|
Post by Monkeyfun Dave on May 9, 2017 11:39:01 GMT -8
Well I like eggs. A lot, Howard. I love eggs. I loooove eggs. I go into the coffee shop in the hotel and I love eggs. I order over easy eggs, I like the eggs over easy. They never come over easy that's a hard egg to order, the over easy, if they're under easy they're disgusting. I only got one tooth there and if they're under easy they run down my face. So that's why I order a omelette.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 9, 2017 11:47:28 GMT -8
Anyway, like I was sayin', shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. Dey's uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 9, 2017 14:23:55 GMT -8
I find this reaction interesting. Specifically regarding dice fudging... it is a dick move to call for a dice roll and then decide you don't like the result and 'adjust' it to fit the situation. I find your entire response interesting, especially considering that you didn't seem to read the entire thread; had you done so, you'd see that I'm in no way advocating a policy of general dice fudging. Had you done so, you would have come across this post, which clearly details what I consider to be the GM's agency. As shown in that post, there is ONE circumstance in which I think a dice fudge is OK, and that's only if a character is going to die in the first session or two and, in the GM's opinion, that's going to prohibit the story from getting off the ground. But no matter how you put it it's changing the story. The character death is a part if the story and you are cheating the players of a maby better story in the lomg run. If you feel a need to have players safe from harm don't have combat that can lead to death. And where do you draw the line on when characters can die? The third season, 6 in game hours or some other arbitrary condition...
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 9, 2017 15:35:26 GMT -8
better story in the long run where do you draw the line on when characters can die? I'm pretty sure that I did, already, address those two concerns: I draw the line at the first session or two, and then only if the death would impede the story getting off the ground. You can't have a story "in the long run" if the central character(s) die in the first session or two. With that, I'm not going to engage with you on this topic any further. I've reiterated these points several times over, and you seem content to ignore them; I don't want to go in circles any longer. I'm glad that you have a style of GMing that works for you and your group, and I'm glad that I have a style of GMing which works for me and my group. That's the magic of RPGs: you can play your way, and I can play my way, and there are no RPG police who are going to descend on either one of us and arrest us for Doing It Wrong. You're having fun, and I'm having fun, so we're both Doing It Right. Have fun gaming.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 10, 2017 1:02:16 GMT -8
But no matter how you put it it's changing the story. Everything changes the story. Otherwise, we wouldn't play it. That's the point. Maybe better, maybe not. There's no way to be sure in the moment, so you make your best guess and get on with it. When I think that your death would be boring or anticlimactic. My players know that going in, and are good with it.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 10, 2017 1:50:02 GMT -8
But no matter how you put it it's changing the story. Everything changes the story. Otherwise, we wouldn't play it. That's the point. Maybe better, maybe not. There's no way to be sure in the moment, so you make your best guess and get on with it. When I think that your death would be boring or anticlimactic. My players know that going in, and are good with it. If the game is collaborative why change the story to your liking? This the question that bugs me, it feels wrong to change the random outcome of dice, it goes against the point of using dice as a randomizer. You can't know so why change the story, you will ruin the better story sometimes if you use GM fiat. It's not wrong to play the way you want to but are you shure that all players know this "rule"? If they do and like it then keep on playing that way. I just think that since you are playing with a set of rules you should use them all as they are intended,character death and all.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 10, 2017 4:22:32 GMT -8
....
I mean this seriously, and with all due respect, but are you reading what you are putting down? Do you realize just how it sounds?
Everyone at the table is adding to the story in ways that they think are cool. That's the whole point of what you're doing. No one is going to try to adjust the story in ways they think will suck.
As for not knowing.... Welcome to life? There are no guarantees. I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I will always be right. But, something has to be done in the moment, and I choose what I think is the best option at that moment.
