This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Where you there, when they swine-ified our game?

Started by Settembrini, November 24, 2006, 01:42:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 30 31 32 33
User actions

James J Skach

#465
December 02, 2006, 07:02:33 PM
Quote from: StuartYou can call your game whatever you like. Or ask the Pundit's opinion.  I don't care.  The most clear answer to your question I can give you is NO.  I hope that's clear enough.
Thanks! Finally! Clarity!
The rules are my slave, not my master. - Old Geezer

The RPG Haven - Talking About RPGs

T-Willard

#466
December 05, 2006, 11:03:11 AM
Quote from: StuartYou can call your game whatever you like. Or ask the Pundit's opinion.  I don't care.  The most clear answer to your question I can give you is NO.  I hope that's clear enough.
So let me get this straight...

If I'm running a modern game, and I roll for the sniper to hit the party's medic, and I accidently get a critical hit with an M-82A2 Anti-Material Rifle, hitting for the big 40 points of damage, I shouldn't fudge or alter my roll, or perhaps have the round blow through the medical kit?

That I'll be robbing them, or decreasing their fun?

How is it fun for the sniper they thought was dead to make a canoe out of the party's only medic?

If I fudge my rolls, alter things, from behind the screen, I'm actually decreasing the amount of fun my players will have?

If this is your stance, I say bullshit.
I am becoming more and more hollow, and am not sure how much of the man I was remains.

James McMurray

#467
December 05, 2006, 11:08:12 AM
If you don't want to kill party members, don't give snipers anti-material rifles (or prbably don't use snipers at all). At least, that's what we do in our games. Doing otherwise destroys our sense of "reality" in the game. I'd rather have a character die then be fudged, because I'm not at the table to live out the GM's idea of what makes a cool story.

Basically, if the rules call for a death and you don't want the death, either find a different way to set the situation up or use a sifferent system. Just my opinion of course, there are gamers all over the place that like GM granted immunity for the sake of story.

T-Willard

#468
December 05, 2006, 11:24:01 AM
I can accept that some groups would prefer that the dice fall where they may, I'm just saying that niether style is better than the other, just different.
I am becoming more and more hollow, and am not sure how much of the man I was remains.

Gabriel

#470
December 05, 2006, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: T-WillardHow is it fun for the sniper they thought was dead to make a canoe out of the party's only medic?

You indirectly answered your own question with this statement.  This proves that the players:

1) Knew the sniper existed, and
2) Did not confirm that the threat had been removed, or perhaps didn't even attempt to deal with it in the first place.

So, by fudging the die rolls, you are removing the consequences of their sloppy play.  You're rewarding them for failure.  

What makes this particularly bad is when it's combined with "I only punish players for being stupid."  Of course, stupid is defined semi-randomly.  It's apparrently OK to make your medic a target in confirmed sniper territory.

J Arcane

#471
December 05, 2006, 12:15:24 PM
Ugh.  And now we run into another GM attitude that outright pisses me the fuck off.

You're not there to "teach the players a lesson".  It's not a goddamn training simulation for the fuckin' army, it's a game.

chill the fuck out already.
Bedroom Wall Press - Games that make you feel like a kid again.

Arcana Rising - An Urban Fantasy Roleplaying Game, powered by Hulks and Horrors.
Hulks and Horrors - A Sci-Fi Roleplaying game of Exploration and Dungeon Adventure
Heaven\'s Shadow - A Roleplaying Game of Faith and Assassination

James McMurray

#472
December 05, 2006, 12:20:42 PM
Life does not (usually) reward failure. Combat situations rarely do. It's not a matter of teaching lessons (although hopefully lessons are learned). It's a matter of having the game world's internal cause and effect mechanisms be logical.

As for "chilling out," I believe if you read the two posts side by side you'll see you're the one not responding calmly. :)

Blackleaf

#473
December 05, 2006, 12:29:53 PM
Awesome! What would we have done without this thread coming back to life?

Erik Boielle

#474
December 05, 2006, 12:31:10 PM
I used to like lethal systems until I played them, when I discovered that being randomly gakked in the first five seconds wasn't much fun.

These days I like more abstract systems that produce results like 'you storm the machinegun nest' or 'you are driven off by machinegun fire' rather than 'on turn one you are riddled with bullets. Return to character generation'.

Like Heroquest, which as we all know is NOT an indie game, which is good  becuase those guys are cunts.
Hither came Conan, the Cimmerian, black-haired, sullen-eyed, sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

James J Skach

#475
December 05, 2006, 12:33:27 PM
Quote from: James McMurrayIf you don't want to kill party members, don't give snipers anti-material rifles (or prbably don't use snipers at all). At least, that's what we do in our games. Doing otherwise destroys our sense of "reality" in the game. I'd rather have a character die then be fudged, because I'm not at the table to live out the GM's idea of what makes a cool story.
This is the part I wanted clarification on...

It appears as if you are drawing a direct line from fudging (for whatever reason) to either railroading or illusionism or Story gaming.

I can understand saying general things like for some players this or that behavior will increase/diminish enjoyment.  It's an assertion to some extent, but not calling anyone elses fun bad. I can understand saying for you this is the case. I know in your post you used "I," so I assume that's what a reader should infer.

But it seems that this bolded statement implies far more, that is, that fudging means the GM is doing whatever he can to play out his cool story. And I can see where that would get under peoples' skin. Yeah?
The rules are my slave, not my master. - Old Geezer

The RPG Haven - Talking About RPGs

Blackleaf

#476
December 05, 2006, 12:42:17 PM
Quote from: T-WillardIf I'm running a modern game, and I roll for the sniper to hit the party's medic, and I accidently get a critical hit with an M-82A2 Anti-Material Rifle, hitting for the big 40 points of damage, I shouldn't fudge or alter my roll, or perhaps have the round blow through the medical kit?

Why bother rolling at all?

James McMurray

#477
December 05, 2006, 01:11:35 PM
Quote from: James J SkachThis is the part I wanted clarification on...

It appears as if you are drawing a direct line from fudging (for whatever reason) to either railroading or illusionism or Story gaming.

I can understand saying general things like for some players this or that behavior will increase/diminish enjoyment.  It's an assertion to some extent, but not calling anyone elses fun bad. I can understand saying for you this is the case. I know in your post you used "I," so I assume that's what a reader should infer.

But it seems that this bolded statement implies far more, that is, that fudging means the GM is doing whatever he can to play out his cool story. And I can see where that would get under peoples' skin. Yeah?

I didn't say he was doing everything in his power, nor did I say it was hard illusionism or railroading. What I said is that I didn't want to live out what the GM thought was a cool story. Presumably he's keeping the character alive because he thinks the game won't be as much fun otherwise. If he wants to play a game where life and death aren't always determined by the dice, then he should play one of those games. I'll happily play too. But I'd rather not "win" because of cheating. YMMV

RedFox

#478
December 05, 2006, 02:38:33 PM
Oh dear sweet Jesus.

This again.

Can we just say, once again, that some people consider fudging to be cheating and some don't, and move on?  Because every time this thread's post count increases, my IQ diminishes.
 
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 30 31 32 33
User actions