|
Post by rickno7 on Feb 5, 2013 16:27:24 GMT -8
So CreativeCowboy, can you think of a single reason you would bend your own rules as a GM? or is your will that iron clad?
|
|
|
Post by daeglan on Feb 5, 2013 23:28:16 GMT -8
Consider the following hypothetical background bits: The second one sounds real juicy, doesn't it? It's gonna take some work to integrate, though. The players need a good reason to be in Westport and to be in the company of Barton the Tinker—are you going to go to all that work just to tie up a minor background bit? I think the former, less detailed version, would be easier to integrate on the fly: Don't create it on the fly. Create it during character generation.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Feb 6, 2013 0:12:41 GMT -8
Consider the following hypothetical background bits: The second one sounds real juicy, doesn't it? It's gonna take some work to integrate, though. The players need a good reason to be in Westport and to be in the company of Barton the Tinker—are you going to go to all that work just to tie up a minor background bit? I think the former, less detailed version, would be easier to integrate on the fly: Don't create it on the fly. Create it during character generation. I'd say it depends on your GM which is better. A more notes heavy, pre-planning GM... You should definitely go with the first choice and help him out. A more free-form spontaneous GM, go with the later.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Feb 6, 2013 2:06:17 GMT -8
This leads me to wonder... have you guys done a show topic yet about whether or not a character's stats ARE the character? Are you a combination of your SAT scores and your max bench-press weight? No you are not. You are a combination of all the things that make you 'who/what you are' as opposed to 'what you can do'. Your characters 'character' emerges from background, abilities, profession, experience, gameplay and interactions - the player then attributes the characters personality thru his/her interpretation of how these factors interact in the final analysis. Two characters with the same identical factors could/should/would still be different as a result of being constructed by two different players with different perspectives on each of these interacting factors. We discuss a lot the dynamics/synergy between GM/players and characters/game (mechanics) but this topic brings up the neglected consideration of player/character interaction. I should clarify it's not actually been neglected so much as not explicitly stated as a consideration in itself (because the issue is frequently touched on is the context of discussions). Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Feb 6, 2013 2:09:08 GMT -8
Don't create it on the fly. Create it during character generation. I'd say it depends on your GM which is better. A more notes heavy, pre-planning GM... You should definitely go with the first choice and help him out. A more free-form spontaneous GM, go with the later. or do both?
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Feb 6, 2013 5:42:54 GMT -8
So CreativeCowboy, can you think of a single reason you would bend your own rules as a GM? or is your will that iron clad? Good question and I have to consider how rigid am I? Well I can certainly answer part of that question but my players have the answer to the part involving perception. My single (big) reason probably starts and ends with the players themselves and the social contract. The modern golden rule being touted is to bend a rule/gank the system because it’s fun (to the player’s/players’ advantage). A player should not be left with a dead character in the first 5 minutes of play is a frequent example of good rule bending, for example. (But before a big straw man Kumbaya breaks out let us remember RPGs have more factors in play than dice to determine character death – the greatest of these factors should be player agency.) A game needs rules to define risk dispassionately or the “game” is not a game. And then why should a consistent GM not bend the rules for the PC’s opposition, and “ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!”? (AD&D 1e DMG pg.110) Does not God make it rain on the righteous as well as the unrighteous? (Matthew 5:45) Would that not be fun too? *Cough*GMPC*cough* Probably not…. Plus the game is not a platform for someone’s popularity contest in any case. If the players do not trust another player, being over accommodating as a GM isn’t going to win any players over on the trust meter. Back in the day when the game was (GM’s) rulings over (published) rules, the golden rule was rulings Consistency! Consistency! Consistency! Even that, given the axiom’s origin during the period known as “GM is God,” seems to me to be truer to the game than modern thinking of RAW systems as applying except sometimes (when it does not conform to “The Story” being the new consistency: Dance my puppets!). Granted, I view the new theory of inconsistent system application as degradation to Wisdom within the hobby. Your mileage may vary as is true with GM = System. I pondered a definition of system on the Matters of System thread for this reason. I would not trust my drinking water to a “plumbing system” that