Is that not basically the idea of both Rune and Agon?

Just looked at Agon, really NOT my kind of game. But there is the idea of strife points used to buy adversaries. Though the number of points spent isn't tied to the pc's in any way, its used to figure out the rewards.

The point system from the D&D minis game would probably work, and is readily portable.

Rune seems a lot closer. I can't tell from the free and preview material available if the points used to build encounters are derived from the abilities of characters.

D&D minis sounds interesting. Limiting but could serve as a good guideline.

Anyways, I would not want to always play an adversarial game. I do like to make things tough when appropriate.

On occasion I'd like to be able to run a game or two or a short campaign where its clear that I'm out for the smack down.

Quote from: jrientsI'm down with that.  Few things are more entertaining than the players surprising me with their cleverness.

That being said, I don't want an adversarial GM.  I want a calm, cool, impartial motherfucker.  I want a GM that has "4 balrogs" in his key and it doesn't matter whether I bring a lone 1st level commoner or the entirety of the Round Table, either way there's gonna be 4 balrogs in that room.

I agree.  I can't stand the style of GM-ing where everything is just made up as you go so it doesn't matter which hallway you go down, you're still going to run into those 4 orcs or whatever.

One of the guys who's a player in my group also GMs, and he always does stuff like that.  Some of my favorite examples:
* I use gaseous form to investigate a room, see it's filled with dangerous creatures, then decide to go a different way.  The creatures magically teleport to my location.
* We need to get into a castle, but it's heavily guarded.  We decide to enter through a sewer grate type thing at the back of the castle.  Suddenly, the basement of the castle becomes heavily guarded, complete with a ballista down there (just in case?)  The best part - later on there are almost no guards left for the front gate.
* When we first talk about getting into the castle, the walls are 15 feet high.  The ramparts connect onto the 2nd floor of the keep.  A session later, and we try to throw a guy off the wall to kill him - suddenly the wall is only 5 feet high (that's one low ceiling in the keep, lol).

That DM is a dick.

Quote from: jgantsI agree.  I can't stand the style of GM-ing where everything is just made up as you go so it doesn't matter which hallway you go down, you're still going to run into those 4 orcs or whatever.

I agree 100%.  I think this is my least favourite style of GMing.

I don't even care if there's overt railroading ("Okay guys for the next session you need to be working as caravan guards escorting some merchants to this village called Hommlet") it's the move stuff around behind the scenes fake-choice that's a fun-killer for me.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIs that not basically the idea of both Rune and Agon?

I know nothing of Agon, but this is exactly what Rune is geared for.  The GM (or whatever the role is called) has a set number of build points from which he buys challenges from various menus.  Both the individual players and the GM are scored at the end of the scenario based on how effectively clever and deadly they were.  All players are supposed to take turns at the role of GM.

!i!

Quote from: jgantsI agree.  I can't stand the style of GM-ing where everything is just made up as you go so it doesn't matter which hallway you go down, you're still going to run into those 4 orcs or whatever.

One of the guys who's a player in my group also GMs, and he always does stuff like that.  Some of my favorite examples:
* I use gaseous form to investigate a room, see it's filled with dangerous creatures, then decide to go a different way.  The creatures magically teleport to my location.
* We need to get into a castle, but it's heavily guarded.  We decide to enter through a sewer grate type thing at the back of the castle.  Suddenly, the basement of the castle becomes heavily guarded, complete with a ballista down there (just in case?)  The best part - later on there are almost no guards left for the front gate.
* When we first talk about getting into the castle, the walls are 15 feet high.  The ramparts connect onto the 2nd floor of the keep.  A session later, and we try to throw a guy off the wall to kill him - suddenly the wall is only 5 feet high (that's one low ceiling in the keep, lol).

It's possible to make everything up as you go along and never pull any of this kind of shit.

Quote from: jgantsI agree.  I can't stand the style of GM-ing where everything is just made up as you go so it doesn't matter which hallway you go down, you're still going to run into those 4 orcs or whatever.

