Gaming and GM transperany

Rincewind1 · November 13, 2013, 12:02:51 PM

I can't believe I missed out the feudalism bit.

Game Master And Commander: Far Edge of the World. It's a shame I can't draw to save my life, or I'd draw a Leviathan's Sovereign made out of dice.

Arduin · November 13, 2013, 12:11:25 PM

Quote from: Rincewind1;707961I can't believe I missed out the feudalism bit.

Oh man! It was great. Game night in The Tower. Watching the sludge in the Thames... When a player's character died the player was carted off for a quick go at the Rack.

Rincewind1 · November 13, 2013, 12:17:52 PM

Quote from: Arduin;707964Oh man! It was great. Game night in The Tower. Watching the sludge in the Thames... When a player's character died the player was carted off for a quick go at the Rack.

Remember when the GMs could just whip their players if they disrespected them? #goodolddays.

Nexus · November 13, 2013, 09:17:26 PM

Quote from: Benoist;707944Not if your character wouldn't be able to guess, no.

One reason why I don't like to freely give out game attributes aside from asethetic preference is that most of the game I play have skills, abilities, powers, whatever that are specifically created so that character can learn these details accurately (though not necessarily game terms). By just passing them out I'm screwing the players that invested in those abilities.

Nexus · November 13, 2013, 09:22:46 PM

Quote from: Rincewind1;707968Remember when the GMs could just whip their players if they disrespected them? #goodolddays.

What? I remember my last session just fine. What of it?

Arduin · November 13, 2013, 09:28:41 PM

Quote from: Rincewind1;707968Remember when the GMs could just whip their players if they disrespected them? #goodolddays.

Those days are alive and well at My Game Table. :cheerleader:

Bill · November 14, 2013, 08:06:51 AM

I don't whip players, because some of them would kick my ass. But I have learned its ok to say No.

Arduin · November 14, 2013, 08:26:51 AM

Quote from: Bill;708273I don't whip players, because some of them would kick my ass.

Ah. You missed the 1st step to successful GMing. Cowing the players.

smiorgan · November 14, 2013, 11:24:26 AM

Quote from: Arduin;708280Cowing the players.

Fetchez la vache!

http://www.cardinalfang.net/misc/lego_grail.html

Bill · November 14, 2013, 11:26:19 AM

Quote from: Arduin;708280Ah. You missed the 1st step to successful GMing. Cowing the players.

You don't really need to pay that much attention to the players if you just tell them what their characters are doing.

Arduin · November 14, 2013, 11:28:58 AM

Quote from: Bill;708351You don't really need to pay that much attention to the players if you just tell them what their characters are doing.

True. Forgot that one.

RPGPundit · November 15, 2013, 02:45:46 PM

I don't generally want transparency at all. Usually, I would only want to do so in those rare cases where some player feels that I "just made up" something, that I'm being arbitrary and there was "no reason" why some event happened to them, or why some NPC reacted how they did. Then I'll open up the hood and explain to them exactly what happened and why they're acting like spoiled assholes right then.

Bill · November 15, 2013, 03:00:45 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;708836I don't generally want transparency at all. Usually, I would only want to do so in those rare cases where some player feels that I "just made up" something, that I'm being arbitrary and there was "no reason" why some event happened to them, or why some NPC reacted how they did. Then I'll open up the hood and explain to them exactly what happened and why they're acting like spoiled assholes right then.

I have had a few players over the years that got suspicious about something I did as a gm. I usually just explain to them the details after the fact.
The cause was the player not knowing all the info the gm has.

Such as, the player did not know a wizard had scryed on him, so it might have appeared the wizard knew something he should not have known.

Or, the player did not grasp that an npc was lying about something and the player was assuming something that was not accurate.

S'mon · November 15, 2013, 05:06:19 PM

As a GM I'm a bit of a transparency fundamentalist, I'll do wandering monster checks and NPC Reaction Rolls out in the open, and often explain the results. Often this adds to amusement at the table, eg in my dragonsfoot online campaigns one player's PC seems guaranteed to always get the best possible Reaction rolls from attractive female NPCs - 00 on d100 in 1e AD&D, double 6 on 2d6 in BX, and it's fun to joke about it. I'll also do the kriegspiel thing of declaring probalities then roll, eg "3 in 6 your reinforcements arrive in time..."

As a player I don't demand that level of openness, but the more the better. And I certainly want stuff like to-hit and damage rolls out in the open.

Exploderwizard · November 16, 2013, 07:46:26 AM

I do combat rolls out in the open, but reactions, and wandering monster checks and such stay behind the screen. I will also just toss dice when there are NO wandering monster chances just to keep players guessing.

I prefer hidden reaction rolls mainly because it would be impossible for an npc to maintain a poker face if the players saw the roll. If the evil merchant who is in league with the villain meets the PCs and gets a very poor reaction roll, he might try to appear friendly and helpful to deflect suspicion. An open roll would be like saying " HE'S BULLSHITTING YOU" with a megaphone.