own
Highgate experiments on that
line.

Ernest Maggs, a principal of
Maggs Bros. Rare Books, hopes
to use his firm’s profits from the
sale of the Codex Sinaiticus
by the Soviet government to
move his establishment from its
Conduit Street shop to Berkeley
Square in Mayfair. Specifically,
to No. 50, Berkeley Square,
which has remained untenanted
(and thus quite reasonable for
a Mayfair address only 300
yards from Bond Street) since
1870. However, before he
can recommend such action
to his partners, he needs to
be reassured that the “oozing,
shapeless horror” that haunts
the third floor is no more. It has
driven at least four people mad,
killed at least two men who
slept there overnight (and one
who jumped out the window
and impaled himself on the
surrounding fence in 1879),
and has been seen by numerous
witnesses including Lord
Lyttleton, who fired a shotgun
full of silver sixpences at it in 1872

Under its drifts of stained
paperbacks and borderline
pornography, a shabby book-cart
in Liverpool Street Station also
sells books from the 18th and
19th century in varying states
of disrepair and decay: some as
fresh as if they’d come from the
printers, most soiled and eaten
with worms and dirt. Once in a
while, a book written by hand and
bound in human skin shows up in
the cart’s stash – usually on some
disquieting topic, or containing
extraordinarily unsettling poetry.
The cart moves all around the
enormous Underground and
railway station, never appearing in
the same location regularly enough
to be shut down by the police. The
grimy, furtive cart-keeper speaks
no English, and takes only silver.



Właściwa przygoda

Do sklepu graczy zachodzi Timon Burray. Jego znajomy z teozoficznej grupy, Evander Corder (członek kultystów z grupy Keirercheires) poprosił go aby załatwił pewną księgę - Libris Satanicus, wydanie Eingelta z roku 1876. Musi być to określone wydanie. Aby upewnić się iż grupa wykona zadanie, Evander wynajał postać Krzyśka.

Faza pierwsza:

Gracze dowiadują się z jakiegoś źródła (najpierw np. barman, który odsyła ich do pewnego pijaczka (tutaj rozmowa w której jeden z nich wspomina o tym, że kiedy ten włamał sie do domu w Seven Dials, trafił do innego wymiaru, od pijaczka - włamywacza natomiast zostaja skierowani do alfonsa, który z kolei kieruję ich do pewnego pasera), iż niejaki Jack Malloney, pomniejszy z gangsterów East Endu, organizuje aukcję na której podobno ową księgę dostać będzie można.- za rozsądną cenę...jak i trzeba zdobyć jakoś zaproszenie na aukcję. Zaproszenie można ukraść od kogoś (chociażby od Vanca Holmeyna, rywala w handlu antykwarycznym, który takie zaproszenie dostał - poinformuję o tym prostytutka z którą ten spał ostatnio, lub przekupiony sprzedawca w jego sklepie), lub też dostać od Jacka - w zamian za rozsądną przysługę (lub też Squiza). Przysługę tą (poprosi o nią paser, człowiek Jacka) jest zrobienie fałszywki atlasu map z czasów wojny siedmioletniej.

Faza Druga:

Na aukcji gracze dowiadują się, że aukcja jest ustawiona - człowiek Ernesta Moggsa przekupił innych licytujących żeby stworzyć Knocka, i to on właśnie zgarnie Libris Satanicu. Moggs rozstanie się z książką pod jednym warunkiem - iż gracze spędzą trzy noce z rzędu w domu na 50 Berkley Square. Jeśli gracze postanowią trochę się o to wszystko rozpytać, okaże się że w latach 1860 - 1870 mieszkał w tym mieszkaniu niejaki Edward Norrington, znany satanista. Zaginął w tajemniczych okolicznościach 31 Grudnia 1870 roku. Jeśli gracze są zainteresowani, tak się składa iż bibliografia Edwardsa (być może także jego pamiętnik?) trafiła w posiadanie Andrew Spencer- członka okultystycznego kręgu do którego należy postać ziółka, i zapalonego fascynata dzieł Jonathana Swifta (Squib - Meditations Upon a Broomstick? Jeśli nie, to akurat to dzieło wystawione jest na auckcji w Sothbury - trzeba będzie jednak kompetetować z Lordem Ausbury i Panią w Zielonym Kapeluszu, ewentualnie ).  Za działkę opium zgodzi się też pożyczyć flet Edwardsa  - zrobiony podobno z autentycznej ludzkiej kości. Sam dziennik Edwardsa zapewnia 1 punkt Cthulhu Mythos, 2 dedykowane punkty okultyzmu (Satanizm), oraz 2 punkty Magii - jeśli czar rzucany jest w domu Edwardsa.

