Timewaster's Guide Archive
Games => Role-Playing Games => Topic started by: Fellfrosch on March 15, 2005, 12:03:38 PM
-
http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1009
To ward off the inevitable question, the subtitle comes from "Guys and Dolls." A mob boss joins a crap game but insists on using his own dice, which are completely blank: "I had the dots removed for luck, but I remember where they formerly were." He then proceeds, naturally, to win every roll.
-
Heh, that's a great title Fell. Thought I was onto something here, but guess no one else feels that way by the lack of comments.
-
I came here just to post that I loved the Guys and Dolls reference, only to find that Fell has already explained it. Oh well. I still like it.
The thing is probably that I didn't start roleplaying or doing anything with dice until after performing in Guys and Dolls my senior year.
-
Heh, that's a great title Fell. Thought I was onto something here, but guess no one else feels that way by the lack of comments.
As for the article... I like it. Having both played and GM'd you're right.
-
well, I think the thing is that at least on this forum, GM flubbing isn't a big issue. We all think he should do it, but that it should be controlled and infrequent.
-
Yeah, we all agree, so there's not much to add. Your next article should be about how GMs should kill at least one party member per session--that would get everyone's motor running.
-
I'm not sure if we've gone over this before, but how does one shut a friend up about going on and on about something they did in the past elsewhere when it's the 5th time that night he's brought it up? You know, telling them in a nice manner.
-
you say something along the lines of "shut it, friend."
-
Or you could start shaking your dice and yell, "Roll for initiative!"
-
Yeah, we all agree, so there's not much to add. Your next article should be about how GMs should kill at least one party member per session--that would get everyone's motor running.
Actualy I think that there should allwayse be the threat of easy death for players once they hit a certain level, by then you've learned how your character works and have phat loot. If you die becsaue of doing something stupid or because you flubb a roll tough luck, if you can use an instant kill spell (or massive damage one) why can't the GM? 'Course I'd rather write something about selfish players who break up groups when their characters die once.
-
the two of those could easily be combined into one article.
-
I'm not sure if we've gone over this before, but how does one shut a friend up about going on and on about something they did in the past elsewhere when it's the 5th time that night he's brought it up? You know, telling them in a nice manner.
In that situation the correct decorum is a must. Peel the riding glove off your hand and strike him twice across the face with it. Then arrange to meet in a quiet local using weapons of his choice at a future date. Have your seconds work out the rest of the details. Good Luck!
-
Had a situation in our last gaming session that brought this article to mind. I know. That is just wrong, but it happened anyway.
I had just started a new campaign with 2 players. Their was a trap they encountered that shot one of the players with 4 poisoned darts. Naturally he attempted his Fort. save to resist, but botched...bad. The poison dropped the characters constitution score severally with the first waive, and was likely to eliminate it when the secondary effects hit.
It has been a policy in our group that even the GM rolls in the open should the players request it. I am fine with this as it allows chance to dictate what will occur and aids in what has been called "fairness," which the players have been very insistent on.
So, in fairness, I rolled the secondary effects of the poison, and it dropped the character. Of course he was a little upset as we had just started the campaign, and expressed his disfavor with the outcome. I shrugged, and replied, "Well, that is the way the dice fell." He responded with, "Well, you could have fudged the roll. You ARE the GM!"
Put me in a very awkward place. Any suggestions? ???
-
call him a cry baby and laugh at him.
I mean, er...
you can't please everyone all the time. Was this die roll in the open? If players are going to demand that a roll be done in the open, and it doesn't come up in their favor, you have a real problem when the disfavorable result is death. There is no satisfactory resolution. If the player KNOWS you cheated, he feels a little icky knowing his character didn't really make it. If you stick to the result, he dies. What do you do? In my opinion, the more satisfying (or rather, less dissatisfying) answer is to hold to the result, esp if it's a new character. He doesn't miss out on too much if he has to reroll the char, and you don't break form by ruining the game.
However, if they were less demanding of behind the screen rolls, they wouldn't have had the problem in the first place,a nd they need to realize it (preferably in a non-confrontational approach).
