Space Monkey said:

To best honest, sometimes I have the impression that exactly for that reason game mechanics like fate points have been invented.

I think this topic is discussed once in a while in every roleplaying forum and comes up now and then. And on the one side I can understand arguments like. "The players are the main characters in a game. So it is just clear that they are somehow prevented from bad luck with the dice."

But on the other hand I think that the dice are the chain's end of a decision: You thought about it, you make your decision and now you are throwing the dice to see if it works..

... and at that point I think: Well, it is possible that it does not work. Since we are using dice in a roleplay there is always a chance of not succeeding.

And then you simply have to live with it!

In the extrem sometimes these fate points are just an excuse for bad decisions or the lack of responsibility for actions (see our society). So if your space marine charges a horde of tyranid warriors and survives that is truely heroic. But if he charges them because it sounds cool and he knows that he will survive because he has five fate points left or could just burn them ... what is heroic about that? Where is the tension any more?

Maybe I played too much space hulk to learn that sometimes the dice are just not on your side. But then you simply have to live with it. Take it like a real space marine and do not let the faith in the emperor be shattered.

Best revards,

TechVoid.

TechVoid said:

A chance of not succeeding is one thing... but overruling a dice roll because it's just caused a player character to die a stupid, random and pointless death (as opposed to a dramatically appropriate and memorable-for-the-right-reasons death) is another, much more specific matter entirely.

It occurred more in WFRP 1 and 2 than it does in 40kRP, as Ulric's Fury (as it was known in WFRP2) applied to everyone, at all times, but having a knight in full plate explode due to a thrown rock by a panicking goblin dealing 30+ damage, when every decision the knight made was reasonable, sensible and entirely appropriate to the context, is a step beyond "living with the consequences" and pushes into the realm of "the rules interfering with the session". Nobody should be so severely 'punished' for doing everything right, just because the dice happen to fall a particular way. That doesn't mean I'll ignore the dice outright, just that I'll moderate the result to be less drastic - maimed and unconscious instead of dead, for example.

Stupid decisions, however, gain no such moderation.

The rules don't, and can't, cover every possible context, eventuality or style of play... it's why houserules and GM intervention exist. There are countless situations and ways to approach the game where ignoring a rule or altering a dice roll is useful to keep the session moving and keep the players involved and interested.

TechVoid said:

Some of what you describe feels like meta gaming. To me, that defeats some of the purposes of playing the game. If it fits the character, running headlong into a horde hoping the Emperor will save him at the last minute, then so be it. But if it's a conservative character who simply knows mechanically he can't die because he has 3 fate points to burn that's just...lame. But I also don't forget that as a GM you have final say over what happens after that fate point is burned- from horrible disfigurement (even some of the critical wounds in the book can be stat breaking by cutting a given stat in half permanently) or in extereme cases preventing the burning of the point from saving the character all together; "sorry, you're dead and gone, not even the will of the Emperor can save you from your own stupidity today"

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Now that is an interesting example. Because a while ago I had to read from Savage Worlds "It is so cool, even a pawn can become dangerous for a knight in full plate because we have this cool wild die!"

I just don't know.

Maybe the history went like this:

"Maaaaan, rolling normal damage all the times is boring. Can't we just invent some extra damage?"

"Yes. How about more damage if you roll extremly well?"

"Yeah, sounds cool."

"But if we make a rule of it the enemies are capable of doing the same."

"Oh, you mean my character could die as fast as the monsters because of some lucky dice!"

"Of course..."

"Oh mean, we should invent something to prevent this ... how about some points he can spent?"

"Okay, why not. But if we make a rule of it the enemies..."

"NO! Just skip it. The characters are the significant persons! So there must be something to distinguish them from ordinary farmers and goblins."

"So we could rule out that only significant enemies have some points to spent?"

"Okay, that is something I can live with ... but not too many points."

Best regards,

TechVoid.

Face Eater said:

At my table: Open GM dice and RF 4 EVERYONE ... yeah baby.. that keeps my players tense and interested. No "Don't worry 'bout the dragon, trusty uncle fudge-a-lot make sure we don't lose".

It's not the GM's job to keep the players alive, that's the players job. Gm's job is to make it interesting

Sometimes even pc's have to flee, or as DW marines do.. Tactically advance towards the rearlines..(De-ass the area with a quickness)

keeps it fun and turns a victory into a true victory, not just "cool Bob, the GM let us win...again"

Serialkilla said:

It's not the GM's job to keep the players alive, that's the players job. Gm's job is to make it interesting

And how interesting is it for everyone to die because of how the dice fall?

