Subject:
|
Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:17:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3882 times
|
| |
|
|
"J.D. Forinash" wrote:
>
> In article <3CFED0A9.574DC0D1@mindspring.com>,
> Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > I'm curious, was this an example of a real scenario, and I'm just
> > missing things because there's no way you can compress a game session
> > into a posting or two, or is this a constructed example? If the latter,
>
> It was just a quick example off the top of my head-- certainly, any
> such example will have piles of nits one can pick, and that's sort of
> my point-- anything's gonna have those sorts of problems, and finding
> those problems is exactly what PCs are for.
Ok, this points out a problem with constructions like this, they will
have far more holes than something that was thought out. This particular
construction is actually a good thought exercise for working out gming
and campaign style. If someone asked me as a GM how I would handle this,
some of my responses would be:
- If "scuttling the ship" is a common defensive technique (even if only
for certain units in the military), I would make sure that this is known
to the PCs way before the scenario since this is a pretty important
fact. I would also either accept that PCs might get caught in such a
scuttling and die, or build into the rules/campaign structure ways for
the PCs to survive.
- If "scuttling the ship" is uncommon, and is sort of a special for this
scenario, I would make sure there were many clues.
- My general campaign style would make this an extremely uncommon thing
(most people have too much self preservation to be able to do this). Of
course I also wouldn't run a military oriented SF game (not that the PCs
will never run into military ships though).
> > types of rules that I hate, ones which create a totally unbelievable
> > world. I am willing to suspend disbelieve in certain circumstances (like
>
> That's why we play with human GMs-- the GM can be sane about application
> of the rules. Imagine playing that module (ow..) with a human GM, as
> a druid. The GM says the rats advance. The druid waves his torch at them,
> and the rats recoil from the heat, unharmed, but not interested in going
> forward. The "rule" in the module was that druids die here, but the GM
> has fudged the rule, and the player is none the wiser. Sure, this is
> _really poor_ module design, but unfortunately, I'm not a professional
> GM and while I usually get better than this, my designs ain't perfect,
> either.
I would make a distinction between the game rules, and whatever is
presented in a module. I don't consider it "fudging" to change what's in
a module, at least if it's done before hand. Changing something to fit
my campaign's reality, even in the middle of the game is also not
fudging (so if for some reason, I had missed this "rule" in the module
while reading it before play [and you do read modules before running
them I hope], I would not hesitate to ignore it because that's not how I
run druids).
I also make a distinction between the constant GM adaptation to what's
going on and making major discontinuity changes to keep things going. In
fact, what I would tend to call fudging is the minor change (hmm, I'd
rather not kill anyone in this minor battle, I guess I just rolled a 98
not a 99 on that normal distribution), and don't feel too bad about
using it, but try and minimize the use. Adapting to changing situations
(like changing the script because the PCs did something unexpected) is
not fudging, that's expected (i.e. if the script has the enemies
blissfully being unaware of the PCs intrusion into the ship, but they
decide they don't like something they find in the sick bay and blow it
up, hey, the enemies are probably going to notice the explosion).
Changing the script to save the PCs because they did the wrong thing is
a virtual no-no.
All that being said, I do sometimes make an encounter too strong. My
preference though is still to try and work it with minor fudges and see
how it plays out rather than introducing a deux ex machina.
> > to allow magic and hyperdrives to work), but in other areas, I expect
> > the rules to try and survive the test of reality - this is why I think
> > something's wrong if the PCs wouldn't share the cloak which adds to
> > charisma so the Paladin can heal just because that would somehow destroy
> > the "balance" or "mood" of the game, don't create such situations in
> > your game, or make sure that the restriction is logically part of the
> > "rules" (for example, perhaps the code of paladinhood wouldn't allow
> > such uses of magic - but make sure your code is self consistent).
>
> I dunno. A cloak that improves charisma is probably a quite ornate fancy
> looking cloak that no self-respecting Paladin would ever wear; Paladins
> don't do "finery" and "luxury", they wear functional waterproof cloaks
> to keep the water off their functional plate armor. :) Finery and luxury
> gets donated to the Church... I can see where that wouldn't be an
> unreasonable thing under the right circumstances. I also don't consider
> it reasonable to expect players to ultra-optimize; the idea is to play
> a role (hence the term "role-playing game"), not to solve a puzzle.
Firstly, I think paladin's would likely wear fancy clothing, especially
if charisma is important to them. Secondly, the statement was that the
PC magician wouldn't loan the cloak to the paladin not because the
magician is greedy, but because the player doesn't want to "play" the
system. I think there's a real difference between a character borrowing
something and the character owning it. Again though, if you don't want
paladins wearing cloaks of charisma, then create a clear reason which is
part of the game world. Don't rely on player actions outside the
framework of the game (which is what it sounds like is happening to me).
A system is just plain broken if it relies on players to refrain from
doing things just because it would ruin the effect of the game if the
restraint isn't built into the rules or campaign. Now of course it's
impossible to have a perfect game, so we have to live with some of these
issues (so in that sense, every game out there is broken). The question
in my mind then is how endemic is the problem. I found D&D to be
littered with these types of problems (I have no idea if they have
cleaned them up, but honestly, the more rules you have past a certain
point, the more likely something is broken).
One of my favorite examples of a broken system was the original Rune
Quest. The way experience worked was that after a game session, you got
the opportunity to try and improve each skill which was used. You didn't
have to have succeeded with the skill, and there was no factoring in of
how often you used the skill. What some groups did then was to have
their characters switch through each of their weapons during a
non-critical battle, and do things like parry with their dagger and all
sorts of absurdity. Now expecting the players to play "realistically"
without changing the rules is patently absurd. The suggested fix was to
give a slight bonus for each additional use of the skill. My fix when I
ran RQ a few years ago was to award the players a limited number of
experience rolls per game session. They still had to have tried the
skill, but the incentive to try every skill under the sun was no longer
there. I think I also allowed the bonuses for additional uses of the
skill.
> Once again, why game masters occasionaly _must_ fudge things, look at
> a so-called "role playing game" on a computer or game console-- they're
> either "hack and slash" or "puzzle solving" at any given time; tabletop
> RPGs are (or perhaps I should say "can be") something different because
> a GM is not a computer and _can_ fudge things when it makes sense.
> Without that ability, the game has basically become a puzzle game
> with a few random elements to be discussed over chips and pretzels.
I agree that GM discretion is part of what makes a human run RPG
different (and probably more satisfying) from a computer RPG, but the
key is "when things make sense". Different GMs and players clearly have
different definitions of "when things make sense." I find that having a
world where responses are predictable (i.e. GM fudging is limited) is
more satisfying.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
| (...) It was just a quick example off the top of my head-- certainly, any such example will have piles of nits one can pick, and that's sort of my point-- anything's gonna have those sorts of problems, and finding those problems is exactly what PCs (...) (22 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