Faza 3

W pamiętniku Edwardsa, jak się okaże, znajdują się dwa czary - Przywołanie/Spętanie Zewnętrznego Bóstwa, jak i Stworzenie Magicznego Przedmiotu. Edwardsowi to ostatnie nie wyszło - zabrakło siły ducha.

Gracze zapewne zdecydują się mimo wszystko skorzystać z oferty Ernesta Moggsa. Po udaniu się do mieszkania, (trzy piętra i strych, wszystkie opuszczone - szczególnie ostatnie), czekają ich trzy noce grozy.

Dzień pierwszy: W kuchni gracza zaatakuje latający nóż.

Noc pierwsza:

Nie dzieje się nic specjalnego. Ot, we śnie badaczom ukaże się tajemnicza, splątana postać, której towarzyszyć będzie straszliwy jazgot i zawodzenie piszczałek. Pod koniec snu w stronę postaci zwróci się ogromna księga, trzymana przez postać tajemniczego, uśmiechającego się czarnego mężczyzny.


Dzień drugi:

Gracze zorientują sie, iż drzwi są zamkniętę i nie da się ich otworzyć. Gdzieś tak koło 16 zauważą iż dziwna, zielono - czerwona substancja kapie z sufitu na 1 piętrze.

Noc druga

Gracze "obudzą" się, stojąc na jakieś ogromnej, dziwnej, nieco miekkiej powierzchi. Wokół nich będzie jedynie ciemność - czasem, nad głową, przeleci jakiś ogromny obiekt, a przynajmniej tak się wydaje. Zewsząd dochodzi straszliwy pisk piszczałek. Dopiero gdy trochę pochodzą, nagle ujrzą ogromne oko, większe niż planeta Ziemia, które spogląda się na nich... - co najmniej 1 hit w Sanity.

Dzień trzeci

Całe dolne piętro zalane jest przez dziwną, zielonawo - czerwoną substancję, która zaczyna też przelewać się na drugie piętro, zmuszając badaczy do odwrotu.

Noc trzecia

W czasie trzeciej nocy ukaże się, w całej okazałości, Sługa Bogów Zewnętrznych - Ogromna, niby - skorupiakowo - rakowa istota, pokryta dziwacznymi, zielono - czarnymi porami, niczym skóra aligatora. Będzie ślizgał się po podłodze w stronę graczy, zawodząc przeraźliwie na swojej fujarce.

Zakończenie

Jeśli graczom udało się przeżyć i odpędzić stwora, wszelkie ślady paranormalnej aktywności znikną, zaś Moggs wywiąże się ze swojej umowy.


These amorphous beings progress
by rolling or slithering. They
resemble frogs, as well as squids
or octopi. Servitors accompany
their masters as required.
These are the demon flautists
that play the cacodaemoniacal
piping for their masters’ dance.
They sometimes play for groups
of cultists as well, as a sort of
background dirge, or in order to
summon various deities.

Game Statistics
Abilities: Athletics 6, Health 8,
Scuffling 9
Hit Threshold: 3
Alertness Modifier: +1
Stealth Modifier: -2 (infernal
piping)
Weapon: -2 (tentacle), but for
each hit, roll damage 1d6 times for
multiple tentacle attacks.
Armor: no physical weapon can
harm one; magical weapons do
normal damage; regenerates 1
Health each round until dead or banished.

Stability loss +2

Investigation
Chemistry: That green liquid
isn’t vegetation, no matter what it
smells like. There’s not a trace of
chlorophyll, or even cellulose, in
it. Lots of methane, though, bound
up in some kind of weird colloid.
(Biology)
Evidence Collection: There
were twelve spent brass in the
clearing, but only three bullet
holes anywhere. Something
soaked up nine shots and walked
off with the bullets. The scene
stinks like a swamp, too, strange
in this dry spell. And the trail
– not only the green stain, but
the crushed grass and such
— just peters out about 40 feet on
either side of the crime scene.
Forensics: The body was
lacerated and nearly flayed in
strips, with trauma consistent
with bullwhip or knout injuries.
Nine ribs, the sternum, both
collarbones, and all the bones
in both forearms were broken,
and several vertebra dislocated
or smashed together. The welts
and lacerations were bloody and
filled with a clear greenish liquid,
probably vegetation of some sort.
Sense Trouble: Do you smell
methane?