I don't know about you, but I'm not going to end my campaign just because the dice fall a particular way.

As far as I'm concerned, the decisions of the GM take priority over the published rules and the roll of the dice, because the rules and the dice don't and can't cover everything and may produce results unsuitable or detrimental for the game.

That doesn't mean that I'll just make up numbers rather than rolling the dice, but rather that occasionally - once or twice a session at most, really - I'll ignore or re-roll a dice roll that I don't feel produces the right effect. It might keep a player character from becoming a greasy smear, or it might cause a more serious injury, or allow an enemy to elude reprisal for just a little longer... whatever the situation requires at the time.

You can call it cheating if you want, but my players - in both my groups - trust me to run the game as I see fit, and that is absolutely all that matters.

To throw out an example here, look at the caves in the first DH demo adventure. There are a series of climb/strength tests. There really are no other paths or options to be taken. At one point, they must jump a chasm. There is no ladder/bridge/plank they can use to get across, its just a straight jump, with a fall if they fail. It goes on to say that if they do fall, they take some amount of damage. Even further, it says if they take a certain amount, they die.

This is before there is any fighting. This is the only printed option they have, they must jump across. And players could possibly die due to one failed test, followed by high damage?

And this does not bother some people?

Simply put, I see it as the job of the GM to make sure the game remains interesting. If a player dies due to bad roles, that does not interest me. It should be a combination of bad judgment, and some bad roles. Good judgment should not be punished just because of a terrible roll. Bad judgment should not be rewarded just because of an excellent roll.

Yes, players should not feel safe just because they know the GM isn't going to kill them. They should be worried about the consequences of their actions. Not how bad the dice are going to screw em.

And once again, this goes alllllll the way back to dodging. My main issue with the current system is that players get to know their success on dodge, which, while not that important, belies a system that is not totally in the hands of the GM.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Serialkilla said:

It's not the GM's job to keep the players alive, that's the players job. Gm's job is to make it interesting

And how interesting is it for everyone to die because of how the dice fall?

I don't know about you, but I'm not going to end my campaign just because the dice fall a particular way.

May I be honest? Boring. No offense intended though - I'm just saying, as a player I like the thrill of the dice roll. Of course I am greatful for the occasional GM intervention but I want to feel that if I roll really bad and the enemy rolls really well, then I'm gonna be pencilling a new PC soon.

If I don't have that feeling, I might as well have the GM describe how I defeat my enemies to me.

Like I said, no offense intended. There's no accounting for taste after all. :-)

N0-1_H3r3 said:

That makes sense to a degree but in my estimation what matters is a certain lack of predictability. If (if!) your players can predict that you won't let them die because it's just a combat at the beginning of the scenario, you take out the tension and the challenge for them.

@KommissarK: Why make the jump test at all? Do you think that I as a player can't look into your face and see that you won't let anyone die? What do you do if a player rolls a 100 on the jump? And if those who try to help all roll spectacularly bad too? No, I maintain that I want the thrill of the dice roll. The more danger, the more honor. An occasional help is okay but as a GM I try to even keep that unpredictable for my players.

Alex

To each his own, I fall into the same camp as N0-1_H3r3 and KommissarK.

If I wanted to play a game where my chances of dying in an unspectacular fashion was limited to just random luck, then I'd just play a First Person Shooter with people that camp with sniper rifles and rocket launchers. Sometimes I feel like playing that kind of game... but to me a role-playing game is NEVER that kind of game.

People take time out of their busy schedules to get together (sometimes only once a month) and play an interesting story driven campaign where their characters are larger than life space marines, heroes in their own right. You will not be felled by a peasant throwing a rock in my game.... some people on this board would then say "Booo!! Hiss!! I can't die in your campaign", when in reality I just told you that a peasant with a rock isn't going to kill you. There are MANY worse things than that you'll be facing that CAN kill you.

More on the topic:

In my games I use a hold-over rule from WFRP 2.0 that you can Parry AND Dodge once per turn as long as you have a melee weapon in your hand at that time AND you are aware of the attack. It just makes good sense.

Naturally the enemies do the same, and it make for some very cinematic combat.

ak-73 said:

LOL, I dare you to look at my face while I'm GM'ing and tell me what I'm thinking.

