Quote from: SpikeI merely comment that your 'idolized GM' has habits that don't ring high on my list of 'good GM habits'.

A) NPC's with perfect knowledge of the party,

B) fiat character deaths,

C) single point of failure games.  

D) Giving the NPC's perfect knowledge isn't playing tactical by any means, its using out of character knowledge.

A) Not mentioned by me, assumed by you.

B) Your definition of the event because every last bullet was not rolled.  No different than if a Whist player puts down all his cards and says "all the rest are mine."  It's not a "fiat," it's a mathematical certainty, why play it out?

C) I gave examples against this style of play.  

D) Not even mentioned.

I do have one major question for you, and this pertains to the two discussions we've been having today:

Do you actually read the answers the questions you ask?  or do you simply assume the answers you want and continue the conversation as if those are the answers you received?

I would strongly suggest taking a few courses in "listening" and "discerning" because you've not displayed very much skill in either of these areas.

Quote from: VellorianJust in the interest of fostering the conversation, allow me to continue along this train of thought...

It seems that you have equated the concept of "combat = excitement" and "non-combat = boring."  

I would have a major problem with indecisive groups who spent their time in the woods and never "did" anything.  As a GM, I'd motivate them.  I'd move them quickly (even if I had to say, "Fastforward two weeks...").  

My favorite game is one that involves no combat at all, but constant action.  The players are always on their toes, always on the run or chasing something.  They are in a state of constant adrenaline, but they don't have to "clear leather" or draw weapons to maintain that state of action.

Really, what you're saying is that Conflict is what you want?  Based on the perceptions you've posted about what makes a good game for you, there are a whole lot of Forge games that describe your style to a T.

I am in agreement with you on conflict.  Combat and conflict are two different things.  Stories thrive on conflict.  Hell, we haven't had a combat in my game in the last two sessions, but the conflict is very rich.  There's a whole lot of stuff going on that doesn't require weaponry of the steel variety...influence seems to be my PCs' weapon of choice.

I don't have a problem with this given that the characters knew they were over their heads. It sounds like there was plenty of warning. I also don't feel the need to play out (making the rolls)something that is a certainly. To me this is RPing 101. Generally as a GM I would either describe how the character went down in a heroic fight or even sometimes allow the player to describe it.

The full weight of corporate security was focused on a group of infiltrators, corporate security including snipers with, I can only assume clear lines of fire to the character (a given assumption), Armored combat vehicles, full on heavily armed and armored swat teams whose gear seems to have been designed to overmatch what the PC's brung to the fray... appearing magically in place to force the PC's to either leave or die all based on the failure of a (assumed again) single roll to avoid tripping a silent alarm (such as detecting it)...


Now, leaving aside the improbability of corporate security actually having all that shit to drop on a given party of PC's at the drop of a hat, as you and I could both name at least one or two games that have that as a standard assumption of the setting, let us review where I take exception to your defense of the situation.


One: knowing hostiles are present does not equate knowing WHERE the hostiles are in a given area.  

two: combat armored vehicles of any sort, and heavily laden paramilitary types are notoriously unstealthy.  This means that the party should have had some indication that bad shit was coming and been able to take steps, such as preparing counterambushes or what have you to even the odds. Divide and conquer and so forth. Thus the NPC's both had perfect knowledge of the PC's location and activities and were able to get, rather mysteriously, into place to put them in the proverbial box with no way out.  

Now, you haven't really described the situation in a way that disproves any of these assumptions, which is fine since you have made a few assumptions about me and my playstyle.

What you SAID was that the GM presented a superior force to you, told you that if you didn't run you were going to die, then took away the character sheet of the one guy that chose to stay in the fight.  You did not mention if the guy in question was ever asked if he had anything resembling a plan, you did not set up how the party walked into this firefight, leading me to suspect that like many GM's the fight simply started with 'Corporate security arrives, roll initative' or some such.


Or do you want me to break out the history books and point out all the times that your whist player would have laid down his cards and said 'I won' under some mathmatical 'proof' of superior positions and promptly lost?  

Or would you rather I simply insulted your ability to read my posts?

Quote from: McrowI don't have a problem with this given that the characters knew they were over their heads. It sounds like there was plenty of warning. I also don't feel the need to play out (making the rolls)something that is a certainly.