was inconsistent, much less define it to be a “system.” But don’t get me wrong. My system is still very distinctive to me beyond my dicing according to Hoyle abrogation of GM-as-God-muscle-flex. I do let the munchkin roll his inscrutable dice, which no one but he can read and sometimes even he has to pick it up and bring it to his eyes for a perception or a CHARISMA check but not in combat. Am I suggesting he is cheating? If I cared enough, maybe; but the obvious observation I am making is that he is playing a different game than the game at the table. And he plays that game solely with himself, choosing when he wants risk to enter his game. I had the NORWEGIAN looking over my shoulder and onto my map on the weekend, with my only response the simple: You only spoil your own fun. (This more than likely added to the TPK, as I think about it, since he does not yet grok I do not mark monsters on my map but in my written notes.) Even in character generation, I have some leeway. I do not make players form a line to roll so I can check the dice. I do hover but I am not able to see someone quick roll an 18 while I am busy laughing WITH someone about their 3. Add to that I let players re-roll wholly-stated characters, and my table can be quite busy. I don’t say to the munchkin, let me see you roll that 18 on my Precision dice please. I could if I cared that much about the game from /my/ side. I also encourage players to equip their characters without fear of cost. Expensive items will obviously have a back-story to them either as heirlooms or stolen goods. A back-story for a character that is a human raised by Dwarves gets a surprising (to the player) Dwarven bonus not dictated by rules wherever the bonus is logical. I work with players to create (and so I understand) the character they want to play. I am against handing me a back-story novel to read so I use this as my way to be collaborative. AD&D 1e has only 4 basic roles/classes dependent upon dice roll results but a multitude of characters within those classes independent of dice roll results. That’s where I get creative and bendy with the players over rules – part of that social contract. So is it my will that is iron clad? I would say that reflects me as system/consistent, and being a system that shuns philosophical stories to invalidate itself/consistency occasionally but whenever it is convenient to break consistency. Sorry, Rick#7 for a long answer but for a worthy question, which got me to think it through by writing. +1 for that.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Feb 6, 2013 6:06:00 GMT -8
Are you a combination of your SAT scores and your max bench-press weight? No you are not. You are a combination of all the things that make you 'who/what you are' as opposed to 'what you can do'. Your characters 'character' emerges from background, abilities, profession, experience, gameplay and interactions - the player then attributes the characters personality thru his/her interpretation of how these factors interact in the final analysis. Two characters with the same identical factors could/should/would still be different as a result of being constructed by two different players with different perspectives on each of these interacting factors. We discuss a lot the dynamics/synergy between GM/players and characters/game (mechanics) but this topic brings up the neglected consideration of player/character interaction. I should clarify it's not actually been neglected so much as not explicitly stated as a consideration in itself (because the issue is frequently touched on is the context of discussions). Aaron I submitted 736 words to Stu on this topic for his consideration towards a post on Douchey DM. I am repeatedly asked by new-to-the-hobby people to explain how RPGs work and I stick close to player skill rather than... how did Gary put it: play actors.. I could cut and paste my refined 827-word answer here but I will wait for Stu's decison about its worthiness on his blog before I do.
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on Feb 6, 2013 9:51:42 GMT -8
I appreciate the thought and effort in your reply, and I am never one to shy away from reading large posts. Consistency is definitely something we need to keep in mind, even us bendy GM's. There could easily be a "but you did that for him" thrown at the GM if the GM is being rather openly accommodating.
The kind of game you're playing also figures into it. I've said it before, that if a group wants me to GM an old school dungeon crawl, I am much less accommodating and bendy with them. If I am playing with a bunch of RPG Veterans that know the rules, I am much more strict. They are the kind of people that know failures can lead to fun also. I guess I get most bendy when I am playing with new to the hobby players or players that are only there to have fun for the evening and may never play again(friends of friends etc etc). The kind of GM I am varies with the genre/group or even game system I am playing with(I'm super flexible with SW typically because I want the players to go batshit crazy with stunts and ideas). I guess that's the opposite of consistency, but another way of saying it is that I am flexible. Be as the water, Bruce says.
