TheRPGSite

This is kind of spun off from Pundit's GM's Perogative thread. I say kind of, because I'm not so sure, this has any relevence to that discussion. Here goes..

When I first started running games for my current group, this situation came up. This was probably the defining moment of how we as a group of friends, came to an understanding as to how we would function as a group of gamers. But this post has nothing to do with any of this, okay maybe it does..

It was the big showdown of my alt-history-lit, Alienist meets Masque of the Red Death campaign. The vicious Milady de Winter had cornered the group in an underground temple. Her minions were mostly dead, and most of the players were in bad shape...I'm talking about players dragging fellow members away from the scene of carnage. There were 6 of them, and 5 of them were more or less out of the fight.

Two of them were badly wounded, the other two (also badly wounded) were tending to them, caught up in the action of trying to help sibbling and lover. One was delusional courtesy of a spell and the last player had one final shot in his pistol. This character was hiding behing some crates, dejectedly observing the total fuck up before him.

His character was considered the baby of the group. The young police cadet dreaming of righting wrongs so unlike his fellow officers. Most of the players had totally forgotten about his character being in a situation most dire. The BigBad approaches two of the characters - one cradling the head of the other and raises her pistol. This is the end...

BUT..just at that moment when she is delievering her big bad speech, the hidden player gets up from where he is hiding,stumbles in the process but manages to shoot, his last shot...he hits...(and rolls for damage)

The damage was pretty decent but nothing critical. I had two options. The first , disregard the actual HP/health level of the opponent and consider the shot a fatal one thus ending the game or the second, think of it as any other shot and allow the fight to continue (even though I knew that it would end (for various reasons) with the party being destroyed)

My question is this. At what point between these two options (if there is even a clear demarcation) do I stop playing an rpg and start playing a story game?

Regards,
David R

The line is "knowing your players, what would be the most fun for them?"

If you change the shot into a fatal hit, you're definitely in storytelling game mode...not necessarily story-game, as the people who sort of "own" that term are themselves pretty anti-fudging.

Also IMO if you choose that option, the players will stop caring about the rules, and they might also stop caring about their own player-characters' actions. The game can survive the former (and may be the first step toward a socially-mediated sort of story-game) but I think the latter would be fatal.

If you let the PCs die, you're still in "adventure RPG" mode, but you'll be taking a short-term hit in hopes of long-term profit. That is, people will be unhappy, but the rules will retain their integrity as a process through which the players can make stuff happen.

You might be able to choose a middle ground by saying that getting hit by the bullet causes the enemy to change her plans, capture the PCs, and execute them Dr. Evil style, out of spite. It's not much different from option one but it does allow you to acknowledge the player's use of the rules to achieve partial success by giving him a significant impact on the outcome, yet not giving the party all the cookies.

I think the lead-up to the scene might be worth considering. That is, there might be elements of your GMing style, or the mindset of the group, which made this crisis inevitable. In other words, you might already have been storytelling/gaming, but the rules hadn't gotten in the way of it until that point.

Let 'em go. Alternatively, change the Big Bad's behavior because of the shot. If he's not the type to stand around in a firefight have him hightail it. If he is, have him turn to go after the attack, giving the downed pair a chance to grab a nearby  chunk of debris and drop him. Or perhaps he's shooting rubber bullets and captures the group.

Basically, if you never want to have a TPK, either tell the players ahead of time and fudge away (least favorable option), give the players control of it ahead of time with fate points or something similar (better), set up the campaign such that life and death aren't the big risk factors (good), or never put the players in deadly situations (horrid unless agreed on in advance).

It also really depends on the game system. If the shot can't possibly kill the big bad without being a crit, and he drops over dead, you'll tell a better story but lose a bit of respect. At least, you would in my group.

I would have ruled it a kind of snipe. The Big Bad didn't know the character was there, it was a total surprise, and the PC had the drop.

-clash

If the story wasn't meant to be a tragedy, I would have killed the Big Bad.

Had it been my game, the hit would have been a hit, for the damage it did and that's all.
The other players might have acted then, something else you didn't expect might have happened, or a few of them might have gotten away, or they all might die.

This (what you proposed) is definitely not the kind of fudging I would find acceptable. But then, your mileage may vary.

RPGPundit

What I'm trying to get at is that IME most games have these kinds of fudgings -okay maybe not as extreme in my OP - but my question is when does one draw the line between an rpg and a storygame.

Because really, stuff like this happens all the time in games, and GMs just make a call, based on what the players will like off course, but they don't consider themselves playing a "storygame" or whatever the terminology is.