I think the problem was that there wasn't universal acknowledgement of the certainty. Without that I'm loath to set aside the dice. Because hey, maybe I missed something. But then I don't subscribe to the infailability of a GM, especially in the heat of the moment, because the GM is still human.

QuoteTo me this is RPing 101. Generally as a GM I would either describe how the character went down in a heroic fight or even sometimes allow the player to describe it.

The later I think is the optimal**, but involves a specific skill from the player and tends to require the player and GM to be in sync to an even greater extent. Frankly I'm not really ready for that myself, and I'm not sure how much other people I play with are ready for it. Because it's a new freedom, and it takes a while to get your head around new freedoms.

Of course somewhere along the line you have to piss or get off the pot.  My aim is to have at least 2 players in my SR campaign taking and running with the ball an average of once/session. Not sure yet which two are going to step up to do it, but I'm already laying what I think passes as groundwork for being able to deal with the freedom. I'm also being very self-conscious of when an opportunity comes up and I fail to extend the freedom to the players to see if they'll grab it.

Stay tuned to see if it works out or just fizzles and makes an uneventful crash like a North Korea test missle.....

** EDIT: If the player is willing to of course, some players may never in their life be willing to even try. But I'm not convinced that is anything close to a majority of players or even a significant minority. I've seen the supershy player really step up out of their shell and do things that I didn't initially ever expect from them.

Nebuleon has corporate armed services in it. If that is the type of setting they play in then that makes total sense.  

The problem I have is when GM never puts a the characters in a situation that is above them. This leads to the players never worrying whether or not they should fight or run, because they know they can take anything the GM thows at them. Why? Cuz the GM wouldn't really put our characters in a dangerous situation, would he?

Quote from: McrowNebuleon has corporate armed services in it. If that is the type of setting they play in then that makes total sense.

That probably was the biggest piece of the context missing. I kind of pieced it together from his comments that this is one of those super finicky "one serious misstep and it all goes south" settings. They certainly aren't for everyone, but if you are in them the expectations are usually harsher.

Quote from: blakkieThat probably was the biggest piece of the context missing. I kind of pieced it together from his comments that this is one of those super finicky "one serious misstep and it all goes south" settings. They certainly aren't for everyone, but if you are in them the expectations are usually harsher.

Oh, I didn't mean that was the game he was playing, just that is an example of have corporate armed forces.

And no nebuleon isn't a "one serious misstep and it all goes south" type of setting.

Quote from: blakkieThat probably was the biggest piece of the context missing. I kind of pieced it together from his comments that this is one of those super finicky "one serious misstep and it all goes south" settings. They certainly aren't for everyone, but if you are in them the expectations are usually harsher.

Shadowrun and Cyberpunk both support that sort of play, as does Battlelords of the 23rd century (though in battlelords, the PC's might as well dance naked if all they have is flak and pistol...), and a few others. Regardless, moving such forces into play is not like having a wandering monster show up, and the GM needs to take that into account.  

To me it sounded more like the GM expected them to run away and come up with a plan B senario the moment they screwed up. Thus my response to V...

Quote from: SpikeTo me it sounded more like the GM expected them to run away and come up with a plan B senario the moment they screwed up. Thus my response to V...

to me, again, I think it is a good thing to have an encounter every now and then they are not suppose to fight. Otherwise they have no reason to think they could die. If there is no chance of death, it makes the game a bit boring to me.  But thats just me.

It's interesting how many assumptions are being made here. "They appeared out of nowhere." "Players had no warning and chance to set ambushes." "Moving the forces wasn't taken into account."

All we have to go on is that the PCs were in a position where combat equalled death. Making assumptions about how that situation arrived and then berating the GM for them doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

True enough, James...

on the other hand, the 'other guy' also makes a huge number of assumptions about me. Enough to suggest that murdering me in my sleep is perfectly acceptable to him.

So, I don't feel too bad about assuming a damn thing.

Unless you are your character, there's a slight problem with that statement of what he said.

Quote from: James McMurrayUnless you are your character, there's a slight problem with that statement of what he said.

What, I'm not a character? I really MUST talk to my PR department about this...

Not what I said, but you seem to be pretty good at the "not what I said" game today.