Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 3865644" data-attributes="member: 7883">I understand......it's really difficult to express this clearly.&nbsp; I frankly have no desire to make the players bit parts in my mental novel.&nbsp; Never have.&nbsp; However.&nbsp; I'm not interested in a game where everything is dictated exactly by a set of rules, and they end up *detracting* from the story.&nbsp; The rules serve the story in my game, not the other way around.&nbsp; So, if I make a ruling, I'll explain the reasons behind it, and I don't necessarily want to have an argument about the statistical validity of the interpretation, whether it's designed well etc...because I will rule in your (player's) favour more often than not.&nbsp; In the same game where the player was complaining about one incident that worked against him (I ruled that rolling a 1 on an attack roll ends their action for the round, and during my description of what happened, I had him trip as a result of that 1)......I also ruled in his favour 3 or 4 times, by fudging 20's I'd rolled against him, that would have killed his character....but I didn't point out that I had fudged those rolls.&nbsp; I use the screen, and just say &quot;your opponent missed&quot;, etc.&nbsp; I don't know if it would help to point this out to the player, so he understands that I'm not out to &quot;get him&quot;.&nbsp; I've used the &quot;rolling a 1 ends your action this round&quot; for many years, and it's functioned fine so far.....I also use it against monsters and such.I guess my core feeling is &quot;if you expect me to adhere to the rules exactly, even when they don't make sense in certain circumstances, then don't expect me to bend them in your favour when the rules work against you&quot;.&nbsp; I want them to succeed, but I also want a dramatic, interesting game that they'll enjoy, and sometimes that means bending things one way or another.I think that part of the concern is because core D&amp;D comes with certain assumptions.&nbsp; Number of encounters per day; the whole fight, fight, rest, repeat; that you can jump in and massacre opponents, certain levels of treasure, and that the game is balanced so the characters &quot;win&quot;.&nbsp; In Midnight, the balance shifts the other way....it's not set so you &quot;win&quot; by default.&nbsp; It's a harder game.&nbsp; And it takes a certain mental adjustment to understand that.&nbsp; Until you make that adjustment, it can seem somewhat unfair.&nbsp; So maybe part of the issue is mental buy in with the setting.&nbsp; I was fairly clear at the beginning about how dark and difficult the setting is....but maybe on some level it hasn't set in yet.I'll talk to them again about it during our next game, to try and see if we can come to an agreement about when is appropriate to bring up stuff or argue.Banshee</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Banshee16, post: 3865644, member: 7883"] I understand......it's really difficult to express this clearly. I frankly have no desire to make the players bit parts in my mental novel. Never have. However. I'm not interested in a game where everything is dictated exactly by a set of rules, and they end up *detracting* from the story. The rules serve the story in my game, not the other way around. So, if I make a ruling, I'll explain the reasons behind it, and I don't necessarily want to have an argument about the statistical validity of the interpretation, whether it's designed well etc...because I will rule in your (player's) favour more often than not. In the same game where the player was complaining about one incident that worked against him (I ruled that rolling a 1 on an attack roll ends their action for the round, and during my description of what happened, I had him trip as a result of that 1)......I also ruled in his favour 3 or 4 times, by fudging 20's I'd rolled against him, that would have killed his character....but I didn't point out that I had fudged those rolls. I use the screen, and just say "your opponent missed", etc. I don't know if it would help to point this out to the player, so he understands that I'm not out to "get him". I've used the "rolling a 1 ends your action this round" for many years, and it's functioned fine so far.....I also use it against monsters and such. I guess my core feeling is "if you expect me to adhere to the rules exactly, even when they don't make sense in certain circumstances, then don't expect me to bend them in your favour when the rules work against you". I want them to succeed, but I also want a dramatic, interesting game that they'll enjoy, and sometimes that means bending things one way or another. I think that part of the concern is because core D&D comes with certain assumptions. Number of encounters per day; the whole fight, fight, rest, repeat; that you can jump in and massacre opponents, certain levels of treasure, and that the game is balanced so the characters "win". In Midnight, the balance shifts the other way....it's not set so you "win" by default. It's a harder game. And it takes a certain mental adjustment to understand that. Until you make that adjustment, it can seem somewhat unfair. So maybe part of the issue is mental buy in with the setting. I was fairly clear at the beginning about how dark and difficult the setting is....but maybe on some level it hasn't set in yet. I'll talk to them again about it during our next game, to try and see if we can come to an agreement about when is appropriate to bring up stuff or argue. Banshee [/QUOTE]

Verification