If the die-roll was behind the screen, I'd have cheated and let him live. He already had a weakened constitution. However, the damage is done either way now, and I'd stick to my guns. Nothing sends a gaming group in a downward spiral than a GM who will change the game or house rules retroactively. Change 'em on the spot while making the resolution? That's fine, as long as the results of the rule haven't applied and you've moved on. But if you HAVE moved on it's better to be consistant, maybe changing the rules for the future (and explaining that you will and why), even if the ruling was ultimately unfair.
-
Well, the roll was in the open, and I decided to stick to my guns and have the character die. The other character tried to save the dying one or at least take his body to a priest to get him resurrected, but he ended up not making it out of the dungeon while trying to carry the dead wait of the other character.
We have since moved on to a new campaign, but I would like advice on how to handle a similar situation should it present itself in the future.
-
well, then I think you were right. It's a tough call to make, though, cuz either way there's going to be a little bit of dissatisfaction.
Next time it comes up, remind them that you can't flub an open roll, and see if they really want to stick with it. I can't imagine how a player wouldn't trust their GM to make the roll themselves if it's clear that the GM is more interested in everyone's fun than killing off his players. Make it clear that you may fudge a bit, but if you do, it will be in the interest of playing a game that everyone at the table will enjoy.
-
Part of the problem seems to be that your players are demanding contradictory things: they want it to be fair, but they also want you to cheat. I don't think they've thought this through. If you're the kind of GM who will fudge in their favor to create a fun game, then they should just trust you and let you roll in secret. If they think you're out to get them, and will fudge in favor of the monsters, then frankly I don't know why they want you to GM in the first place.
My guess is that they trust you as a GM, and when they really think about it they know that you'll do what it takes to make the game fun even if it means an occasional fudge; I just think they're so used to the typical players-vs-GM mindset that they haven't broken out of it yet.
-
Well they have frequently been quoted as saying that I enjoy coming up with new ways to kill off their characters, but I have always taken that as a compliment as it illustrates that I don't use the same monsters in the same situations over and over again.
-
Nicadymus YES you are the character killer, and YES we do all refer to you as that! But never the less you are a very good GM! Guess who just arrived? ??? ??? m? u? l? c? h? Yes, I mulch have finally arrived! 8)
-
Well, well. Lookie what we have here.
It's about time you showed yourself, Mulch. I mean I understand you don't want to be seen in public, and frankly, I don't blame you, but this is the internet man!
(Just Kidding Mulch. You know I had to harass you for waiting so long to post.)
-
By the way, Mulch, please be sure to read the FAQ (http://www.timewastersguide.com/boards/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1080380396) and introduce yourself (http://www.timewastersguide.com/boards/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1051196804)
-
m? u? l? c? h?
Wow he can spell his name! You've been working hard training him Nicadymus.
-
Does anyone else find it slightly ironic that Spriggan is, in essence, criticizing someone else on their ability to spell?
-
Does anyone else find it slightly ironic that Spriggan is, in essence, criticizing someone else on their ability to spell?
That would have been funny if that joke wasn't so old it was around before you could eat solid foods.
-
I wasn't trying to be funny. For one thing, I was wondering if, perhaps, his spelling was really that bad. If not, then it was a reminder that those in glass houses... For another, I was really wondering what other people thought. Yeah, it would be an old joke if it were a joke.
-
Certain jokes have become... expected. That's one of them.
-
As for my makeing fun of Mulch, I have an idea who it is so I kid.
-
Oh I know, I wasn't really rebuking you Spriggan, I mess around with my friends the same way.
-
Hello all! Nicadymus you joker! But why wouldn't I want to be seen in public? Dragon juicer armor and all! LOL!
-
Glad to finally have you around, mulch. So what do you think of the situation?