Summon/Bind Servitor
of the Outer Gods
The caster must play a specific
hellish piping on a flute, on
an ominous day when the
planets are unbalanced, such as
Walpurgisnacht or Midsummer’s
Eve. The Servitor rolls out of
a wave of visual distortion or
congealing mist, and may make
one attack on the caster before
being bound.
An unbound Servitor resists
binding with an Inertia of 19, or
9 if the flute is enchanted, or
3 if the flute is one taken from
another Servitor.
Stability Test Difficulty: 5 (4 with
an Art spend to play the flute)
Cost: 6 Stability
Time: Summoning takes 30
minutes of maniacal piping;
binding takes five minutes (or 4
rounds with an Art spend to play very fast


Enchant Item:
Under this generic heading fall
the various enchanted knives,
books, chains, whistles, stones,
towers, menhirs, etc used for
casting Mythos spells. Each sort
of enchantment is a different
spell, and the Keeper should
feel free to detail the exact
ingredients or actions required
for a given enchantment. Any
enchanted weapon must be
used to take a life, triggering the
appropriate Stability test.
Stability Test Difficulty: 5 (4 with
relevant Craft or Art spend)
Cost: 3 Stability pool points, and
a minimum of 1 Stability rating
point. For each 1 additional
sacrificed rating point, the item
adds 1 to all relevant casting
rolls for its associated spell, and
provides 1 dedicated pool point
for contests if the spell is a ritual
Time: Varies, but usually weeks
or months

A bit chaotic, but they serve their purpose.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506045You are wrong for a simple reason - what if I fudge the dice to REWARD roleplaying?

Roleplaying is its own reward, there is no need to pamper your players for something they are already doing and having fun with.
And if clever plans fail, then they fail. Sometimes, somethings are not meant to be, there is really no need to take your players by the hand and lessen their achievements by handing them success on a silver platter.

"Here, the dice were not with you but I think your plan is cute, have a ribbon."

Quote from: DominikSchwager;506052Roleplaying is its own reward, there is no need to pamper your players for something they are already doing and having fun with.
And if clever plans fail, then they fail. Sometimes, somethings are not meant to be, there is really no need to take your players by the hand and lessen their achievements by handing them success on a silver platter.

"Here, the dice were not with you but I think your plan is cute, have a ribbon."

You mistake being nice and rewarding to players with stealing satisfaction from them. I could write an elaborate post on how one needs to be careful with dice fudging, but I think I'd rather go shopping.

See, you forget also a simple thing - I actually have a player in my group who told me "You know, please don't stop any punches that land my way" - and I respect his decision. He gets bonus XP at the end of the session, but I never give him any narration modifiers, etc. etc.

And if players are making a great job roleplaying, if they help me create the world and the mood - then they deserve a reward, and not just in XPs. Of course, sometimes I will not fudge the dice, and wipe the party - but that is mine decision, and I need to rules to make it for me. But then again, as I said before - persuade someone they do not need freedom of choice, then take that freedom away, and next time someone tries to remind you of that freedom, defend the one who took it away.

Of course, I actually try to be a good GM to anyone who comes to my table, not just the 3 people I game with every week, so I need a bit more flexibility and common sense. And people keep coming to my table, despite knowing that their characters will be crushed, they will be tricked, cheated, lied and deceived, and that I will probably challenge them actually as people, not just a characters, and all that with a bunch of dice and a few sheets of paper.

Because I try to work hard as a GM, and I don't go "Well, perhaps my games are just not for you" if someone criticises me.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;506041@Omnifray: My apologies for that outburst. I thought about what you said and came to the conclusion that we use fundamentally different definitions of fudging. For me fudging is, when you change the game rules/ignore the dice in play to influence events in the game. For you fudging is every deviation from what you percieve as a realistic simulation.
I am not saying yours is worse than mine, I am just saying with definitions that different we probably won't find common ground and perhaps should just agree to disagree.

