ZT
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 24
|
Post by ZT on May 2, 2017 10:43:42 GMT -8
For the mystery game, another way to sow doubt amongst the characters would be to simply write at the bottom of each character's note "You are not the murderer". This could work even if none of the characters actually are the killer. The simple presence of that statement could get them thinking that one of the other player's card could say "You are the murderer". Fight the metagame assumption that it is a PC vs. NPC game with a little metagame of your own
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 2, 2017 10:46:15 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. That's a different kind of GM fiat, though, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 2, 2017 10:54:10 GMT -8
I just don't understand the reasons for changing the story or the dice rolls, it stops the story from being collaborative. Hmm. I don't think I agree with that. Collaboration is the act of working with someone to produce or create something; in this case, a story. If a die roll takes the story in a direction that neither the GM nor the player desire, that's not really collaborative. On the other hand, if the GM looks at a roll and goes, "oof, yeah, that's no bueno" and modifies it a bit... isn't that more collaborative? I call forth from the annals of history Stu's example of a character getting killed in the first combat of the game. That's a... depressing outcome for anyone, unless you're playing a strict old-school game where that is the norm (or a game like DCC which features legions of characters dying straight away, lol). If the story is "better" when you decide what happens you are cheating your players of a possibly better story. Possibly. You are also providing your players a possibly worse story.
|
|
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 11:01:39 GMT -8
Tim: I know you weren't talking about that kind of GM fiat; it was a response to the person who posted before me saying they had no qualms doing that to their players. Being a OOC jerk GM is never really acceptable. (IC Jerk GM is totally fine though, if the PC's are up for that. That's part of the point of some settings)
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on May 2, 2017 11:30:33 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. Given this discussion started with the premise that the GM might think the players' suspect might take the story in the more fun direction than the villain he had originally intended, there's a certain piquant irony in this post. But you've hit upon a vital truth! It's the players' fault! If they didn't have such good ideas, the GM wouldn't need to change the story. It's the damn players changing the world! Which is in most games (not Fate obviously) strictly against the rules. The bastards. What the GM should obviously do is railroad them to the story s/he'd originally imagined, with the boring original villain. I forgot rule one: It's always the players' fault.
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on May 2, 2017 13:25:37 GMT -8
Didn't we trample this topic into the ground during the Great Saelorn Incident of 2016 with the whole "One True Way" discussion?
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on May 2, 2017 13:38:27 GMT -8
I see you got my little nod in that direction, with my Fate mention. But at least I can hold my head up high when my Grandchildren ask "What did you do in the Great Saelorn Incident of 2016, Gran'pa?
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on May 2, 2017 13:39:53 GMT -8
'Course, back then we thought it was the Great Flame War to End All Flame Wars. How wrong we were ...
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on May 2, 2017 13:49:57 GMT -8
Truly what have we left for our children...
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on May 2, 2017 15:39:49 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. The GM can dictate anything at any time. I can declare that a transdimensional nuke appears in the PCs' tavern and detonates, killing everyone. It would be a short, dissatisfying session for everyone involved, and moreover a breach of trust about how a GM is allowed to treat their players' investment in their character. For their part, the players are able to take their PCs elsewhere and run them in someone else's game, ignoring the "adventure" where they were arbitrarily killed. Because this is all make-believe, despite what the Chick Tract depicted. Here is a real world comparison: I'm guessing (hoping, really) that you're not a murderer. Or a rapist. You're a law abiding citizen. But you have probably jaywalked. Or at some point, driven at a speed over the speed limit. Or failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. These are all instances of breaking the law. I've done each of the latter set, because it was expedient. I'm a law abiding citizen, until it makes more sense not to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 21:24:38 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. Once you realize you how the power of fiat and you have the foresight to know when you want to declare or omit a certain result, you no longer have any reason to roll dice and fudge the result. If you want a certain result, it is so. If you want random, you roll.
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on May 3, 2017 21:47:29 GMT -8
Side note: I've been getting used to the idea that "failed roll" doesn't always mean "miss," and can mean "succeed with a cost" (or with a great cost), and I may start leaning that way instead of fudging rolls. Let my baddie do what they'd planned, but also have it exposed them in some other manner.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 3, 2017 21:58:14 GMT -8
Side note: I've been getting used to the idea that "failed roll" doesn't always mean "miss," and can mean "succeed with a cost" (or with a great cost), and I may start leaning that way instead of fudging rolls. Let my baddie do what they'd planned, but also have it exposed them in some other manner. Why, what is so bad with the baddies winning sometimes? But I like the miss being a success at a cost when failure is un reasonable.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on May 4, 2017 0:54:53 GMT -8
Side note: I've been getting used to the idea that "failed roll" doesn't always mean "miss," and can mean "succeed with a cost" (or with a great cost), and I may start leaning that way instead of fudging rolls. Poor player rolls not being "failures" but being "something happens (usually bad)" is one of the things I like most about Apocalypse World based games. Other systems have this too of course. I've seen it mentioned in Fate and even in D&D 5e, but often as a side bar, an optional rule, or an "oh by the way" sort of thing. It's gotten to the point where I almost can't run games where the default RAW assumption is a bad roll equals failure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 1:18:44 GMT -8
I think the big difference with poor rolls in PbtA is that the consequence of it is always defined to some extent. It codifies the 'failure' and clearly states what the cost might be, which for me is both a strength and sense of frustration for the system. It takes some of the lifting work off of GM and ensures they frame rolls so that they allow the costs described but at the same time I have had occasions where the listed costs felt like they were restricting.
In contrast the optional rule of success at a cost in other systems is typically open ended, which is why I think it often gets forgotten about. It requires more mental lifting from the GM but also has the potential to be more open ended.
|
|