|
Post by jazzisblues on Feb 10, 2012 7:21:16 GMT -8
Interesting idea Joe, I would probably just nerf it if I didn't like the roll but that's a very interesting thought. JiB My problem is I don't use a GM screen, as I prefer to roll in front of the players. So instead of saying "Oh man, that sucks, I just jacked you up, lets retcon that". I just roll it into the benny economy. It also gives the players the added bonus of eating up one of my bennies so it is usually a win win. And it keeps any rules lawyers in check And that is EXACTLY why I roll behind a screen, or at least roll where the players would have to work at it to see what's on the dice. If I don't like a result (it doesn't drive the story) I can simply throw it out. Now that said, I will NOT throw out a failure or a miss. Basically all I throw out are critical hits and monstrous damage that would kill a pc and serve no purpose. Don't get me wrong I will kill a pc without the slightest hesitation if it meets a couple of criteria but I like having the power to say nope that didn't happen to that pc. What are my criteria you ask? Oh come on you know you asked. 1. Does their death drive the story? 2. Was their death meaningful? 3. Was their death spectacular (in some way) or heroic? A character in my last Pathfinder game died at the hands of a vampiric cleric of an evil god because he was protecting the party. He was grappling the vampire (which gave the vampire chances to do nasty things to him) to keep the vampire from casting flaming death down on the party. Heroic meaningful death. Just my 2 krupplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary. JiB
|
|
|
Post by clockworkmonk on Feb 10, 2012 8:19:15 GMT -8
...JiB, I swear we need to play together sometime. You have a very similar GMing philosophy as me. I would gladly fudge my dice rolls in service to the story. I haven't been playing behind a screen as of late, though I used to while DMing in 4th Ed. The closest I presently have to a screen is my iPad, though. Good enough, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Feb 10, 2012 8:26:40 GMT -8
...JiB, I swear we need to play together sometime. You have a very similar GMing philosophy as me. I would gladly fudge my dice rolls in service to the story. I haven't been playing behind a screen as of late, though I used to while DMing in 4th Ed. The closest I presently have to a screen is my iPad, though. Good enough, I suppose. Would absolutely love to game with you. I kind of waffle back and forth about using a screen myself. I did not use a screen (though I went to the trouble to prep one) for the Hero game I ran last Monday night. I think in part it may come down to the players. The players I had Monday night (Gina, Clockverk, BlindEnvy, CADave, HosierRob and Kurt Hanna) were all about driving the story and so I could probably have made numbers up off the top of my head and they'd have been fine with it. Some players really fixate on the dice which is when I really like having a screen handy. Cheers, JiB
|
|
joegun
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 249
Preferred Game Systems: Savage Worlds
Currently Playing: Just GM'ing right now.
Currently Running: Rippers Resurrected, and Savage RIFTS!
Favorite Species of Monkey: Baboon
|
Post by joegun on Feb 10, 2012 8:47:14 GMT -8
I've never tried a screen. I've always avoided them because it just feels like it adds to the "us vs. them" mentality. Subconsciously I see the "you have to roll in front of me, little player, while I get to hide behind my precious screen and spout whatever I want...Muhahahaha" Ok well maybe not that bad, but you get the point. I'm sure it's just in my head, but that is what has always kept me from rocking the GM screen. (that and I'd probably knock it over alot...)