Please don't apologise for your outbursts lest I feel obliged to apologise for mine :p

The point of what I'm saying is that fudgeroo doesn't stop being fudgeroo just because you hardwire it into the rules.

Looking at your strict definition, "change the game rules/ignore the dice", I would argue (assuming the normally fatal number for HP in AD&D 1st ed to be -10, which I think is right but I'm not entirely sure):-

The classic statement in AD&D 1st ed DMG about how to handle hit point loss when PCs could die from it is simply to the effect that the DM has discretion to narrate it as a crippling injury rather than actual death. This is therefore hardwired into the rules of AD&D and by using this option the DM is therefore not "changing the rules" because he is simply resorting to the written rules as they already stand, not altering them in the course of play. Furthermore, the DM is not "ignoring the dice". He is very much guided by the dice in concluding that the PC has suffered an extreme setback (be it death or crippling injury). You could only argue that the DM was "ignoring the dice" if you took it to be a rule of D&D that HP -10 [or whatever the fatal number is] = death. However, in view of the text in AD&D 1st ed DMG, in AD&D 1st ed, there is no strict rule, in relation to PCs, that HP -10 = death. On the contrary, the PCs have a limited form of "script immunity" hardwired into the rules. It has strict boundaries:- you can never overrule a system shock survival roll. It is also subject to guidelines:- you don't save a PC whose player has been stupid or failed to take precautions. However, taking your definition of fudging, under AD&D 1st ed, the DM's narration of crippling injury instead of death when a PC's HP drop to -10 is not fudging. It is simply part of the rules.

I could go on, but the gist of it is that your definition of fudging is useless, and virtually meaningless. If you can apply it to say that storygamers don't fudge, you can also apply it to a lot of trad games to say that trad gamers don't fudge too. It is a mere conceit and self-delusion. All is vanity.

Quote from: Omnifray;506116I could go on, but the gist of it is that your definition of fudging is useless, and virtually meaningless. If you can apply it to say that storygamers don't fudge, you can also apply it to a lot of trad games to say that trad gamers don't fudge too. It is a mere conceit and self-delusion. All is vanity.

Funny how that goes. I'd say your definition of fudging is so broad, it is meaningless.
But yes, I agree, luckily many trad gamers don't fudge either as I enjoy some trad games myself.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506060I actually have a player in my group who told me "You know, please don't stop any punches that land my way" - and I respect his decision.

It's good that you're upfront with your players about fudging the dice. I hope you are as forthright about making up a plot from the players' speculations (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?607915-Cat-on-a-String&p=14918079#post14918079), too. I go out of my way to avoid both of those, so I really appreciate when a referee is upfront about his approach to running the game.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;506417It's good that you're upfront with your players about fudging the dice. I hope you are as forthright about making up a plot from the players' speculations (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?607915-Cat-on-a-String&p=14918079#post14918079), too. I go out of my way to avoid both of those, so I really appreciate when a referee is upfront about his approach to running the game.

Well, they know if they RP well and stay IC, I might help them out a bit will they need it. In Warhammer, every bit helps.

The second one I don't tell them, because I think it might've destroyed immersion for them - I do that really only when I'm playing a game "on the run".

Then again, hiding both of those things, or at least the very happening of such, should and is the GM's duty. As I like to say "What players don't see, won't hurt them".

Yeah, I'm a black wizard, but what can you do.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506482Then again, hiding both of those things, or at least the very happening of such, should and is the GM's duty. As I like to say "What players don't see, won't hurt them".

Or you could just play the game without misleading the players, which works for me.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;506550Or you could just play the game without misleading the players, which works for me.

I'd not call fudging the dice misleading. But you can fudge, you don't have too - I sometimes fudge. I don't see how storygames are better then normal RPGs, because there's no fudging in them. I can do just as little fudging in Warhammer, if I desire so.

If you want to make some claims about "moral superiority" of not fudging rolls in RPGs, good luck, but I go to the toilet when I need to see some goo.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506711I'd not call fudging the dice misleading.

No doubt, but if you let the players think that their decisions and their interaction with the rules of the game are just a show while you give thumbs-up-or-down based on your whims, well, I consider that misleading.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506711If you want to make some claims about "moral superiority". . .

I don't, and I haven't, so please don't put words in my mouth.

We're talking about playstyle preferences, not morality. I don't conflate the two.