Regards,
David R

I think if you're going to switch over to cinematic cut-scene mode, you need to do it before the player rolls the dice.  Don't ask players to make choices or leave things to chance unless you're prepared to go along with whatever comes up.

For climactic scenes in the game, it might be interesting to switch from just "chance" to an "interesting choice" for the player.

GM:  "You can either make your regular to hit roll... or... you could rush the villain and take that shot from close range.  In that case, we'll say it's a fatal shot... for both characters."

Or whatever makes it a VERY interesting decision, as opposed to a regular decision like you've seen throughout the game.

(I'm thinking "out loud" with this idea. :)  I'm not 100% sure about it... any comments on whether this is a good approach, or is it still breaking the rules of the game too much?)

Eh.  I don't give a shit about stupid false dichotomies.  What I give a shit about is what would've made a cool, fun experience.

In my head I see the somewhat scared, out of his league cop finally overcoming himself, standing up, and shooting the villain clean in the back, with a line about not taking it anymore, or telling the villain to stay the hell away from his friends, or something.

At that point, maybe as a GM I'd respond by the villain getting a shocked look on her face, clutching her stomach, and whirling around.  Maybe she'd stagger a bit.  Now she's got a hole in her.  People don't like having holes in them.  Maybe she dies right there, rules or no (it was a surprise round anyway).  Maybe she's wounded, and she staggers off, unaware that the cop has no rounds left but not wanting to take the risk.  

Whatever happens, it should be fun.  Silly labels don't enter into it.

I roughly skimmed the other people's responses--but here's one I'd consider:

Have the wounded big-bad retreat after being hit well. The BB doesn't know everyone's respective health-levels. I think that taking unexpected fire might produce a legitimate fear reaction and have the BB pull back.

Playing the NPCs the way you want to is one of the things in the GM's sphere of control pretty much no matter what. You can have them be stupid (or, if you must, make a few modfier-moderated rolls for courage), act on imperfect information, be surprised, etc.

Maybe the BB is so incensed about being sniped they turn and stalk across the floor to the hidden character giving the PC who was being attacked time to get a shot in the back?

Something like that. Not fudging a dice-roll, but working within the established context to produce an outcome that you, as the person in charge of those elements, find the most pleasing.

-Marco

Quote from: David RWhat I'm trying to get at is that IME most games have these kinds of fudgings -okay maybe not as extreme in my OP - but my question is when does one draw the line between an rpg and a storygame.

Because really, stuff like this happens all the time in games, and GMs just make a call, based on what the players will like off course, but they don't consider themselves playing a "storygame" or whatever the terminology is.

Regards,
David R

It doesn't matter what you call it. I normally avoid blanket statements, but I am beginning to think that the true "swine" are everyone who thinks that such things do matter.

Another note: many systems give rules like the following--

1. Ways to make sneak attacks more damaging (aim? attack from surprise? called shots?).
2. Ways to have the players take actions that give them powerful edges (StarCluster's perfect-zero rule).
3. Extra bonuses for "coolness."

If the system you are playing has none of these then, yeah, you are facing a situation where you are balancing the game on one dice roll at this point. But there are a lot of gradations of mechanical facilitation to events like this before you get to things like roll for narration rights.

I'm not a big fan of the "if you fudge a roll you're playing the wrong system" argument since external events can change dramatically that can impact what system-choices would be (player has death in the family, comes for escapist game in a continuing campaign, you don't say no--but the dice do something tragic ... I'd be hard pressed to condemn either the GM or the system for a dice-fudge there).

But I also think that in games where the PCs are very meaningful to the Players things that mitigate PC-death rate are good and degrees of success and failure are good.

-Marco

QuoteHave the wounded big-bad retreat after being hit well. The BB doesn't know everyone's respective health-levels. I think that taking unexpected fire might produce a legitimate fear reaction and have the BB pull back.

Beat you to it by 1 minute.  ;)  But yeah, I think I like that answer the best, because it gives a cool scene.  Victory snatched from the jaws of defeat, but the villain still escaped to harry the PCs another day.  

Recurring villains always rock.

Quote from: J ArcaneBeat you to it by 1 minute.  ;)

Beat you to it by two hours and two minutes. ;)

Out of curiosity, what system were you playing? The system can play a huge role in this choice, as sometimes it may offer something to use instead of simple GM Decision.

Quote from: AosIt doesn't matter what you call it. I normally avoid blanket statements, but I am beginning to think that the true "swine" are everyone who thinks that such things do matter.

This is kinda of what of what I'm talking about. I should have just said "when does fudging become story gaming?", but I was curious about all this different methods for different hobbies talk. I thought by relating it to an actual example of play would help.

