Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2745616" data-attributes="member: 26473">I'm glad to hear that - if they're satisfied with running characters that didn't really confirm the critical for the demon but doubled their damage anyway, that failed the Will save versus domination but ignored the spell effect, that triggered the acid trap in the lock of the chest but took no damage, then y'all have a grand ol' time playing storytime together.Me, I play a game. The dice determine the results of certain actions. Sometimes things break my way, sometimes they don't. Improbability Happens. It's how the game is played.Excuse me, but aren't you the same guy who earlier in the thread said he'll fudge the results when an encounter he designs proves to be too difficult for the players?It seems to me that a "pro" (whatever that means in roleplaying games... :\ ) gets the encounter design right in the first place.I'm sorry, but your attempt at developing a syllogism fails on the merits of one of its fatally-flawed premises.Developing house rules and implementing them during play is not the same thing as changing dice results on the fly because you don't like the outcome. House rules apply evenly across the board to player and non-player characters and critters each time they come into play, to alter general guidelines under which the game is played - fudging the dice is entirely subjective and circumstantial, applied when and where the GM sees fit, to alter specific results in spite of the general rules.Circumstance bonuses don't apply in this instance either - in the games I run, the circumstance bonuses are determined before the dice hit the tabletop, not after. Most of the time I have the bonuses listed in my notes - the rest of the time it will come from a player asking about a bonus based on some skill or class feature, and I'll allow it before the dice are rolled.Once the dice are rolled, the result is the result, for better or worse.Imagine my shock.First, nowhere did I compare roleplaying games to chess - you're inferring too much from "game pieces."Second, nowhere have I suggested that roleplaying games are adversarial. In fact, I think the suggestion is silly. The game isn't playable that way, as the GM can introduce whatever elements s/he wants at any time in order to "win."However, it is the GM's role in the game to provide adversaries and other challenges for the players' characters. When I introduce those adversaries, I play them according to the rules of the game, and everyone at the table succeeds or fails by the same rolls of the dice.Usually the adventurers win. Sometimes they're wormfood. Improbability Happens.I believe you mean "executioner," though if the character doesn't leave a will, I certainly may intercede in the form of a tax collector NPC to insure that all proper obligations have been satisfied...Really, DonTadow? You've played with me to know this for a fact?You presume a great deal.So you're calling the plays, and the players are just there to block for you and catch your passes.Interesting analogy.Here's my analogy: We're playing a game together, one in which I set up the game-board, move all the pieces that aren't the players, and interpret the results so that we all have a good time together.In my experience gathered over some years of gaming, here's what I've learned about playing with "storyteller" GMs: they tend to be raving egomaniacs who are so enamored of their own brilliance that they don't want to allow something as messy as chance to interfere with the display of their cleverness. It's also been my experience that few - none, actually - were as brilliant as they believed themselves to be.Perhaps from that personal history I've come away with the notion that a really great GM is one who can take the messy, unpredictable results of playing a game that involves the element of chance and turn it into a memorable experience through interpreting those results, rather than ignoring them.One more thing: Since I was a little kid playing Candy Land, a roll of two on a die did not mean a six. It's no less true today. If I want roleplaying without the game, I'll join an improv troupe.</blockquote>

Verification