Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 2745467" data-attributes="member: 386">It sounds (to me) like you want your players to fudge the dice.&nbsp; Which is a valid way of playing.&nbsp; You use &quot;Action Points&quot; or something similar, right?&nbsp; That's a good rule that allows players to alter their fate when they think it's appropriate.&nbsp; The more effective the action point, the more effect the player has in determining outcome.Consider that if you had the right rule set, you wouldn't need to fudge dice any more.&nbsp; The rules would allow you to get the kind of game play you wanted without any need to change things on the fly.&nbsp; It would also put more power into the hands of the players, since they can control when the &quot;fudging&quot; happens.&nbsp; (Not that it's fudging any more, since it follows the rules, but you get the same effect from the rules as you do from fudging.)So all you have to do is to identify a mechanic that allows you to get the kind of game you want.&nbsp; I think &quot;action points&quot; would be a good one.One important one for you (as I see it) would be something that allows player deaths to have meaning.&nbsp; Which means that players take a stand when something is important to them: &quot;This is worth dying for.&quot;This could be as simple as saying that, whenever things are not important, the players can't die.&nbsp; They can be reduced to -9 hit points (or less), but they stabilize at -9.&nbsp; Each player can decide when this applies, and it should be stated when the encounter begins.However, their ability to affect the outcome of an encounter like this should be reduced.&nbsp; Not exactly sure how you would do this.&nbsp; Maybe they want to kill a BBEG.&nbsp; Unless they up the stakes to the level where death is a possibility, they can't kill the BBEG.&nbsp; They may beat him down, but he will survive somehow, and come back to face them.How does something like that sound to you?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 2745467, member: 386"] It sounds (to me) like you want your players to fudge the dice. Which is a valid way of playing. You use "Action Points" or something similar, right? That's a good rule that allows players to alter their fate when they think it's appropriate. The more effective the action point, the more effect the player has in determining outcome. Consider that if you had the right rule set, you wouldn't need to fudge dice any more. The rules would allow you to get the kind of game play you wanted without any need to change things on the fly. It would also put more power into the hands of the players, since they can control when the "fudging" happens. (Not that it's fudging any more, since it follows the rules, but you get the same effect from the rules as you do from fudging.) So all you have to do is to identify a mechanic that allows you to get the kind of game you want. I think "action points" would be a good one. One important one for you (as I see it) would be something that allows player deaths to have meaning. Which means that players take a stand when something is important to them: "This is worth dying for." This could be as simple as saying that, whenever things are not important, the players can't die. They can be reduced to -9 hit points (or less), but they stabilize at -9. Each player can decide when this applies, and it should be stated when the encounter begins. However, their ability to affect the outcome of an encounter like this should be reduced. Not exactly sure how you would do this. Maybe they want to kill a BBEG. Unless they up the stakes to the level where death is a possibility, they can't kill the BBEG. They may beat him down, but he will survive somehow, and come back to face them. How does something like that sound to you? [/QUOTE]

Verification