Post by Lin on Apr 20, 2006 22:04:49 GMT -5
Maybe I'm coming from a different school of thought on DMing, but I am starkly against the DM picking the effects at their preference for in battle mechanics. To me, this seems to make the players powerless to effect the game, which in turn makes the game no fun. As much as you can try to hide it, the players always know.
In a fully free form game, all in game conflicts are resolved at someone's whim. That's all well and good (ask Petunia when he gets back about some of the freeform stuff I've run). But, when you invest in a system to run your game, I think a large part of what you are doing is giving the players a stable understanding of how the rules of the world in which there character lives operates. They understand their character's capabilities and odds of success and can effectively roleplay there capabilities because they are clearly defined. They can effect the campaign setting in a very real and meaningful way because they know how there stuff does stuff within the reality of the characters (as defined by the rules of the universe they live in, or the mechanics). There is still chance involved, as summarised by the d20 roll, but the character can fully understand there capability.
Until those rules start changing.
One thing I despise is when a DM punishes a player for "being stupid". The CR system is forgiving, but the combat system is not. There is no need to add other factors to kill players, particularly if they are not transparent to the players. The mechanics usually clearly define what will and will not kill the players. When the DM takes liberties with this and the players start surviving things they wouldn't (shouldn't?), why wouldn't they start taking bigger risks and using stupid tactics? It worked the last time! They can't predict how the world reacts, so they can't roleplay their character.
The way I see it, it is not at all the DM's job to help the players survive. That is distinctly the player's job should they desire their character to live.
It is the DM's job to make sure the rules of the world allow the players to interact with it in a meaningful way. That way, they can tell the story of the characters the way they want to.
When the DM uses a set mechanical system, but doesn't make it transparent, I think it creates a rift between the members of the group and it takes away from a lot of the potenial investment in the character. In particular, when the DM adds a mechanic to make combat more risky, then changes the mechanics to save the players, what was the point? To echo an earlier point, why not freeform? Each player can add drama to a combat with their storytelling, not changing a single mechanic.
More excitement? When your party is taking on hard challenges (by their choice!) and the DM rolls all dice in the open, I don't see the need for it.
As far as using mechanical surprises as storytelling tools, I really don't see this one. Lots of things happen in the course of the campaign. Combat is plenty random. Plot twists abound. Players motivations turn. Really would need a good explaination of this one.
BIG NOTE!!!
This only applies to campaigning. One Shots are a whole different animal altogether, as they are based entirely on a single or short series of predetermined events. They have a single purpose. The cool thing about them is "the story" rather then the story of the characters.
Atlas Games writes some awesome one shots.
Smaller, Yet Longer Note
As Shakes mentioned, I do indeed simply not roll dice if I don't want something to happen. We use the concept of "Off Camera" in our game to handle tangential events using free form. Like, as a concrete example, one PC in my game stole an artifact from another PC along with a pile of research on it. A dragon had been spying on the group, looking for a chance to get the resource. When the lone wolf character ran off with it, the dragon sent a demon servant to get it for her.
Now, would a demon spare the life of the character while brutally asaulting the single character with a surprise? No, that makes no sense. But, the encounter is completely unfair and it happened away from the "on camera" campaign events. So, after rolling the surpise round, I simply said, "Your character is beaten to within inches of death." The PC understood. They saw the damage roll. They knew the score. If the demon won inniative, the character was dead. If he had asked to, I would have played out the combat, but with the player's full knowledge and concept that his character was probably dead.
Though, if the PCs have a party formed and are doing something, that's on camera. Always. That's the action and the thrill section.
Conclusion
It broke my heart when The Bootycaller died, but it made EVERY SINGLE OTHER MOMENT that my character did something important seem more beautiful, because they could have failed and could have died.
In a fully free form game, all in game conflicts are resolved at someone's whim. That's all well and good (ask Petunia when he gets back about some of the freeform stuff I've run). But, when you invest in a system to run your game, I think a large part of what you are doing is giving the players a stable understanding of how the rules of the world in which there character lives operates. They understand their character's capabilities and odds of success and can effectively roleplay there capabilities because they are clearly defined. They can effect the campaign setting in a very real and meaningful way because they know how there stuff does stuff within the reality of the characters (as defined by the rules of the universe they live in, or the mechanics). There is still chance involved, as summarised by the d20 roll, but the character can fully understand there capability.
Until those rules start changing.
One thing I despise is when a DM punishes a player for "being stupid". The CR system is forgiving, but the combat system is not. There is no need to add other factors to kill players, particularly if they are not transparent to the players. The mechanics usually clearly define what will and will not kill the players. When the DM takes liberties with this and the players start surviving things they wouldn't (shouldn't?), why wouldn't they start taking bigger risks and using stupid tactics? It worked the last time! They can't predict how the world reacts, so they can't roleplay their character.
The way I see it, it is not at all the DM's job to help the players survive. That is distinctly the player's job should they desire their character to live.
It is the DM's job to make sure the rules of the world allow the players to interact with it in a meaningful way. That way, they can tell the story of the characters the way they want to.
When the DM uses a set mechanical system, but doesn't make it transparent, I think it creates a rift between the members of the group and it takes away from a lot of the potenial investment in the character. In particular, when the DM adds a mechanic to make combat more risky, then changes the mechanics to save the players, what was the point? To echo an earlier point, why not freeform? Each player can add drama to a combat with their storytelling, not changing a single mechanic.
More excitement? When your party is taking on hard challenges (by their choice!) and the DM rolls all dice in the open, I don't see the need for it.
As far as using mechanical surprises as storytelling tools, I really don't see this one. Lots of things happen in the course of the campaign. Combat is plenty random. Plot twists abound. Players motivations turn. Really would need a good explaination of this one.
BIG NOTE!!!
This only applies to campaigning. One Shots are a whole different animal altogether, as they are based entirely on a single or short series of predetermined events. They have a single purpose. The cool thing about them is "the story" rather then the story of the characters.
Atlas Games writes some awesome one shots.
Smaller, Yet Longer Note
As Shakes mentioned, I do indeed simply not roll dice if I don't want something to happen. We use the concept of "Off Camera" in our game to handle tangential events using free form. Like, as a concrete example, one PC in my game stole an artifact from another PC along with a pile of research on it. A dragon had been spying on the group, looking for a chance to get the resource. When the lone wolf character ran off with it, the dragon sent a demon servant to get it for her.
Now, would a demon spare the life of the character while brutally asaulting the single character with a surprise? No, that makes no sense. But, the encounter is completely unfair and it happened away from the "on camera" campaign events. So, after rolling the surpise round, I simply said, "Your character is beaten to within inches of death." The PC understood. They saw the damage roll. They knew the score. If the demon won inniative, the character was dead. If he had asked to, I would have played out the combat, but with the player's full knowledge and concept that his character was probably dead.
Though, if the PCs have a party formed and are doing something, that's on camera. Always. That's the action and the thrill section.
Conclusion
It broke my heart when The Bootycaller died, but it made EVERY SINGLE OTHER MOMENT that my character did something important seem more beautiful, because they could have failed and could have died.