If said player rolls a 100 on the roll, well I guess they are tumbling into that pit now aren't they? Naturally, I'd ask if they want to spend a Fate Point to re-roll that terrible roll. If they decline... then they must accept the results of what I tell them the damage is.

Should that damage be enough to kill them? It could be... will they ever know that? Nope. I'll tell them what I rolled total. The thing that's missing here is that, as a player, you DON'T know what the GM is modifying that roll with. I could take into account the steepness of the descent, how jagged the walls are, did you hit any of those walls on the way down, what kind of surface is the floor of the ravine, etc. I may even be gracious enough to let you make a test to see if you grab a jagged piece of rock sticking out of the ravine wall. Should you fail that also... whelp, you get what's coming to you.

You see, there is no danger more dangerous than the creative mind behind the GM screen. You're doom is spelled in my imagination of the scene and how fitting it would be for you to die at this moment, not what some random piece of funny shaped plastic tells me.

SpawnoChaos said:

I'd be willing to pick up on that challenge.

SpawnoChaos said:

Predictable.

Alex

ak-73 said:

I'd hope that falling on jagged pieces of rock would be a predictable outcome. Either you die or you don't.

The real question is, what kind of game are you playing? Is your character special, or just some random farmer that fell into that pit?

If you believe that your character is a random farmer, then by all means I'm sure that you would believe that if the dice say you die, then you die.

If you think that your toon is more than just some random nobody... then it becomes all the more believable that you would survive that fall. You may not be in great shape, but you would survive.

Last I checked I was playing a role-playing game to play something that I'm not. In this instance, it's a member of the Adeptus Astartes. Not some Call of Cthulhu investigator that has a lifespan of 1-2 game sessions AT MOST. He's survived for countless centuries in combat... I don't think a little tumble down a ravine is going to be spell the doom of him, regardless of what the dice tell me.

SpawnoChaos said:

KommissarK was talking about the DH introductory demo scenario though. Anyway... I'd like to stress that I didn't advocate just going by the dice. It's just that my players can't rely on them being special Astartes saving their butt. I don't think I am going to let them roll for mundane challenges anyway like jumping across a ravine or climbing a tree or crossing a river. Only if it was near impossible and hazardous for common men, I'd have them make a challenging +0 test or sth like that.

What I am saying is: in my games a peasant can kill a knight. As it should be because it's possible. Unlikely but possible.

What I don't like in rpgs at all is a hierarchy of who does beat whom. Demon Prince beats Space Marine beats Fire Warrior beats PDF Infantryman. That should normally be the case. But dice luck (or bad luck) also represents to some degree messing with the wrong guy. There's no inflexible food chain in my games generally.

As I have said, I like a certain amount of lack of unpredictability.

"YMMV."

Alex

I would also like to re-iterate what was mentioned earlier in this thread:

The GM is the final word on everything that happens in their game session, not the rules. In fact, in a bit of irony, even the rules state this.

The next statements may be inaccurate, however I think it sums up the past page of discussions:

Your style of playing a Role-Playing game is largely based on whether you are into Role-Playing games or into Roll-Playing games. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with either choice, as there are groups for both kinds.

I feel that if you only follow what the rules state, and only temper your scenes by what an un-fudged dice roll tells you, then you might be more into Roll-Playing ( as defined by letting the dice do the talking)

I also feel that if you only follow the spirit of the rules, and temper your scenes by what the possibly modified dice roll tells you, then you might be more into Role-Playing ( as defined by letting the dice lead you to a possible outcome).

Of course, there is alway a chance that both of the above play styles could be combined... however, I'm not sure what you'd call that.

ak-73 said:

I totally agree with being unpredictable, however, I do not rely on my dice to do that for me when I can come up with something suitably unpredictable on my own.

SpawnoChaos said:

Well, there's always room for doubt. ;-) Anyway to lead a bit away from that... it also largely depends on how much the players have invested in their characters, I find. If you have a character who has an elaborate background in which the player has invested much time, it's unfair to kill him easily on the first evening just because the dice were against him. You do that only if you don't want to play with the player anymore.

