Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 4500868" data-attributes="member: 66434">Thats a fantastic way to handle things if it works for your group and never having sat at your table couldn't comment on any aspects of your campaign and how its run. &nbsp;I do think that the way a game's rules are structured has an influence on the way characters and advancement are valued. The level and &quot;power up&quot; system really brings these differences to the forefront. A GURPS character that is a few character points behind everyone else is fully functional and still of equal value to the group. &nbsp;The story method provides risk for the character but none for the player. Its kind of like playing poker without stakes, no one is going to fold....ever. This doesnt mean that because a player cant make a session because of work ,illness, ect that he should be punished. Allowances have to be made for the real world of course. Skipping the game to go see a movie is a bit different. Failure due to lack of planning, or trying the most absurd ideas can lead to consequences for both the player and the character. &nbsp;If the entire party gets wiped out then there is effectively no risk or effect on the story from the character's point of view. With all the PC's dead the story effects are pretty much of no concern to the new PC's its simply the state of the world as they enter it. The players might realize that things are different and the new characters could experience fallout from the events but they never had a chance to influence the events brought about by the first group's failure. &nbsp;So really the &quot;right&quot; way to handle the consequences of failure is really group specific and not something that needs to be addressed in the rules at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ExploderWizard, post: 4500868, member: 66434"] Thats a fantastic way to handle things if it works for your group and never having sat at your table couldn't comment on any aspects of your campaign and how its run. I do think that the way a game's rules are structured has an influence on the way characters and advancement are valued. The level and "power up" system really brings these differences to the forefront. A GURPS character that is a few character points behind everyone else is fully functional and still of equal value to the group. The story method provides risk for the character but none for the player. Its kind of like playing poker without stakes, no one is going to fold....ever. This doesnt mean that because a player cant make a session because of work ,illness, ect that he should be punished. Allowances have to be made for the real world of course. Skipping the game to go see a movie is a bit different. Failure due to lack of planning, or trying the most absurd ideas can lead to consequences for both the player and the character. If the entire party gets wiped out then there is effectively no risk or effect on the story from the character's point of view. With all the PC's dead the story effects are pretty much of no concern to the new PC's its simply the state of the world as they enter it. The players might realize that things are different and the new characters could experience fallout from the events but they never had a chance to influence the events brought about by the first group's failure. So really the "right" way to handle the consequences of failure is really group specific and not something that needs to be addressed in the rules at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification