Here's a new discussion topic. I thought of it while participating in yet another social skills thread.
Is there value in letting the system/game mechanics decide things, rather than the GM's own internal decision process?
Consider 1e and it's plethora of tables. I'm exagerating, but a player could ask "Is there an XYZ in the room" and there would probably be a table for it for him to roll on and check.
While some silly outcomes could occur, there is a certain unbias that letting a skill check or dice roll decide if something works, exists, is found, is available as compared to the GM just deciding.
I assume, even a mechanized GM may step in and apply his own judgement when the dice say something stupid happens. I don't know what that threshold is or what example applies, but for the sake of discussion, let's assume we are NOT talking about letting stupid things happen, fudging or other extreme exceptions.
As such, as a player, what is your preference for mechanical resolution/determination of game facts/outcomes versus GM decision?
As a GM, what is your preference for mechanical resolution/determination of game facts/outcomes versus GM decision?
For myself, I kind of like letting the system decide things. I already generate maps, cities, NPCs, dungeons randomly, and only adjust when exceptions are needed.
I prefer to let a skill check resolve an NPCs decision to accept a PC proposition. I'd rather let a random table determine what exists in a room, rather than decide "oh yes, there is indeed a tub of butter on the dining table left from the last meal"
As a GM, it removes me from the decision process of nattering details that I didn't care about when I made my plans and don't want to default to saying "No" as is my default inclination.
As a player, it makes me feel bettter about my chances of being successful as I know what my skills are and can more readily accept the GM has not unconciously biased a decision.
People talk about GM/Player trust, but it's not that simple. I trust the GM not to pee in my coke when I get up to hit the head. I trust him to not steal my books either. I trust that he is TRYING to run a good game. I do not trust that his decisions are not unconciously biased or mistaken because he and I have differing pictures of what I am attempting to do. I do not trust that if the GM is not using any mechanics, that his default impression of the situation is so bad that he decides I fail, whereas statistically, even applying the worst modifiers the game defines, I have a decent chance.
How about y'all?
Is there value in letting the system/game mechanics decide things, rather than the GM's own internal decision process?
Consider 1e and it's plethora of tables. I'm exagerating, but a player could ask "Is there an XYZ in the room" and there would probably be a table for it for him to roll on and check.
While some silly outcomes could occur, there is a certain unbias that letting a skill check or dice roll decide if something works, exists, is found, is available as compared to the GM just deciding.
I assume, even a mechanized GM may step in and apply his own judgement when the dice say something stupid happens. I don't know what that threshold is or what example applies, but for the sake of discussion, let's assume we are NOT talking about letting stupid things happen, fudging or other extreme exceptions.
As such, as a player, what is your preference for mechanical resolution/determination of game facts/outcomes versus GM decision?
As a GM, what is your preference for mechanical resolution/determination of game facts/outcomes versus GM decision?
For myself, I kind of like letting the system decide things. I already generate maps, cities, NPCs, dungeons randomly, and only adjust when exceptions are needed.
I prefer to let a skill check resolve an NPCs decision to accept a PC proposition. I'd rather let a random table determine what exists in a room, rather than decide "oh yes, there is indeed a tub of butter on the dining table left from the last meal"
As a GM, it removes me from the decision process of nattering details that I didn't care about when I made my plans and don't want to default to saying "No" as is my default inclination.
As a player, it makes me feel bettter about my chances of being successful as I know what my skills are and can more readily accept the GM has not unconciously biased a decision.
People talk about GM/Player trust, but it's not that simple. I trust the GM not to pee in my coke when I get up to hit the head. I trust him to not steal my books either. I trust that he is TRYING to run a good game. I do not trust that his decisions are not unconciously biased or mistaken because he and I have differing pictures of what I am attempting to do. I do not trust that if the GM is not using any mechanics, that his default impression of the situation is so bad that he decides I fail, whereas statistically, even applying the worst modifiers the game defines, I have a decent chance.
How about y'all?