Otoh, DW chars can be made in very short amounts of time... sans deeper background story. So a deadly let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may campaign is doable. Don't get too attached to your character, just try to rank him up as much as you can and acquire as much glory, renown, honour badges as possible. We played such campaigns in Recon RPG and they were fun too.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Why do people who are anti-"fudging" always assume that GMs who do it, do so frequently. I've actually stated that I don't, and that I'm as likely to tweak things against the players as in their favour. Each time, I roll the dice and decide if I'm keeping it or not, and most of the time, I'll go with what the dice roll... but on occasion, it benefits everyone's enjoyment to take things away from the vagaries of dice rolls. Sometimes it'll be to spare a character whose death is otherwise completely pointless, or whose demise would essentially destroy the group's chances of success. Sometimes it'll be to emphasise the particular horror of an adversary. Sometimes it'll be to shift the dynamics of a combat encounter by giving one side or the other a little more success. It's never consistently applied, it's never something that can be relied upon, and as I'm already rolling the dice, it's not something that can be easily discerned by the players. They know I'm doing it, but they don't know when, they don't know where and they don't know for what purpose.

It's not my job to make things easy for my players... but it's also not my job to just act as a mouthpiece for the rules and the dice. I'm there as much to make things challenging for the player characters as anything else, because challenging is memorable, and overcoming something challenging is more interesting and more fun than overcoming something simple - it is far better that the group be bruised, battered and bloodied, but victorious nonetheless, than they be triumphant and untouched or utterly annihilated. Keeping something challenging without going too far in one direction or the other often means that I have to adapt things quickly in the middle of the session - enemy numbers, morale and dispositions, placement and solidity of terrain, and even the vagaries of fate and chance.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I didn't and I don't though. I'm saying that after a few session you get an impression as a player where the GM is at.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Well, that's to some degree what I have been saying myself. I've also been saying that in my games a lowly NPC peasant might defeat a mighty PC knight if the stars are right.

Or a lowly PC peasant a mighty NPC knight. If the stars are right.

Alex

I've been GMing for over 12 years, never GMd Paranoia, and I roll behind the screen 99% of the time. Before each campaign I ask players on how lethal they want the game to be. Most of the time they are fine with me not fudging any rolls except the kinds of supremely bad rolls at the worst possible time that would completely derail the campaign or adventure. My personal view on this is that: a) I don't want to TPK the party and end the campaign that I've been working on hard just because of a crappy roll that I could fudge without my players knowing, b) player character death sucks, especially if it's utterly meaningless and random; it sucks for the player for obvious reasons (attachement to the character, the need to make a new character from scratch, missing out on the rest of the session while remaking character, etc). It sucks for me as a GM because: 1) I now have to figure out a way to introduce a whole new character to the party (and what if they're in the middle of an adventure and there's no convenient space port or planet or tavern around?), 2) I might have to make changes to the adventure because the party no longer has access to the skills and abilities of the deceased character, or because the deceased character was somehow important to the story, 3) I GM to tell a story and have fun, having to cut the story mid-way because the dice gods were angry is not fun and is not a productive use of my and my players' time. Then there are stupid situations, such as me taking out a character in the surprise round and having the player sit for the rest of the combat and be bored - I've been there as a player and a GM and it's not fun either way. I'd rather deal massive damage and still give the player the chance to participate in the encounter, or screw over the character in other ways that can lead to side-quests and new adventures. However, since this is just a game, I don't see why all GMs should roll in secret, or all GMs should roll in the open. Different strokes for different folks. The only exception I have to this live-and-let-live rule involves convention games - I insist on the GM rolling in secret.

Now gentlemen, shall we get back on topic? I find the suggestion that DoS when Dodging an attack with Accurate quality cancel out the appropriate number of the attacker's DoS on BS roll to be quite interesting. It shafts the sniper of course, but no more so than it would shaft an attacker using semi-auto burst. As for the Dodge or Parry canceling out the entire melee attack, even if the attacker rolled 5 degrees of success but the defender rolled no degrees of success (just barely passed basically), it does kinda suck, but this aspect has been consistent through DH, RT and DW. I've seen some people use a house-rule variant (whereby the defender has to score equal or more the number of DoS as the attacker scored on the attack roll), but personally it introduces a bit more book-keeping. Thoughts?

Razorboy said:

My thoughts exactly. While this game isn't the most math intensive that I've run (D&D 4th takes that in spades), you still have to flex your mind to remember penetration values, armor hit locations (whether bionics are there), toughness bonus reduction due to felling, etc.

It's rather nice to have something as simple as Dodge work the way it does.

Just my 2 thrones.

KommissarK said:

I ran Shattered Hope for my group and they used rope and/or grapnel launcher to get across ravines/crevices. You don't have to limit the scope of the game to a straight roll. There are other ways to do most things in the game. If the players want their characters to just "jump" it, then a straight pass/fail roll I will give them.