In the situation in my first post, the way how I handled it, was the shot pierced the BB's hand making her lose the weapon. The remaining characters attempted to rush her resulting in the delusional character picking up a shot gun and firing into the crowd in front of him. The BB got it but so did the kid...tragic but it was the best I could manage.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: James McMurrayOut of curiosity, what system were you playing? The system can play a huge role in this choice, as sometimes it may offer something to use instead of simple GM Decision.

We were using an AD&D varient or some such - hey, before I joined them, D20 and TSR games were all they ever played :D

Marco's points above is one of the reason, I got them to try new systems. It made running games easier for me, since most of the games I introduced them to where not all or nothing dice roll systems, if you get my meaning...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThis is kinda of what of what I'm talking about. I should have just said "when does fudging become story gaming?", but I was curious about all this different methods for different hobbies talk. I thought by relating it to an actual example of play would help.

In the situation in my first post, the way how I handled it, was the shot pierced the BB's hand making her lose the weapon. The remaining characters attempted to rush her resulting in the delusional character picking up a shot gun and firing into the crowd in front of him. The BB got it but so did the kid...tragic but it was the best I could manage.

Regards,
David R

Think about the question a bit- how will it imrove your game to have an answer? I don't think it will.
If you feel that the occasional fude is good for the game (and I do) get a screen and keep your die rolls secret.  RPG's are like marraige- sometimes the truth will not set you free and you have to lie to keep things going.

I apologize to everyone if I'm thread crapping, it's not my intent.

Quote from: David RMy question is this. At what point between these two options (if there is even a clear demarcation) do I stop playing an rpg and start playing a story game?

Buggered if I know, mate. But who gives a toss?

The question should not be, is this a "story-game" or "an rpg", or any bollocks like that. It's, "which option would be most interesting and fun, and most memorable for the group?"

You want your players to leave the session saying, "that was great!", yeah? You want them to talk about it between sessions, enthused by what's happened so far, and anxious to know what'll happen next? You want them to mention your game and its events years later, saying, "I remember when -"? Then do whatever you think will be the most interesting, fun and memorable.

To discover what is interesting, fun and memorable for your players, ask them - preferably before the campaign, but probably a couple of times during it, too.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAlso IMO if you choose that option, the players will stop caring about the rules, and they might also stop caring about their own player-characters' actions. The game can survive the former (and may be the first step toward a socially-mediated sort of story-game) but I think the latter would be fatal.

Please don't be offended, but this part of your post reminds me of the movie "Reefer Madness"

Quote from: AosI apologize to everyone if I'm thread crapping, it's not my intent.

Not a problem, esp since I agree 100% with what you posted on this thread.

JimBob, got your point.

However I'm still curious as to whether there is any substance to this whole rpg becoming a storygame debate. Now I realize it really wouldn't help my game anyway, but this is more about curiosity  -sparked by a post game discussion (talking about gaming after a session is unheard of in my group :)) - than anything else.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWe were using an AD&D varient or some such - hey, before I joined them, D20 and TSR games were all they ever played :D

Marco's points above is one of the reason, I got them to try new systems. It made running games easier for me, since most of the games I introduced them to where not all or nothing dice roll systems, if you get my meaning...

Regards,
David R

I didn't know which system you were using, so my "What I would do" answer was based on using one of my games, where there are several things  that could happen in that situation - like sniping - which are within the rules, not ad-hoc rulings. Sniping, Commando kills, perfect zero hits, going slower for a better hit, Luck points, etc. are tools for the player characters to use in these situations, when it really matters to them.

-clash

My take is rather simple. I rather like, and would have said it if not beaten to the punch, the 'cutscene' coolfactor moment. It smacks of awesomeness if handled right. Let him make his shot roll.  

As a GM I'd be looking to salavage the situation. TPW's are no fun for anyone... depending on the game in question. Salvage does not mean cheat, nor does it mean fudge.  Hit point mechanics annoy me no end for reasons like this... this is the perfect 'kill the climactic moment' example of why.


So. Cutscene. Player makes his hit roll. He hits then the BB goes down. Maybe wounded, maybe dead. Maybe running, whatever suits the need.   Full blown cutscene he doesn't even roll.  He's close, relatively healthy, she doesn't know he's there and her back is turned. Pow.  Less cutscene, roll all the dice. He hits, does weak damage, she's wounded and flees. Good damage and she drops.  Crit and its brainsplatters all around.

But what if he misses?

Doesn't matter. She's gloating over her victory, about to annihilate these interlopers and a shot rings out, maybe wings right past her head. She doesn't know where it came from, didn't expect it. Her lackey's are all dead, she's got no backup.  She'll run. Maybe she'll regroup sooner rather than later.

