Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5727243" data-attributes="member: 8835">As an addendum to this statement: "Put another way, if you make me roll the dice a whole bunch and regardless of what level I am or how I roll, I can never beat the NPC, you have wasted my time and could have simply narrated it."If the NPC could move 40 and the party only moves 30.  Barring any extra opportunities to boost our speed or slow his speed, the NPC reaching the goal first is a foregone conclusion.don't waste my time making me roll skill checks to Run and Dodge traffic so you can tell me "you reach Point B just moments too late.  the NPC has beaten you there."One could argue that the rolls represent how many rounds behind are the PCs, but the GM could just as soon narrate that, as well.  Especially if the time gap is large enough that nothing could be impacted.If our goal is to stop the NPC from entering the Escape Portal at Point B which only takes him 1 round to use when he arrives, and we can at best arrive 5 rounds later than he, this is that don't waste my time situation.A case may be argued of GMing style on whether the PCs should have had a chance to beat him or not.  I think there are both style and situational factors at play.  Situationally, the NPC may out-level/out-plan me and thus there is no way I can win.  That sucks.  Don't waste my time with busy work to reach that conclusion.  I would rather spend my time figuring out how to level the playing field than spend an hour running a race I can't win.Style-wise, the GM may have a specific outcome in mind in order to drive a story point.  This is an edgier reason. I like me some story, but I do so by making moments and motivations more personal and dramatic, not by forcing event outcomes on players.  I might force a situation, "hey, the bad guy is getting away!" but I prefer the outcome to surprise me.  I collide the PCs with NPCs in order to give the PCs a chance to beat them.If I have a situation where it's a "duh! of course the bad guy will win" I reconsider the whole setup, because that doesn't seem like a situation the players will pursue (few people attempt to do things they KNOW they will fail at, instead seeking a different approach or different activity).A sandbox GM is usually uninvested in the outcome.   So to them, running the whole race as systematically as possible detaches them from the outcome and simulates "how it might work out".  For them, a foregone conclusion of bad guy wins is only because the PCs planned poorly or over-reached and attacked a foe with better stats.</blockquote>

Verification