As some have mentioned, I believe it has more to do with the group I am gaming with, rather than any single dogmatic stance on GM'ing. If I am gaming with people who are more concerned with cinematics, heroic acts and storyline, then I will roll secretly and fudge to heighten that effect. If I am playing with folks who are in it for the challenge and don't like GM "help" then I will roll out in the open and do everything I can to push them - "fairly."

The latter is far more challenging as striking the correct balance is often difficult - especially with the randomness of dice.

The former allows more freedom to "interactive storytell" (as someone called it), just relax and wing it.

The rule should be fun first. If fudge = fun, then fudge on. If fudge feels like cheating, then fudge off.

wow...i was looking up some clarification on dodge and got a huge thread on gm-ing...

katsura1982 said:

No **** right?

Also this thread is proof our beloved Alex actually doesn't care about his players having fun, he only cares about having fun himself. Which explains the Abhor the Witch, Resistance, Strong Mind talents NOT EVER stacking in his campaign post.

Bashing Ak-73 aside, I as always find myself in Kommisark, and Spawn of Chaos's corners, and here's why.

People do not sit down for hours on end to roll up a character, just to have them die to some stupid roll, or some jackass of a GM. I have had that GM kill off my buddy in character because he didn't like the guy out of character, and that is exactly what "Alex" here sounds like he does.

The fact of the matter is no PC will be able to roll well every single roll to stay alive, furthermore I agree things need to be challenging, however I don't go out of my way to nerf my players characters or ensure they have more ways to die.

The point to a roleplaying game for everyone at the table GM or not is to have fun right? So where is the fun in the GM or GOD, killing you off because he thinks its fun, funny, or nerfing you because he feels it's not challenging.

It's much easier to alter encounters than it is to just suddenly be a **** with hosing characters, or fudging rolls to save or kill a player.

Now, I would never kill a player for a bad dice roll. Maybe a piss poor decision in combat, but random stupid luck will never kill you in my campaign, that's not saying you wouldn't be really F'd up from falling on Kommisarks example, at that point you might be a character who needs carrying around and is in fact a hinderance not a help.

People sit down and play to have fun, you don't spend 4-8 hours per session so that someone you play with can be a huge ****. It ruins the game and makes for a piss poor GM.

So my advice to anyone who treats thier group like **** while GMing is to remember you are god in game not god out of and your friends probably aren't enjoying your campaigns as much as they could be. Period. I garentee they would enjoy my campaigns, kommisarks, or spawns more simply because we GM to ensure everyone has a good time, instead of GMing to have a good time ourselves.

Selfish GM's make games bad, selfless GM's run the game so others may enjoy it. That is a fact.

Warhawk X said:

First of all I don't feel bashed by you. I post to unmoderated newsgroups and you can say nothing to me that I haven't heard before. Multiple times. From accusations of being a communist to being a Nazi and everything inbetween. :-) Secondly , if I would feel bashed by you, you can be sure that there would be an adequate response.

As for the rest of what you said: you know little to nothing about how I run games, so your claims are made in ignorance.

And if you'd require the above effects stacking to have fun in an rpg, then yes, you are not likely to have fun in games that I run. Nor would you find yourself fitting in well with my players.

Warhawk X said:

None of my players took longer than 45 minutes to roll up a character and that was their first DW character. In fact with the editable pdfs, a character can be rolled up within 5 minutes. It's not more than 14 or 15 rolls.

Not only that some of the greatest sessions we ran as teens was in Recon RPG where character death was swift and frequent. Can you say hand shot while trying to throw a Willie Pete? I knew you could.

Warhawk X said:

Uh-huh. If I was ticking like that I'll invite you to a Paranoia "Code 7"-Mission.

Warhawk X said:

Boring. I have played under such GMs and it has made me wonder why we still roll dice once I got the hang on how they tick. To see who kills the most orks? If survival isn't at stake in major combats , we might skip the whole thing to begin with.

Warhawk X said:

...in the eyes of a guy who can't take character death nor handle the thrill of possible death.

Warhawk X said:

You have a too vivid fantasy, son.

Warhawk X said:

No, it's not. GM's run the game so that everyone involved, including them, enjoy it. As for what you said, you don't know my players yet you are voicing complaints on their behalf even though they don't seem to have any.

Seems rather you have unresolved issues with past GMs and projecting them on me, which is none of my business other than pointing out what you're doing.

Alex