-
As much as I don't WANT to admit this openly. :-X I think that you're right in your decision to stick to your guns. I seem to remember playing . . . . . Let me see here . . . . . Oh Yes, now I remember! A certain someone's zombie campaign. >:( He showed no mercy on me, which at first hurt and was insulting. Which he was not directly aiming at me, that's just how the dice fell. Anyway if you bend the rules all the time where is the sense of reality in the gaming session. As we all know once you lose the reality aspect of the gaming session it gets boring, very fast. Another thing, usually after these occurances if you give it five minutes, then your trying not to pee your pants from all the laughter. ;D As in this case in example, and I quote "What where you thinkin?" was said after my little mishap in the zombie campaign. Which made me mad at first, but after I evaluated my actions. I verbally aloud myself concluded "What the heck was I thinkin?" Laughter fills the room, of course. ;D :D ;D :D
Nicadymus, do you remember the zombies campaign with Moredew? Where I botched, and got mangled by the lickers? ;D
-
"Mangled By The Lickers" would be a sweet name for a rock album.
-
Now friends the moment you have all been waiting for, that's right the new single from The Zombies just arrived hot off the presses. The title to this wicked, wicked track is "Spinal Tap Tongue Snap" from their new album release "Mangled by the lickers!"
Sorry, I thought you had a funny point so I couldn't help but joke around. Funny?
-
You are much to harsh on yourself there Nic. The only reason why you show your rolls is becuase you made a few of our players show you their rolls and you thought it would be fair. They only reason why siad player was pissed off at the rolls that were made was due to the fact that it was the second session of what was going to turn out to be a sweet campaign, and ended before it really got started. Quite frankly if that doesn't annoy any player to be killed off (along with the rest of the players) right at the start then maybe they should just go to video games where there is way more action to fill their ADHD minds. My point here is that you being the rules laywer that we all have come to know and love, have a hard time fudging the rolls even when you don't show us. Your just too ... principled to do something like that. You know how frustrating it is to only here the first chapter of a story to get you going and then it being taken away and you'll never get to see the outcome. With that said, you did the right thing as far as you were concerened and that is all that matters. As far as the player killer thing goes, well, you do take a satanic enjoyment in it, but usually not so far as to ruin an entire campaign :P In the end it was a bad roll (the botch) and with only two players that makes it much harder for you to help keep us alive. In the end it will allow us to grow as players and continue to challenge us and you.
I cry if I want too since it was my party:P
-
My Cyberpunk 2020 character died the other day. What surprised me was the GM pulling some notes out and going over the exact combat rules to explain how he died. I'm not gonna get stressed out over it or demand that he fudge the rules or whatever to save my character. I later found out that he used to play with a utterly pedantic player who would insist that the GM was being unfair and not using game rules unless the GM did just that - pulled the notes out.
Some people just... need to stop taking it so seriously.
-
I am not saying that it is bad to have a character killed off in a game, it allows the story to evolve, and really the only reason why I play, and I would say the same for the rest of the group. I have had characters die off in the past, and it makes you sad, especially after all the time and love you but into developing a character, but if it can go into the story to make the story better, then there is nothing wrong with it. However, I think it is truly tragic when all the characters die at once thus ending the story before it really begins. I would say that if there was ever a time to fudge the rolls, then that would be it, or to make the game more intresting.
The campaign we started after the massacre of the characters has got a huge potential and looks like it will be a blast. If the gm didn't really want to do that campaign then that's one thing, but to throw away good material is quite another. It's kinda late now to go back, but don't throw away great campaign material just becuase of a few bad rolls (in my case and the other player's case) or a few great rolls (in the gm's case).
-
You know I have pondered this situation seriously! I have to totally agree with Captain Morgan on this one. He could not have explained and commented better, I totally agree!
Another cool thing that I entertained at the same time was this . . . Why not have everybody keep there characters exactly as they are even when they die. In example in a RIFTS campaign setting. As we all know we love to game, it's in our destructive natures! Then later at some point a sessions can be held where everyone in attendance resurrects an old character as they where when they died. Funny enough it would add automatic confusion, along with paranoia for the characters. But as for the physical dynamic of the gaming group I think everyone would have a blast, and be fully entertained!
Anyone up for a good session of RIFTS in the near future?