|
|
|
Post by clockworkmonk on Feb 10, 2012 8:56:28 GMT -8
Funny enough, I have a GM who rolls in front of us players and the "us vs. him" mentality is much more prevalent in that game than it was in the 4th Ed game I used a screen with. I think it's basically because he is very much a "This is what the dice say" kind of GM and pulls no punches at all. Meaning several early random deaths (and a group in which all the original starting characters are now dead except for one). We're all essentially convinced that it's not the dice trying to kill us--it's the GM.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Feb 10, 2012 9:30:09 GMT -8
I've never tried a screen. I've always avoided them because it just feels like it adds to the "us vs. them" mentality. Subconsciously I see the "you have to roll in front of me, little player, while I get to hide behind my precious screen and spout whatever I want...Muhahahaha" Ok well maybe not that bad, but you get the point. I'm sure it's just in my head, but that is what has always kept me from rocking the GM screen. (that and I'd probably knock it over alot...) I think the me-vs-them mentality is really just that more of a mentality and it comes out regardless of whether there's a screen or not. I see your point Joe and that may be why I waffle back and forth at least in part. A gm who takes delight in seeing his characters suffer and die is actually the same as the player who min-maxes his character and wants to "win" the game. The gm is trying to "win" the game rather than collaborate with the players to move their mutual story forward and give everyone a fun game. Just my 2 krupplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary. JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2012 15:45:21 GMT -8
Yeah, I actually started using a screen so I would be less likely to outright kill the party. My goal is a good story, killing the players puts a damper on that. So now I can fudge the numbers a little when need be to keep from performing a TPK with a few lucky rolls.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkmonk on Feb 11, 2012 23:14:43 GMT -8
Note: Experimented with the using bennies to soak wounds for extras tonight. On a board with three enemies and six heroes (and a few players who are still getting used to the combat mechanics), the fight did kind of grind to a halt a lot. These also were not particularly difficult enemies (4 parry, 7 toughness), so unlucky rolls also made an impact.
Came out of the fight with one character wounded twice (soaked it to just one), and another hero with one wound. Somehow, not as fast, furious, or fun as when I didn't soak for extras.
Recommendation: Let the mooks die, and let them die easy.
|
|
jpk
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 58
|
Post by jpk on Feb 12, 2012 12:26:32 GMT -8
If I don't have a particular reason to try to soak for an Extra, I just don't. I only get so many GM bennies, and I usually have a better use for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2012 16:38:14 GMT -8
Well here's how my "Fixing Damage" panned out:
I think it worked very well! It speeds up combat quite a bit, and us being new players, it seemed we are really starting to understand how Savage Worlds works. I like the rule.
In fact, the only one who didn't was one of the PC's who got "Knocked Out" in combat. He didn't seem to notice when the enemy wild cards didn't get a soak roll. hmmm...
BTW here's the theme:
The setting is futuristic 31st century, Earth.
As computers continued to evolve, they became more powerful, but less useful. The amount of information on the planet began to double each day. Despite the abundance of tools to capture, process and share all this information — sensors, computers, mobile phones and the like — it not only exceeds the available storage space and makes protecting data security impossible, but makes the information overload make it more difficult to organize and find. As such, computers, instead of becoming necessary tools of function, have become the ultimate entertainment device. Once thought to be the future of entertainment, video experieced a slow fade in popularity. Video quailty never reached the actual sensation of seeing something for itself, and looking at montors was no longer needed once we could talk to our comopuers. But the abiltiy to produce complex, intricate and inspiring sounds seemed to have no limit. Robots were created to create astonishing, astounding, and awe-inspiring music. You are robot who has formed a band.
This is...
ROBOTS OF SOUND.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkmonk on Apr 7, 2012 19:44:26 GMT -8
Mmmm. Glad to see it worked out. I've basically been letting my players mow through the enemies in combat, largely because they've been going through mooks. Last one did get sort of dangerous when one wild card enemy used the havoc power on three of the players while on an airship exposed to the elements. Two of them got flung off the ship. A cruel GM would've let them die. I let them spend bennies to basically deus ex machina something to save them (they also received no further bennies for the evening). While we're on the topic of damage, I sort of realized the other day that a house rule I implemented way back when we started the campaign last year was ... a house rule and not a core rule. Basically: on attack rolls, combatants are allowed to score more than one raise to add +1d6 to their damage. In effect, every raise on an attack roll earns an additional d6 damage roll. It's basically made fights super[/b] lethal, especially when someone keeps on acing and ends up doing 2d6 weapon damage + 5d6 bonus damage, where those dice can also explode. This has, indeed, led to upwards of 60 damage in one attack before. My players are also incredibly creative in describing how they destroy things. The rule was originally implemented in the super campy shlocky gritty zombie game I ran, and I just carried it over into my main campaign. In future games, I'm likely to remove the rule (particularly due to its super lethality), but when my players are having this much fun with it right now, I can't complain.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Oct 21, 2012 18:29:21 GMT -8
Admittedly, I roll everything out in the open because all in all, it's still a game with a random element. Fudge free.
Then again, any group be it tabletop or LARP or whatever the PCs learn very quickly I am both the ref and the PC's biggest cheerleader in that regard.
Of course bennies make it easier for that...
|
|