The "game" may not be a platform for a popularity contest, but the hobby does need players. I do not think I am trying to get the players to like me as a GM when I am accommodating, I am trying to keep the fun going. Too many times I've seen GM's play a group of newbs the same way they play their veterans. Sometimes the school of hard knocks works, but you get more flies with honey than vinegar. I sometimes wonder what percentage of possible gamers are turned away by ONE game by GM's more focused on doing things "right" than doing things "fun". I personally want everyone in the pool that wants to play. There is bound to be a game they enjoy and a group they can find that is fun for them.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Feb 7, 2013 3:02:23 GMT -8
I am pretty well static on the dice (and roll in the open and have players roll their own secret rolls pre-game, which I respect in-game) regardless if the players are veterans or new-to-the-hobby people. GM = System means I am the rules (with a personality bias to welcome player appeals out of game as in my example above of character-gen). I guess I am apt to be looser with the veterans because I do not want the focus of new players to be on rules: gamers being more apt to break into a rules discussion at the table. I recall in 3.5 forgetting to apply a monster’s “to hit” bonus on the munchkin. (I was learning my application of 3.5 and he was one of the veterans – a co-GM – I turned to since I learn by doing not by reading.) I remembered only after and he “advised” me it was too late to apply the bonus, which would have hit. I did not fret over it though it be the rules *cough*theSystem!*cough*. The hit to his sorcerer, at first level, would have provided some excitement. But he spoils his own game. He will never work out his own insecurities in a comfort zone wrapped in a blanket of rules & rolling inscrutable dice. His loss. He brings this to his edge of the table. Others may bring other psychological needs beyond insecurities associated to belonging and winning. I tend to appeal to people with a belonging need, like me seeking friends, so my system is to apply risk evenly and consistently so players can become a cohesive party by working together at the table. I understand your comment The kind of GM I am varies with the genre/group or even game system I am playing with(I'm super flexible with SW typically because I want the players to go batshit crazy with stunts and ideas). in this way I apply it. I would not use an exploding dice mechanic because I understand it could very easily create TPKs of my players. The swing of risk is too wide. I would rather engross them in a deadly game of GURPS. AD&D 1e has natural 1 and 20, which is enough tension for us – particularly for the munchkin. New players deserve the same even break as monsters (Gary's editorial in all caps) so that players can enjoy the risks in their game if they want. That’s my philosophy. I complain plenty about the gamers sending away new players but I did it once. The first TPK had a new-to-the-hobby player as the lone survivor: a 3.5 Sorcerer with polymorph self and ventriloquism spells who got caught in a trap and only managed to free himself (herself – PC was female) as the battle ended. So, left with a table full of dead PCs belonging to gamers, I told the gamers to bring PCs to the next game. This upset the new guy because he had to go through the whole process of character-gen, and I never saw him again. He had a good “you vs. me” point. Gamers making cracks about his PC’s lack of sleep spells probably did not help either. But that was his concept of PC, which is just as valid in my eyes as anything I would create. Too bad the gamers did not take a moment to get socially acquainted before they spawned. Maybe the munchkin would not have pulled a Leeroy Jenkins – more a factor of the TPK than a Sorcerer with a cross bow. I digress. The episode taught me a lesson in presentation if not form – something a guy like me in PR for so many years should have known I’d think. Sometimes the classical mess is necessary and should not be stripped away. I should have been more like water and less like wood but that is about how and not about what: presentation rather than flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Feb 7, 2013 6:13:43 GMT -8
The thing to remember about exploding dice is:
1. They can just as easily (and typically more often) explode the other way.
In Savage Worlds, the player characters are all wildcard characters which means that they roll an extra d6 for everything they do except damage. The SW guide expresses this as, "That little bit of extra luck they get for being heroes." As a result they are actually more likely to get an explosion than most of the npcs under my control. I typically have 1-2 wild card npc's in a session. The pc's dice explode far more often than mine do.
2. The dice to shake that wound are just as likely to explode as the dice that caused it.
In a recent game an attack on a pc did 2 wounds (4 is incapacitated and 2 is pretty painful), but the soak roll exploded and negated the two wounds.
Point being that the exploding dice make for an added bit of excitement in a game. There are ALWAYS cheers around the table when a pc's attack explodes, and even more when a pc soaks out of a bad spot.
In a culminating battle of a recent story arc Gina (who's character was the focus of the bad guy's evil plots) announced a called shot to the head. First her attack exploded giving her a raise on her damage (extra damage die) then the damage dice exploded to the moon and she blew a canoe in the head of the big bad guy rendering him into the after life abruptly.
Totally awesome and poetic end to a story arc that had been going on for several months.
Obviously go with what works for you.