Of course, whacking everyone is still an option.  It just depends on what your needs are.  

But: They've already told you all this. You have the tools, use 'em.

That's my take. Let him roll his dice, then cutscene it from there. Cutscenes are perfectly valid, never seen a rule against them. As long as you aren't narrating the players actions against their wishes, it should be a cool event for everyone involved.

Quote from: David RThe damage was pretty decent but nothing critical. I had two options. The first , disregard the actual HP/health level of the opponent and consider the shot a fatal one thus ending the game or the second, think of it as any other shot and allow the fight to continue (even though I knew that it would end (for various reasons) with the party being destroyed)

Which way did you go, in the end?

Quote from: WarthurWhich way did you go, in the end?

Kinda of the first, I think. The shot (was great) but the damage (not so) so I fixed it so her weapon flew out of her hand, leaving an opening for the players to charge her. Normally with this "don't do us any favour*" group, they would want the first option verbatim, if you know what I mean. But after this game, it become a "don't ask, don't tell group"...:D

*fudging, that is

Regards,
David R

Quote from: AosPlease don't be offended, but this part of your post reminds me of the movie "Reefer Madness"

That's okay, I haven't seen the movie, and anyway this is a touchy situation.

But I feel vindicated by David's outcome. Whatever the terminology of storytelling game vs. story game vs. rpg, what happened was that the players stopped looking at the rules (those rules at any rate, the ones they were using) as the final arbiter, and moved in the directon of deciding things on the basis of whatever makes everyone happy. It's also interesting that they wanted things to be done this way, but they didn't want to acknowledge it openly.

BTW, I didn't notice that the bad guy's minions were all dead. Given that, having the gun shot of her hand, or having her be distracted or decide to run from the unknown assailant--all various degrees of goodness, IMO. Probably better than a Dr. Evil-type execution, still not as good as a Hero Point system or some other rules-based refinement. The reason being that, for me, the knowledge that the rules weren't really being used, and that the GM would arbitrarily save my ass as long as I made a "good effort", would cause me to lose interest.

Quote from: David RHowever I'm still curious as to whether there is any substance to this whole rpg becoming a storygame debate. Now I realize it really wouldn't help my game anyway, but this is more about curiosity  -sparked by a post game discussion (talking about gaming after a session is unheard of in my group :)) - than anything else.

Yeah, see, for the purpose of this discussion, I'm making a three-way distinction.

1. RPG: the GM controls the world, the players control the PCs, the rules are followed to lend consistency, continuity, and intelligibility to the way the world works.

2. Storytelling game: same as the above, except the GM overrules the rules for metagame reasons, including saving the PCs. Also, the GM manipulates things behind the scenes or contrives scenarios to force the players along a pre-set path.

3. Storygame: even if there's a GM, the players have significant degrees of control over the world, beyond what their characters would have. Typically done through the rules, but it can all go to consensual freeform, too.

There's probably a continuum.

Hopefully this sheds some light on my Reefer-Madness-like comments above.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt's also interesting that they wanted things to be done this way, but they didn't want to acknowledge it openly.

I think I can explain this with a ramble.

The way how I see (and read it on numerous threads), the trad rpg dynamic of player and GM comes with certain assumptions of how GMs carry out their responsibilties. Broadly speaking, there are two aspects to what GMs do.

The first is application. Where the GM applies the rules to situations that come up. These are normaly black and white situations. The second is interpretation. These are the grey situations. Situations where the rules don't offer much guideline and/or when applied are detrimental for various reasons to the fun of that particular gaming group. GMs spend most of their time in these grey areas.

Now interpretation carries with it certain..what's the word I'm looking for?..issues, maybe? which depending on a specific group with a specific playstyle could be a problem. These issues could include stuff like fudging, railroading, stroytelling etc.

Okay, so finally getting back to my group's don't ask don't tell policy. Now, the main thing about my group, is that they realize that most of GMing is within the grey area. What they would prefer is that decisions made by the GM within these grey areas carry with it the same risk to their characters as rolling dice would. Sounds strange right?

But here's the thing, my group gets an inordinate amount of joy from the outcome of dice rolls, so when I as the GM makes one of my interpretative calls, they would rather 1. The element of unpredictability that dice so ably provide be retained 2. That the decisions I make be unnoticable to them as players.

Now in more story-centric rpgs (non trad rpgs), the emphasis shifts from interpretation to collaboration because the GM/player dynamic isn't as rigid as in trad rpgs.

Sorry for the ramble. But this is more or less what the group discussed a couple of days ago. Some of my terms of course don't make much sense, hastily cobbled together from our acadamic backgrounds :D

Regards,
David R