I don't think one should fudge the dice really ever. I allow one reroll per player per session in D&D and other games that don't have some kind of hero points or what have you- but that is up front and regimented. Otherwise, i explain that death is always waiting in the wings and I roll out in the open.
I'm astounded that anyone would argue in favor of fudging the dice. The least you could do is lie about it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;506786No doubt, but if you let the players think that their decisions and their interaction with the rules of the game are just a show while you give thumbs-up-or-down based on your whims, well, I consider that misleading.

I think I've seen this referred to as illusionism. I definitely do not like it as a player.

Quote from: Aos;506791I think I've seen this referred to as illusionism. I definitely do not like it as a player.

I don't either. That's a deal-breaker to me, actually. I LIKE IT when shit happens to my character. I deal with it. That's the point of the game, or at least part of it. Being cuddled into a predetermined or spontaneously ordained universe because the GM feels it's "dramatically appropriate", or I can't take it, or the GM/scenario can't take it...? Fuck it, man.

I do fudge the dice, when the players made a really great plan, did a lot of preparations, and it's obvious that the dice are just hating them tonight.

You could say I'm just giving them a Good Plan Modifier - or you can say I fudge the dice. I don't really care neither way. Sometimes I fudge, sometimes I not. I certainly rarely give any form of Plot Immunity, if at all. If I fudge the dice in your favour, it means you really earned that shot, by great and coherent RP combined with good planning.

QuoteI don't either. That's a deal-breaker to me, actually. I LIKE IT when shit happens to my character. I deal with it. That's the point of the game, or at least part of it. Being cuddled into a predetermined or spontaneously ordained universe because the GM feels it's "dramatically appropriate", or I can't take it, or the GM/scenario can't take it...? Fuck it, man.

I certainly rarely pull any punches that land to my players, neither do I fudge so that they land.

Edit: lol, look what google showed up when I googled "roll or die"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgY5w0imGnc

Quote from: Rincewind1;506905I do fudge the dice, when the players made a really great plan, did a lot of preparations, and it's obvious that the dice are just hating them tonight.

You could say I'm just giving them a Good Plan Modifier - or you can say I fudge the dice. I don't really care neither way. Sometimes I fudge, sometimes I not. I certainly rarely give any form of Plot Immunity, if at all. If I fudge the dice in your favour, it means you really earned that shot, by great and coherent RP combined with good planning.

I can understand that, and in the heat of the moment, I can see how fudging a dice roll might prevent a great evening of gaming suddenly crashing might be the right move. GMing is a live gig, once your on you just have to do whatever it takes.

But I do think having to fudge dice rolls is a warning sign that something isn't quite working.  Maybe the system is right for the group, perhaps it's too lethal or too random. Or maybe you need some houserules for those areas you find dice fudge keeps creeping in. Or maybe the GM has been asking for for the "wrong" kind of dice roll.

I guess it's different for everyone. In my own experience, my GMing improved tremendously the moment I became much more deliberate about when I ask players for dice rolls.

Asking for dice rolls used to be just like a reflex, done out of habit more than anything or sometimes even just a pacing device. Most of the times I'd get away with it but occasionally end up with a result I didn't quite know what to make of or which clearly did nothing for the game. And that is when the temptation to fudge came.  

These days I have a much more conscious approach to dice rolls. I generally ask for fewer rolls but I try hard to consider the possible outcomes, both good and bad, from the roll before I even ask the player to roll. Sometimes, when I notice a player reaching for the dice, I have to tell the him not to roll until I figure what it all means. But overall with a more disciplined, deliberate approach to asking for dice roll I find the temptation to fudge dice is gone and I feel much more in control of my own GMing.

And yes that is one of the things I've taken away from "swine" games though I don't think it applies just to them.

Well, I agree that asking for rolls should be reserved for actions where risk means something - though I know that you made the point beyond that. I guess I just prefer to do all my "morale modifiers" on the fly, not stop and ponder about them - sometimes I do take a brief moment of halt when I count all the modifiers for the situation. I just have my, let's say, 5 - 10% in Warhammer special modifier for "Good RPing and Not Making GM Hit You". Creative and tactical use of battlefield's also important to me.

QuoteI can understand that, and in the heat of the moment, I can see how fudging a dice roll might prevent a great evening of gaming suddenly crashing might be the right move. GMing is a live gig, once your on you just have to do whatever it takes.