|
|
|
Post by savagedaddy on May 10, 2017 5:47:13 GMT -8
I find this reaction interesting. Specifically regarding dice fudging... it is a dick move to call for a dice roll and then decide you don't like the result and 'adjust' it to fit the situation. I find your entire response interesting, especially considering that you didn't seem to read the entire thread; had you done so, you'd see that I'm in no way advocating a policy of general dice fudging. Had you done so, you would have come across this post, which clearly details what I consider to be the GM's agency. As shown in that post, there is ONE circumstance in which I think a dice fudge is OK, and that's only if a character is going to die in the first session or two and, in the GM's opinion, that's going to prohibit the story from getting off the ground. First, thank you for the response and feedback. I want to be clear that I my intention is to have a conversation, not troll your opinions about roleplaying. Having said that, I'd like to examine some issues I have with the one situation where you advocate dice fudging... If a group narrative is truly the goal of a roleplyaing game, then everyone at the table must agree to a unified set of rules regarding how that story comes to be. Each player has agency over their character's decisions and action... not the outcome or consequences. Consequences are determined by the established rules of the game, which may constitute the roll of the dice or GM fiat. Speaking of agency, you state "the GM should be able to make a judgement call to lessen the effect [of a bad dice roll] so that the story can get off the ground and the character can continue to allow the player their agency". This is in fact the exact opposite of player agency. The player has already exercised their agency by making a choice, which they are aware will be determined by a dice roll and the established rules of the game. If the result is death, even in the first session, then the character must die according to player agency. Player agency means the player gets to decide, not the Gamesmaster. Characters who chose to engage in combat (which have very clear and precise outcomes and rules determined by dice rolls) against a clearly superior foe should get a case of the deads. It is in the interest of the group narrative for the GM to roleplay his NPCs realistically. Pulling punches, retreating, or fudging combat and damage rolls to keep the character alive is cheating the player of their agency, not to mention the thrill of a victory. Don't get me wrong, here. When the outcome of a dice roll (usually a non-combat roll) has a negative effect it is within the GM authority to apply a non-binary interpretation. For example, a character chasing bandits on horseback through the forest may make a Riding roll and fail it miserably. This doesn't mean he falls of his horse and breaks his neck. It could mean his horse trips and breaks its neck and leaves him stranded with a few bruises. Either way, the chase is over and the character is faced with an interesting dilemma. I've heard this "for the good of the story" or "in favor of the players" argument for 'dice fudging' over and over again. At the end of the day, it is not the Gamemaster's story and therefore not his decision. Character death, even in the first session, can be a dramatic event that pushes the story forward. Fudging dice is anti-player agency, not pro-storytelling. If a player character rolls incredibly well and one-shots a NPC, then the GM should change the outcome because it lessens the intended tension and conflict of the scene... right? Try that at your table sometime and see how players react! A hit that should kill the goblin chieftain is "only a scratch" because it is good for the story? It's a dick move! And your players will most likely call you a cheating GM. If you wouldn't fudge die in the favor of your NPCs, why would you fudge dice in the favor of your PCs?
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 10, 2017 5:52:54 GMT -8
Sounds good, savagedaddy! Have fun gaming your way, as I have fun gaming my way.
|
|
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 12, 2017 0:38:48 GMT -8
Right I've just read something that I want to share, but first, lets take this discussion back to wear it started. It has become a discussion about fluffing dice rolls (and I'm in the "if you are going to fluff the dice, why roll at all?" camp on that - I do use a screen but I make most rolls on the player's side), but it started with the idea of changing the villian in a detective story: I would feel cheated if the GM changed the villain no matter the reasons. To which I (eventually) replied: And when I write a scenario myself, I might set out the perpetrator in the first draft, then change my mind when I get a better idea in the second draft. This could all happen before we start playing, and if it did you would never accuse me of breaking the rules simply because I had a better idea. You'd never know. So we've started playing and the players have a better idea, and I think it's really cool. It's my scenario, not pre-published, so I can change my mind. Given that the whole story was in my head anyhow, or honestly the wholestory isn't even there, it's in the imaginative space between me and the players, all my social contract with my players promises is that I'll create an illusion of a consistent world. This. So much this. You nailed it. (I used Steven's post here, because he and I so rarely agree, and have come to flames over some things, and his reply here make me feel good. ) But I acknowledge uncommonman's worry about depriving the players of story that might have happened if the GM had not changed the villain. Though he didn't say it in these exact words: what gives the GM the right to decide which is the better story? Now you see, I used words like "better" and "cooler" in my argument, and actually I have no right to make things arbitrarily better or cooler. How can I assume that my players will agree with my definition of "cool"?. If I do that, I should maybe just go off and write a novel. But I was wrong to use those words to express what I still believe to be a truth, that GM's do have the right, the responsibility even, to change the scenario in the middle of play. But "better" and "cooler" are not the values I should have used. Instead I should have used "interesting". And its expressed so well in on page 6 on the new edition of Unknown Armies: "If everyone's interested in the story, you're playing it right..." My job as GM is to keep everyone interested in the story. And so I realise that when I have changed the villian (or whatever) mid-scenario its because the idea that the players have come up with isn't "better" or "cooler" but it is "more interesting." And I know my players think its more interesting, because by just coming up with the idea they are demonstrating interested in it! And its not about making the players always right. Just to finish that quote from UA: "If everyone's interested in the story, you're playing it right even if it turns into disaster and abject humiliation." So when I change a story (be it a different identity for the villian or a quantim ogre), its not because the players have gone down the wrong path, but I want to make them happy. It's because they've taken the story in an interesting direction, and its my role to keep them interested.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 12, 2017 1:18:25 GMT -8