One of the guys who's a player in my group also GMs, and he always does stuff like that.  Some of my favorite examples:
* I use gaseous form to investigate a room, see it's filled with dangerous creatures, then decide to go a different way.  The creatures magically teleport to my location.
* We need to get into a castle, but it's heavily guarded.  We decide to enter through a sewer grate type thing at the back of the castle.  Suddenly, the basement of the castle becomes heavily guarded, complete with a ballista down there (just in case?)  The best part - later on there are almost no guards left for the front gate.
* When we first talk about getting into the castle, the walls are 15 feet high.  The ramparts connect onto the 2nd floor of the keep.  A session later, and we try to throw a guy off the wall to kill him - suddenly the wall is only 5 feet high (that's one low ceiling in the keep, lol).

Holy shit! This is damn blatant... And I thought we in Germany had shitty illusionist GMs.

Nothing against spontanously kitbashed adventures (everyone needs to run an improvised adventure every now and then), but permanently morphing reality hasn't to be part of it. Actually, any kind of forcing the PCs around hasn't to be part of it.

Quote from: AosIt's possible to make everything up as you go along and never pull any of this kind of shit.

Agreed.

And yet, some players, including me, are also annoyed by less blatant stuff. Sometimes you want to sneak in and get out without a fight, or at least get the drop on the bad guys using your recon abilities.

I reckon it's hard as a GM to enable that while making stuff up as you go along, isn't it? How do you do it?

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd yet, some players, including me, are also annoyed by less blatant stuff. Sometimes you want to sneak in and get out without a fight, or at least get the drop on the bad guys using your recon abilities.

I reckon it's hard as a GM to enable that while making stuff up as you go along, isn't it? How do you do it?

Not really harder than anything else. Honest- I've had both of those things happen in very recent games. The characters escaped from a prison cell inside of a huge military facility and pinched a small starship- things went to hell as soon as they lifted off, but that has more to do with the fact they started shooting up the hanger. I make it up as I go along, sometimes, but usually after we get rolling I have a pretty good idea of the environment. Smart cautious play is always rewarded, a successful stealth roll is a successful stealth roll, and if you see something it doesn't magically change into something else later on- unless, of course, it magically changes into something else later on in a way that makes sense and doesn't lead to a pointless fuck over.

After the end of the session in the game I mention above I came clean about having no prep- everyone was surprised. they thought i had everything planed out from the beginning, but sometimes I just can't think of anything until the heat is on.

Furthermore, if a DM/GM whatever is inclined to pointlessly fuck over the characters just to make things more difficult, it doens't matter weather he has notes or not- that's an attitude and a playstyle that have nothing to do with prep. After all, who is going to make said GM adhere to his notes? Do you audit your GM's prep notes, dungeon keys and the rest at the end of a game? I doubt it- how else would you know?  A competent (different than good) GM could change everything  in mid-stride just to facilitate the fuckover and you would never know it. I know I could do it if that was what I was into, but I'm not there to win- I'm there to make sure everyone has fun.
A fuckover GM is a fuckover GM is a fuckover GM.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI reckon it's hard as a GM to enable that while making stuff up as you go along, isn't it? How do you do it?

Though I am less inclined to "make stuff up as I go along" nowadays, there are times when I find myself required to, or interested in, doing so. I find that if the game reaches a decision point and I am in any way uncertain as to how the world should react to the actions of the PCs, I will choose a resolution method, use it and allow the decision to stand... The resolution method is often just a die roll. ("On a 1-2, the nobleman is planning to screw them over!") It works much like those classic Traveller scenario seeds did. There is just enough there to guide my response, and often I will try and throw in one or two chances that something odd happens.

Then of course, my mind races to couch the new situation in terms of what is already known... and then make a coherent story out of it. That is the fun part and often where PC backgrounds get farmed for ideas. ("The nobleman betrays you because he is being blackmailed by your long-standing enemy.")

Yeah, I can see both methods; I can also see intents-based-resolution, or stakes, or conflict resolution-what-have-you, where a skill roll stands as a proxy for the player getting what he wants.

On the other hand if you've got something like the gaseous cloud example, it's harder isn't it? The player sees a troll in room A, so the party avoids that room and goes to room B. The GM should obviously not move the troll to room B, but who says there isn't an ogre there?