JiB
|
|
otherdoc
Supporter
Jim - Yes, THAT Jim
Posts: 84
Preferred Game Systems: AMBER Diceless, Savage Worlds, D&D/Pathfinder, Fiasco, Apocalypse Engine
Currently Playing: N/A (on a hopefully temporary hiatus as a player)
Currently Running: N/A (only con games, at the moment)
Favorite Species of Monkey: Squirrel Monkey (Peru, Ucayali Region)
|
Post by otherdoc on Feb 7, 2013 18:53:01 GMT -8
No you are not. You are a combination of all the things that make you 'who/what you are' as opposed to 'what you can do'. Your characters 'character' emerges from background, abilities, profession, experience, gameplay and interactions - the player then attributes the characters personality thru his/her interpretation of how these factors interact in the final analysis. Two characters with the same identical factors could/should/would still be different as a result of being constructed by two different players with different perspectives on each of these interacting factors. We discuss a lot the dynamics/synergy between GM/players and characters/game (mechanics) but this topic brings up the neglected consideration of player/character interaction. I should clarify it's not actually been neglected so much as not explicitly stated as a consideration in itself (because the issue is frequently touched on is the context of discussions). Aaron I submitted 736 words to Stu on this topic for his consideration towards a post on Douchey DM. I am repeatedly asked by new-to-the-hobby people to explain how RPGs work and I stick close to player skill rather than... how did Gary put it: play actors.. I could cut and paste my refined 827-word answer here but I will wait for Stu's decison about its worthiness on his blog before I do. I think this hits on the exact distinction I'm talking about. On the one side you have the folks who say that characters in Savage Worlds are very alike, while on the other you have the folks who say that characters in Savage Worlds are very different. They always say "characters" but what exactly do they mean by that? I suspect that the former are focusing on the stats alone, while the latter are focusing more on what is being done with those stats. Sure, system matters, but is it ALL that matters? Is the use of the system as much a part of it as the statistics it supports? If you end up choosing the same mechanical options as everyone else, do the reasons behind your choices - e.g. the idea Fred's d6 in Fighting supports vs the very different idea your own d6 in Fighting supports - still have value?
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Feb 7, 2013 22:57:04 GMT -8
I think there must be -- with Savage Worlds especially -- a "suspension of disbelief" with regards to game mechanics and story.
There's always a niggling little voice in the back of my mind saying, "it's all just rolling dice and comparing them to numbers on a page."
Does anyone else ever experience this? It's almost an uneasiness about the assumptions we hold while at the table. Or we're coming to a realization of futility. Which is kind of absurd, because if anything can be futile, it's pastimes and hobbies.
And when that voice gets loud, it shatters the immersion for me. I can still play the game and it's still fun, but things in the game start to become an exercise of numbers that get anthropomorphed into characters, and I start thinking, "we're just rolling dice and comparing them to numbers on a page."
This voice is loudest when I'm playing Savage Worlds, precisely because the characters are so similar, and we only have this thin veil of a facade that differentiates them.
One of the reasons I like crunchier games generally, I think, is because characters are different, yes, in back story and flavor, but also mechanically.
And yes, that will make a great topic..
|
|
azuretalon
Journeyman Douchebag
I poop violence!!!
Posts: 150
|
Post by azuretalon on Feb 8, 2013 5:52:43 GMT -8
I have that same niggling voice sometimes, but I haven't experienced it very much in Savage Worlds. I wondered about it when I was building pregenerated characters for a one shot that all looked an aweful lot alike, but all of the characters had a similar set of skills by design. It would be like making a military unit and worried they all had a core of similarities. In that case something crunchier might be good to differentiate the squads different levels of the same skill as opposed to Savage Worlds limitation of "everyone is at least competent"
Actually, the game that I have had the dice and numbers and nothing else experience with the most was Wild Talents. Although there are extras and flaws and stuff, essentially you just at the core have different values of three core stats. "attack", "defend", and "useful." It really ruined the feel of the game after I ran it about 3 sessions and story wouldn't make it stop feeling almost like a simple minis game with no minis.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Feb 8, 2013 6:23:14 GMT -8
Admittedly I never hear that voice, but I am more one of those play actor types, which means you could remove the sheet entirely. Too much math could make me do that (which I always thought GURPS would be but it's Hero that did that for me)
As for comments on breaking our styles, it seems one thing all of us agree on is it depends on the players. I hate fudging, but I fudged like a motherfucker one night because I wasn't letting someone's character die that particular night. It happens...
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Feb 8, 2013 8:55:56 GMT -8
Interestingly I tend to have this problem the most with d20 systems. Perhaps that's because to me all of the game systems we use may put different names on things but the crunch is the same.
Regardless of whether I'm casting a fire ball, a lightning bolt or a cone of cold, the number of people affected and the number of dice is still the same.
Cheers,
JiB
|
|