|
Post by Probie Tim on May 1, 2017 12:48:16 GMT -8
Oh, those poor soldiers.
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on May 1, 2017 13:15:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on May 1, 2017 13:22:26 GMT -8
Let's use the actual page, because it is so great. But then again I'm a sucker for last page spashes
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on May 1, 2017 13:28:09 GMT -8
I wish there was more of the battle that follows because he obliterates all of them by himself and it's perfect for showing just how clever Vader is in battle.
|
|
mysticfedora
Supporter
The truth lies somewhere in between.
Posts: 281
Preferred Game Systems: 5E, PbtA, OSR
Currently Playing: LotFP, 5E
Currently Running: 5E, PbtA, Stars Without Number, CoC 7e
Favorite Species of Monkey: Kong
|
Post by mysticfedora on May 1, 2017 14:10:36 GMT -8
I'm stealing this for Twitter. Thanks Hill People and Uncommon!
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on May 1, 2017 17:07:17 GMT -8
Not to mention the difference in the vows taken... Your spouse vows fidelity to you. Your GM "vows" to provide you with the best story possible. The GM vows to follow the rules. Huh? Who? This is not a vow I've ever taken. I mean, literally, I have never told my players, "I solemnly swear…" to anything, nor have I even implied that all my dice rolls are legit. Hell, I've even stared at a player, rolled my dice without breaking eye contact, and announced, "It hits." I was more of a dick at that time, to be sure. But there it is. No mystery: I'm just making stuff up for the game, some of them are simple fiat.
|
|
TheGerkuman
Apprentice Douchebag
Why you no problem make
Posts: 76
Preferred Game Systems: Any variety of D&D or WFRP 2e.
Currently Playing: Anything I can find
Currently Running: I haven't run in a long time. Either sort.
Favorite Species of Monkey: Capuchin or Spider.
|
Post by TheGerkuman on May 2, 2017 5:52:24 GMT -8
I think straight up fiat tends to rub people up the wrong way, since it often makes them feel loss of control. Fudging dice or schrodinger-ing plot events at least can be argued to be for the benefit of players or story, and really depends on what the players are ok with their GM doing.
I don't know many players who'd insist their GM follow the rules rigidly, but I also don't know many players who'd let their GM throw a fiat out there without the option of talking it over.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 2, 2017 6:05:15 GMT -8
If the GM can ignore rules and change the game world to make a "better story" what is the point of the GM rolling dice at all.
If the GM's story is that important he can write a book.
Collaboration to make a story goes both ways, I don't think any of you would think it's okay for players to ignore rules and change the game world.
And but unless you can read minds and see into the future you have no way of knowing what will be the more fulfilling story.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 2, 2017 6:23:50 GMT -8
If the GM's story is that important he can write a book. I never said that the GM's story is important. I said the *GM* is important. The GM is the game MASTER; in some games they're called the judge or the referee. If they don't have the power to make a judgement call, they're not a master of anything. The story belongs to the group. The GM makes judgements in the service of the story. The GM plays everything in the entire universe except for the PCs; everything from the lowest rat-hunting NPC to the most abstract concepts of fate, magic, and gods. They have to be able to break and change rules to do that. I don't think any of you would think it's okay for players to ignore rules and change the game world. You're right. Because they're players, not the game MASTER. Those are vastly different roles within the scope of the game. The GM role and the player role are inherently not equal.
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on May 2, 2017 6:37:50 GMT -8
If the GM can ignore rules and change the game world to make a "better story" what is the point of the GM rolling dice at all. If the GM's story is that important he can write a book. I think you're mistaking ignoring one rule for ignoring all the rules. If the players and the GM can agree that the reason for the rule to be ignored A) makes sense, B) isn't causing terrible imbalance, and C) works with the scene, then there really shouldn't be a problem with ignoring or changing a rule. Dice rolling should only occur when the GM and the player disagree on the results of a challenge they're faced with. Combat is a pretty debatable result so we roll. Whether or not a player sees the note tucked under the dead man's breast pocket is not, so no roll and the player find the clue.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 2, 2017 6:38:50 GMT -8
I think straight up fiat tends to rub people up the wrong way Agreed. I'm not talking about straight-up fiat. "I cast Magic Missile!" "Nothing happens." "...buh?" "He's, um, impervious to magic damage from magic missiles." Yeah, that sucks. That's the antagonistic, "dick" GM I mentioned above who caused both a lack of trust in GMs and for conversations like this to be a thing. Eff that guy.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 2, 2017 8:05:54 GMT -8
If the GM can ignore rules and change the game world to make a "better story" what is the point of the GM rolling dice at all. If the GM's story is that important he can write a book. I think you're mistaking ignoring one rule for ignoring all the rules. If the players and the GM can agree that the reason for the rule to be ignored A) makes sense, B) isn't causing terrible imbalance, and C) works with the scene, then there really shouldn't be a problem with ignoring or changing a rule. Dice rolling should only occur when the GM and the player disagree on the results of a challenge they're faced with. Combat is a pretty debatable result so we roll. Whether or not a player sees the note tucked under the dead man's breast pocket is not, so no roll and the player find the clue. I have no problem with a GM letting players succeed without rolling the problem is when GM's roll but ignore the results. And if a rule doesn't make sense just ignore or change it but then the same rule changes should apply for the players too.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 2, 2017 8:21:44 GMT -8
the problem is when GM's roll but ignore the results. So you're against GMs "fudging" dice rolls; that's your big thing. Well, I have fudged dice rolls. I will fudge them again. I claim that to be part of my GM agency; as the GM I get to do that from time to time. On the other hand, did you see my post on perception rolls? Often, as the GM, I use the dice to help inform my adjudication; in the case of a perception roll, I've usually already decided if the player is going to see something or not. The degree of success on the perception roll - or lack thereof - helps me determine how much information to give them. And if a rule doesn't make sense just ignore or change it but then the same rule changes should apply for the players too. Agreed. I don't think anyone has said anything to the contrary on that.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 2, 2017 10:08:48 GMT -8
the problem is when GM's roll but ignore the results. So you're against GMs "fudging" dice rolls; that's your big thing. Well, I have fudged dice rolls. I will fudge them again. I claim that to be part of my GM agency; as the GM I get to do that from time to time. On the other hand, did you see my post on perception rolls? Often, as the GM, I use the dice to help inform my adjudication; in the case of a perception roll, I've usually already decided if the player is going to see something or not. The degree of success on the perception roll - or lack thereof - helps me determine how much information to give them. And if a rule doesn't make sense just ignore or change it but then the same rule changes should apply for the players too. Agreed. I don't think anyone has said anything to the contrary on that. The perception rolls are a good example of using the same rules for both players and NPC's, if you need to know how much information they know there's no reason you can't use the same rules the other way to find out what the NPC's know. If you fudge dice you are playing by different rules than the players (even if you fudge in their favour). I just don't understand the reasons for changing the story or the dice rolls, it stops the story from being collaborative. If the story is "better" when you decide what happens you are cheating your players of a possibly better story.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on May 2, 2017 10:15:54 GMT -8
GMs do things by fiat all the time. I determine when an NPC will show up. I decide when bad guys will give up and run or keep fighting.
I don't think I've ignored a dice roll in a couple years -- probably around the time of the "no mere hedge mage" incident. I followed the dice rolls there. It certainly didn't make the combat more dramatic or tense, but it's talked about all the time as a high point of the game -- and that was the randomizer at work.
That's the one thing dice have over GM fiat: they're not predictable.
|
|