HJRP 20-01
Aug 12, 2017 12:19:41 GMT -8
Post by RudeAlert on Aug 12, 2017 12:19:41 GMT -8
About the reply email about the email about HP fudging: right off the bat I think the logic of the point being made is flawed in two ways. First, comparing actions from a GM to actions from a PC is a false equivalence; it's like comparing apples to oranges; there are plenty of similarities, but also loads of differences. Players and GMs play different roles so of course the kinds of things they should be expected or allowed to do should be different. Second, as you guys pointed out in the show, the GM in the prior email was only advocating letting monsters/NPCs die sooner when their eventual defeat was a foregone conclusion, so obviously very different from simply ignoring a hit just because "it doesn't feel right." So, good call on that. And yes, why do you want to torture your players with game mechanics? (I totally added that to my signature by the way )
Regarding Stu Venable's use of the ceding at chess example, that was absolutely on point! Brilliant comparison that really illustrates the difference between cheating and simply not dragging things on to their inevitable conclusion.
As for the idea of randomly deciding that an opponent just dies when it seems appropriate, I can see why some might be bothered by that, because they want to feel like their won fair and square. However, there's another way to approach that, one that I would prefer both as a player and GM; at whatever point the battle starts to look like it's already been lost by the opponent, just have them run away or surrender. It's ultimately the same result, the battle was won by the PCs, things don't have to drag on for another hour (or worse!), and very few creatures (sapient or not) are willing to fight to the death unless there's a damn good reason for it, so it would even make the game feel more real. Especially given that if the GM can see that the battle is already lost, then odds are the monsters/NPCs also know it and they would take that into account.
Also, yeah the idea that just narrating the combat always makes it interesting is definitely bullshit. It does help make fights more interesting, but that only works for so long and then it just gets tedious and boring anyways. Also, gilding a piece of shit... damn! I'll have to remember that one too. Man, Stu and those zingers!
I also agree with Stu's example of giving away your chips at a casino. No one would call that cheating! They'd probably call it stupid, but no one would say that was cheating or breaking the rules. Just for the hell of it, I decided to look up the meaning of "Cheating" on Google. Here are the two definitions:
1- act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination. (Emphasis mine.)
2- avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill. (This is is unrelated since it refers to "cheating death" and stuff like that.)
Definition 1 here really covers a key point of cheating, generally cheating implies doing something that breaks the rules in order to gain an advantage or win. What is being talked about in this RPG context is not the same thing at all.
It really seems like the word "cheating" is gaining popularity among some gamers when talking about any kind of playing style that they don't like. I really hope that trend dies out quickly cuz it's fucking stupid.
On the topic of skipping Perception rolls, I'd like to point out that skipping perception rolls when they would be superfluous or possibly stall the game if failed, doesn't render whatever points where spent on those stats redundant. As a GM, if I know there's one character in the group who has noticeably higher perception stats than the others, you bet that's the one I'll be giving the info to. So those stats, even if they aren't rolled all the time, will still have an impact on the game. Also, even if I choose to skip some perception rolls, that doesn't mean that I would skip all of them, there would still be plenty of uncertain situations where a perception roll is warranted, and guess who's going to succeed at those rolls.
And this approach doesn't have to only apply to perception rolls, I like to skip all sorts of roles in order to let things move along faster and to avoid the occasional stupid outcome:
Player - What do you mean my super athletic master Ninja assassin failed to climb this 5 foot tall rough stone wall!?!
GM - Well, sorry, you rolled a natural 1 and that's an automatic failure...
But even when skipping rolls, the character's stats should always be made to matter. A character with incredible agility will likely scale that wall like it was nothing, whereas a clumsier one might have to spend more time at it and look kind goofy doing it. Likewise, if one character has to be the one who makes a good impression on an NPC, obviously the more attractive/charming one is going to have the honor. So I don't believe that skipping rolls automatically renders a character's stats irrelevant, I mean hell, just think of diceless games.
Regarding Stu Venable's use of the ceding at chess example, that was absolutely on point! Brilliant comparison that really illustrates the difference between cheating and simply not dragging things on to their inevitable conclusion.
As for the idea of randomly deciding that an opponent just dies when it seems appropriate, I can see why some might be bothered by that, because they want to feel like their won fair and square. However, there's another way to approach that, one that I would prefer both as a player and GM; at whatever point the battle starts to look like it's already been lost by the opponent, just have them run away or surrender. It's ultimately the same result, the battle was won by the PCs, things don't have to drag on for another hour (or worse!), and very few creatures (sapient or not) are willing to fight to the death unless there's a damn good reason for it, so it would even make the game feel more real. Especially given that if the GM can see that the battle is already lost, then odds are the monsters/NPCs also know it and they would take that into account.
Also, yeah the idea that just narrating the combat always makes it interesting is definitely bullshit. It does help make fights more interesting, but that only works for so long and then it just gets tedious and boring anyways. Also, gilding a piece of shit... damn! I'll have to remember that one too. Man, Stu and those zingers!
I also agree with Stu's example of giving away your chips at a casino. No one would call that cheating! They'd probably call it stupid, but no one would say that was cheating or breaking the rules. Just for the hell of it, I decided to look up the meaning of "Cheating" on Google. Here are the two definitions:
1- act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination. (Emphasis mine.)
2- avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill. (This is is unrelated since it refers to "cheating death" and stuff like that.)
Definition 1 here really covers a key point of cheating, generally cheating implies doing something that breaks the rules in order to gain an advantage or win. What is being talked about in this RPG context is not the same thing at all.
It really seems like the word "cheating" is gaining popularity among some gamers when talking about any kind of playing style that they don't like. I really hope that trend dies out quickly cuz it's fucking stupid.
On the topic of skipping Perception rolls, I'd like to point out that skipping perception rolls when they would be superfluous or possibly stall the game if failed, doesn't render whatever points where spent on those stats redundant. As a GM, if I know there's one character in the group who has noticeably higher perception stats than the others, you bet that's the one I'll be giving the info to. So those stats, even if they aren't rolled all the time, will still have an impact on the game. Also, even if I choose to skip some perception rolls, that doesn't mean that I would skip all of them, there would still be plenty of uncertain situations where a perception roll is warranted, and guess who's going to succeed at those rolls.
And this approach doesn't have to only apply to perception rolls, I like to skip all sorts of roles in order to let things move along faster and to avoid the occasional stupid outcome:
Player - What do you mean my super athletic master Ninja assassin failed to climb this 5 foot tall rough stone wall!?!
GM - Well, sorry, you rolled a natural 1 and that's an automatic failure...
But even when skipping rolls, the character's stats should always be made to matter. A character with incredible agility will likely scale that wall like it was nothing, whereas a clumsier one might have to spend more time at it and look kind goofy doing it. Likewise, if one character has to be the one who makes a good impression on an NPC, obviously the more attractive/charming one is going to have the honor. So I don't believe that skipping rolls automatically renders a character's stats irrelevant, I mean hell, just think of diceless games.