Basically it's Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good Aaron
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 1:26:25 GMT -8
fredrix the reason I agreed with you is because you can't make a change to something that doesn't exist yet. A plan isn't a game. You can change your plans, but to change the game you would need to do so retroactively, since it doesn't exist until it is played. Essentially, there is a moment where everything gets locked in, and that moment occurs when you actually play the game. Your plans exist behind a sort of event horizon and only show a set of possible outcomes, not all outcomes. The players have no way of perceiving your plans, they are just an amorphous thing past a point they can't see. Your goal is to keep things interesting and coherent, for while they can't see your plans, they can sense when the story loses coherence. Deciding to change your plan is in no way similar to changing the outcome of a die roll. This is because there are two options for a GM to chose between when making any decision: Random or determined. When you have a plan you have a determined result. You as the GM decide what happens. You are still deciding what happens, even if you deviate from your plan. A random result removes your ability or responsibility to decide an outcome. Whatever happens, happens. It isn't you who chose this result, but some randomizer. Fudging dice changes your method of resolution from random to determined. Random has some benefits. It lets you remove your direct responsibility so as to shunt guilt. "I didn't kill you, it was the dice." Because of that, random can be seen to be more dangerous. GM's very rarely kill through a determined result, but they do so all the time based on random ones. So rolling behind a screen for no reason creates tension by invoking fear of a random outcome. Here's the thing though, being know as a cheat or a thief will color everything you do. How many known thieves do you invite into your home? For most people its zero or as few as possible (family, you can't always chose them). So, if it ever becomes known that you cheat by fudging dice, that will become a stigma on you. It's not an issue of trust, its an issue of reputation. Different people react differently. Some people feel like you might be robbing them of their deaths. Another might feel like you will cheat in their favor. The fact is that everyone now perceives you differently. Even the use of a screen to shield your dice has its own connotation. It's very similar to posture. A screen builds a wall between the players and the GM, its like armor for the GM. The problem is that everyone can sense it. A screen deprives the user of openness and authenticity. It can also serve as a badge of authority or trappings of office, which furthers the us vs the GM mentality. Some people have seemed to be dismissive of the idea that if its fair game, then everyone should be able to fudge. I'd say to you that this stems from the Us vs Them problem. Are you a part of the group or are you a GM? The more special powers you take advantage of, the less you are one of the group. Winning together means feeling like we are in it together, not battling against the cheating A hole who hides behind his screen and lords his authority over us. As an aside, does anyone like that guy who lords his privilege over others? The entire idea that the GM can just make decision for the group as a whole or could take his ball and go home is kind of toxic. In many groups it is true, but that doesn't make it any nicer. At the end of the day, most of us want to be seen as equals among our friends, not people who have to grovel for their place at the table. I do say that fair is fair though. I also don't expect people to 100% stick to their plans for their characters. These things change as they come out in play, just like GM plans! I think systems that try to box you in and force you to play your plan have it wrong. RPG's are about emergent story, not blindly sticking to plans.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 12, 2017 4:47:47 GMT -8
So, if it ever becomes known that you cheat by fudging dice, that will become a stigma on you. My players know that I fudge dice. None of them has ever voiced a concern over it. Because they all know that if I do so, it's because I'm doing it in the service of the group. Comparing it to thievery is wrong because this isn't a black and white issue. Not everyone (from both sides of the screen) believes that it's a sin.
Fredix, Better, Cooler, Interesting.... They're (in this case) all the same thing. And the whole idea that you (as GM) don't have the right to try to make the game better, cooler, or more interesting is ludicrous at best. Of course you have the right. You're just as much a participant in the game as anyone else at the table. If anyone at the table isn't working to that end, I question why they are there in the first place...
|
|
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 12, 2017 6:14:56 GMT -8
So, if it ever becomes known that you cheat by fudging dice, that will become a stigma on you. My players know that I fudge dice. None of them has ever voiced a concern over it. Because they all know that if I do so, it's because I'm doing it in the service of the group. Comparing it to thievery is wrong because this isn't a black and white issue. Not everyone (from both sides of the screen) believes that it's a sin.
Fredix, Better, Cooler, Interesting.... They're (in this case) all the same thing. And the whole idea that you (as GM) don't have the right to try to make the game better, cooler, or more interesting is ludicrous at best. Of course you have the right. You're just as much a participant in the game as anyone else at the table. If anyone at the table isn't working to that end, I question why they are there in the first place... I guess what I'm getting at is that "better" and "cooler" are entirely subjective, and what I think is better or cooler might not be what the players think is better or cooler. E.g. I might think it's better that they succeed, they might think it's cooler that they fail. The difference with "interesting" is that I can see that the players are interested by/engaged with a story direction that might not be what was originally writtten.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 12, 2017 7:32:50 GMT -8
I guess what I'm getting at is that "better" and "cooler" are entirely subjective, Yup. True, but besides the point. Everyone at the table is there to have fun. Your fun is neither more, nor less important anyone else's. Now, let me be clear, I'm not suggesting actively (or even passively) shooting down a player's fun, but if in the moment, you think X would be awesome, do it. Your participation is just as important as the others. So, as an example, if the player wants to use Diplomacy, and dice hit the table, IF the player announces "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if I failed?" then let them fail. They're clearly engaged and interested in that outcome. However, if they just roll the dice with no comment, and you feel that the game will suffer if he just fails, then give him a success with a cost. As for the question of whether or not the path not traveled might be better... well, Duh. Of course. We're all human, everyone could make wrong decisions. But second guessing every choice you make... well, that way lays madness and doing nothing, and that's just boring for everyone.
|
|