On 13 Feb 2002, at 8:55, Noctifer@aol.com wrote: > I don't think its the only valid way to play. Sheryl Crow comes to mind "If it > makes you happy...it can't be that bad..." It's the only way you're going to > get me to enjoy a game, though. If I think you're stacking the deck because the > players are suddenly getting overwhelmed too early in the adventure or because > they're having too easy of a time with it, I'm going to take issue (more the > latter than the former, to be honest). Sometimes, players are smart, they get > lucky (unless it's a diceless game, of course) and they plan well. An adventure > that you thought would be tough, they're racing through. Putting more monsters > in, to me, is tantamount to punishing them for being too "good" about it. Or > maybe the reverse is true, and they're getting trounced because they made some > bad decisions. Halfing the hit points of the opponents or otherwise fudging is > patronizing, to me. If you made a mistake in planning, learn from it and move > on. If your players made a mistake, l! > et them learn from it and move on. Changing the situation to fit what you, as > GM, feel is somehow "best" detracts from the player's input into the game. > That's going to detract from the fun of the game for me, both as a player and > as a GM. > > >There's a lot to be said for the GM quick on his feet > >who adjusts the challenge levels and such based on how > >the players are doing, correcting his misestimates of > >what he intended to throw at the players ahead of > >time. You may not like it, and it's fine to play that > >way. But also, if done with the right GM and the > >right group of players, it can make the whole thing a > >lot more fun if the GM is willing to tune up the world > >not based just on some pure randomizer, but also based > >on his changing impression during play of what will > >work best. I think it depends on the troupe. I'm from the old school of GMing (Gygax University Class of 82) where the dice a secondary to the enjoyment of the game. My normal troupe expects me to bump difficulty factors as needed - not that I won't kill a character outright, but if I've obviously overwhelmed them (which almost never happens) as a group, I will move health or armor on the opponents downward to make it equitable. Almost never would I bump up the opponents - if I planned incorrectly and the party trashes them, then I learn and improve for next time - usually NEXT TIME is when I commit overkill. However, when running a game for someone I do not know, for example at ORIGINS, I am very strict about rules and rolls, and have been known to set my screen aside and let the players see the dice rolls as they happen. I likewise have a problem which is known as the curse of "bad dice" where as a GM I critical fail more than the average (about twice the average I'd expect), regardless of system. I'll roll 18's in GURPS, ---- in FUDGE, 1's in D20, I'll pull both Jokers in Deadlands, etc. It's not a problem when I play, only when I GM. > >What you say with the, "I don't want to guide my > >players any more than absolutely necessary," does not > >become any less true without dice, or any more with > >dice. Random resolution is just that: random. It > >takes the GM to make the real decisions... the device > >du jour is the tool one applies to _aid_ in that > >decision making. To make either method (pure whimsy > >or pure die roll) primary is to invite excess... > > If the GM makes the decision to use dice as the primary means of resolution in > certain situations, such as combat and certain skill checks, the players know > that there's an even playing field that is altered by their decisions. > > >> dislike most role-playing skills or abilities, such > >>as Bluff or Fast Talk. I may use a die to figure out > >>which way an NPC is leaning in these situations, but > >>I try to rely on the PC's role playing ability more. > > > >See, as someone who hates talking to people in > >general, a decision like that penalizes me in > >particular because while my -character- might have a > >near-perfect score in fast-talk, I, myself, have a > >tendency to trip over my own words. Dice would be > >much more "fair." On the other hand, I'm an expert > >at "plastic sword." Why not let your charisma > >players get the benefit of their skills, and let me > >defeat the GM-as-NPC in plastic sword combat? > > Because it detracts from playing the role. RPing is a social activity. In my > games, if you feel like you're not a good speaker, you have two options. 1) > Don't play a character that is socially strong or 2) grow as a person (note: not > "grow up"...I don't want any confusion here, as I've got eggshells on my shoes > already). Option 1 happens all the time...everyone has certain types of > characters they don't particularly enjoy playing or can't play > effectively...cross-gender characters come to mind as an obvious example for > most (but not nearly all) players. Option 2 is obviously the tougher way to > take things, but I think a worthy one. To me, both of these options are a lot > better than "okay, I walk up to the guard and use my fast talk to get past > them...I rolled an 87." That, to me, is an over-reliance on dice. I think, however, that for beginning players, who are actually afraid of camera time, using the dice rolls to get things started work for Fast Talk, etc. Once the player becomes more comfortable, they can start relying on describing what they are doing, or role-playing the interaction even more. The ability score becomes a modifier for the roleplaying - if I have fast Talk 18, and try to play the role in earnest, then the GM should factor that in with his decision. ================================================================ -Coyt "The Internet, billions of electrons with nothing better to do." ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
