Subject:
|
Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:24:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3513 times
|
| |
|
|
In article <Gx4zEB.4o4@lugnet.com>,
Christopher Weeks <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote:
> I think the chance of dying should be real, if not certain, and the GM should
> virtually never fudge things to keep the PCs alive. This puts a huge weight on
It's not that simple... the GM _has_ to fudge things to keep PCs alive.
If the party is in the warp core engine room and someone chucks in a big
ol' grenade, there's two choices-- someone throws himself on it and becomes
goo, or nobody does so and the entire ship becomes goo. There's no solution
to this problem that keeps PCs alive. It's nothing they did that got them
there. There's a little heroism in throwing one's self on the grenade, but
otherwise, it's not a heroic death, it's not a punishment for stupid player
actions, it's just dead people.
And so the GM _has_ to fudge things. He's got to make sure that the situation
never comes up. So your PC space marines board the ship, they take out most
of the opposition, but one of the enemies gets away. They know the enemy
will try to destroy the ship so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.
There's drama here, there's a plot, and there's good stuff, this can be
a good game, but the GM has to make sure it doesn't come down to a
grenade and a warp core.
That takes fudging things-- I don't believe the GM should ever _tell_ the
PCs he's fudging things, but the fudge may be required. In a system where
"morale checks" are defined, it might take a morale check to actively do
something that ensures your death. There's a game mechanic defined to
determine if the bad guy can find the resolve to blow up the ship he's
standing on-- but you may need to fudge that roll-- or never make it,
which is just like fudging-- to ensure the wrong end doesn't come about.
The PCs have to feel like what they do changes things, and sometimes as
a GM you have to fudge things around them so they're in those positions.
We can step back to chasing the saboteur aroudn the ship again. The saboteur
knows the ship and he has access codes to let him into places quickly. The
PCs can get lost and have to muscle open or destroy hatchways and doors.
Once the PCs know that the saboteur is headed for the engine room, it
doesn't make them feel like they have a reason to play if they can't get
there in time. But if they make a wrong turn, being lost on an unfamiliar
enemy ship, it's not exactly a good story to have them lever open the door,
look in and find sickbay, and then watch the decks vaporize beneath them.
You'll have to fudge timing-- or perhaps the ship's floor plan. You'd drawn
your map as if that was sickbay, perhaps you ought to make it engineering
instead once they get there; it's not like they know where it is. Or the
saboteur is delayed, and is only setting his charge up when the players
finally show up.
Given that no battle plan ever survives contact with the player characters,
I think GMing _is_ fudging. :) This doesn't mean that you can't kill a PC
once in a while if people are being morons, or if it's a great heroic
death, but you do have to be flexible to get the story where it needs to
go. And, of course, there's the flip side to this: Sometimes it's worse
_not_ to kill the PC. :) When the PCs run for the Bridge, instead, having
ignored the fact that mission Intel already told them the warp core can't be
shut down from there, you can simply have the bridge seal off and eject from
the ship as an escape pod when the shop blows. Congratulations, Marine,
you're now busted to private and scraping fleebnorks off the hull. :)
-JDF
--
J.D. Forinash ,-.
jd@forinash.not ( <
The more you learn, the better your luck gets. `-'
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
| (...) <snip> (...) This sounds to me like a scenario which isn't designed correctly for the tone of the campaign the GM wants to run. I also question the bit: "but you do have to be flexible to get the story where it needs to go." To me that sounds (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
| (...) Why? Is it just exciting to imagine it? (I like fight scenes in movies.) I particularly seek to reward my players for solving problems without combat. (...) I think the chance of dying should be real, if not certain, and the GM should (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
