Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9315268" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I’m not sure I agree with the main point of the video.I actually had a situation in my Mothership game this past Monday where one player wanted his character to hide from some monsters. It played out largely as described … there was back and forth about where he wanted to hide and so on. Once we got to a final point, we had to determine if he was successful.How did we do that?There are a few ways I can imagine a GM handling it in Mothership given the absence of a Stealth or Hide mechanic. Call for a Body Save. Make a Speed Check. Make an Instinct roll for the monster. Maybe apply Advantage or Disadvantage depending on circumstances. These are all available to the GM.What I did was I made opposed rolls. The character’s hiding place was behind some heavy machinery… so not bad enough or good enough to grant Disadvantage or Advantage. The situation was more about hiding quickly, so I called for a Speed Check for the character. Then I compared this to an Instinct roll by the monsters.The game works on d100 roll under mechanics. In this case, we compared results. I figured a Critical Success (doubles on the d10s under the target) would win outright if anyone got one. If they both succeeded without a Critical, then whoever rolled higher would win.This didn’t take me a long time to come up with, but I don’t feel like I did anything that couldn’t be accomplished with set mechanics of some kind.And I also wonder how anyone would have fairly determined the outcome without relying on mechanics.  Like, if the player declares some ridiculously obvious hiding spot, sure you can feel pretty comfortable saying they fail to hide. Likewise if they come up with some super great way to hide, you might feel fine allowing them to succeed.But what about the rest of the time? I don’t think I’d find it satisfactory as a player or as a GM to just always leave it up to the GM.Now, for Brennan’s game, I’m totally fine with what he’s describing because it clearly works for him,  his players, and their audience. Good for them… they should pick whatever game they want and play it however they like.But as general advice… if I think the important part of play is the human emotions and connections and all the other stuff he said, I’d feel like I’d want there to be rules that help with that stuff. I don’t want the GM deciding everything. Or, perhaps more accurately, each player deciding everything for themselves, and the GM deciding everything else.There is an absence in such a case. It feels like an absence of game.</blockquote>

Verification