Well, a death of a hero is certainly also a great way to end an evening. I usually play Warhammer, so if a goblin hits you for 20 damage because of a fortunate roll, and you have no Fate Points - tough luck, even if you just defeated the Main Boss. If the same goblin'd be before the Main Boss, I'd in 99% of situations kill the PC still - but I understand there's that 1% of situations where I may save the characters' arse from cruel dice, if only so that he dies in next fight. Though the cruelty of damage is what I love in Warhammer 1e - last session, two of my Quite Powerful NPCs were wiped in two hits by the same character - he dealt 16 damage in first hit, and 39 in the second one xD.

If you rolled 16 for damage, when the Boss has 19 damage - tough luck. But if it was a mook - I may finish the fight already, if only to save 5 minutes off.

There is a recent influx of backpedaling in this thread.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;506997There is a recent influx of backpedaling in this thread.

Oh dear, me admitting that I may not properly understand what most mean by fudging, and still stand by that occasionally I will do that, though accepting some of the advice given here? Changing opinions when faced with reasonable arguments, I must be a madman, a lunatic!

Go back to your self - fellatio.

Quote from: Rincewind1;507012I must be a madman, a lunatic!

I am reasonably certain you are, not for the reasons you stated above though.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;507073I am reasonably certain you are, not for the reasons you stated above though.

Better to be a loon, then a bore.

Quote from: Omnifray;505564I'm not saying they're necessarily about a predecided story (though in some cases, e.g. Montsegur 1244, there is a heavy element of that... in a sense it compares very neatly to a heavily railroaded trad game except that the GMing role is shared out around the table). I'm not saying that they're necessarily about collaborative story writing (though Fiasco is essentially that). People seem to play storygames to "get creative" and "explore themes" and because the focus of their enjoyment is the developing "story" they want to have a hand in it.

Suppose (as a thought experiment) that they're not playing a tailored storygame system but are in effect storygaming with the written rules for a trad RPG. They would be "fudging" things all the time by, for instance, not rolling for a random enounter in D&D if it would interfere with the pace of the "story", or not rolling for a goblin to hit the 1 HP magic-user because it's not a fitting time for him to die. How is that different, in principle, to having a tailored storygame system which allows you, for instance, to dictate the stakes in advance of rolling dice?

Any deviation from simulationist-probabalistic randomisation of tasks/fights could be regarded as a bit of fudgeroo. This is not to say that fudgeroo is necessarily a bad thing - what I want for instance is immersion and atmosphere (excitement, fear, mystery etc.), not necessarily pure simulation.

Anyway by that measure, story games are the ultimate in fudgeroo, because they are so vehemently anti-simulation. For instance, if we weren't "fudging" things in Montsegur 1244 by giving central characters script immunity, they might be trying silly heroics and getting killed before the story reached its fruition. In Fiasco, you might easily get to a situation where the most likely outcome is for a character to die before the end of the game. Yet that isn't permitted. It's like a big fudge, but oh no, honest it's not a fudge, because it's written in the black and white rules! How is that different to a fudge in a trad game if the GM's fudgeroo power is also written in the black and white rules? It's a pretension, a conceit, a vanity, a self-delusion to think that storygamers don't fudge. They hardwire the fudging into the rules!! - and call it script immunity or whatever.

That's why storygamers often come across as munchkins to those trad gamers who don't really understand what storygamers are about or can't empathise with them. The storygamer's unwillingness to have realistic probabilities dictate the outcome of the game, just like his unwillingness to submit to the rule of an all-powerful GM, makes him seem like a total whinger. I'm not saying that that's a fair assessment of the storygamer, just that from an insular trad gamer's point of view, munchkins and storygamers can often seem similar.

[Rant over!]

I don't think storygamers are munchkins, I think they have completely different goals than roleplayers, which you've explained here rather well. Hence, storygames aren't RPGs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Omnifray;506025No, I'm saying that all RPGs exhibit some element of fudgeroo, but it's a matter of degree how much fudgeroo there is. The closer an RPG stays to modelling reality (or at least basing itself on simulationist-probabalistic task-resolution rather than what storygamers seem to be pleased to call "conflict resolution"), the less fudgey it is. I'm certainly not saying that any RPG is primarily a model of reality but storygames tend to be the furthest from that IMHO.

Emulation has nothing to do with "realism".

RPGPundit