Universal RPG's not Universal?

[buzz]

I agree, but until you prove it, I have no evidence to the contrary to consider- a bald assertion and link to a website doesn't suffice.

So provide more proof than a mere link. Quote some kind of rules text.

This feels a bit like be asked to prove that there are hotels in Monopoly, but okay. I'll get you some quotes once I'm back home.

EDIT: First example, from the free "SRD" for The Shadow of Yesterday. Namely, the rules for conflict resolution regarding Intention, Initiation, Execution, and Effect and Bringing Down the Pain. The basic summary is that a) you don't roll without being clear on intent/stakes, b) the only way a PC can take Harm (damage) is during Bringing Down the Pain, and c) the GM cannot initiate BDtP; only the player can. And, on top of this, "At any point during Bringing Down the Pain, a player may decide that the harm taken is enough for this conflict and give up."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Also from the free "SRD" for The Shadow of Yesterday:

First, the player states the character's intention and the Story Guide sets the stakes. This should be easy: "Pieter is going to try to climb that boulder"

<snip>

The Story Guide has free reign here to say, "That's a giant boulder. If you fail, Pieter falls and will break a bone."

Here, the SG is exercising precisely the kind of control I'm talking about. The SG has set out the potential consequences of a course of action- the consequences could have been minimal or terminal.

Its not fiat- its setting the table.

Most people do not take a rulesystem and then sidestep it when its inconvenient in any major way.

Its not sidestepping to control the balance of roleplay/combat in a campaign.

Its not sidestepping to make perfectly clear that a particular course of action could very likely result in a TPK and leave the decision in the hands of the players.

None of which intrinsically effects the lethality of the system, just under what conditions the lethality comes into play.

And your point is?

All I have maintained from my initial point on the subject of lethality is that the GM controls the lethality of the game...not the system.

And if it did in the game, it would be because the GM _changed the system_. At that point, its not the same system, even if its based on it.

What you're asserting is essentially that one HR irrevocably changes an RPG into a different one.

Here, you and I disagree, probably irreconcilably.

There probably is no RPG better suited to run WFRR than Toon, and character death would be a single campaign-specific detail...probably the only HR you'd need to make.

 

[buzz]

Here, the SG is exercising precisely the kind of control I'm talking about.

I don't think it's quite the same. The player has the option not to enter into the conflict, and even if they do, dice are going to get rolled to determine the outcome. The GM does not get to declare the outcome unless the dice say so.

Anyway, some more quotes...

I hope I've made that clear enough. If you're GMing by the rules, you have absolutely no power to nudge things toward your desired outcome.

The GM is not the sole arbiter of the rules. He may not disregard rules as he sees fit and may not add others as he chooses. The rules are meant to stand on their own. Both player and GM abide by them—and call each other on breaking or bending them.

Flip that around and it reveals a fundamental rule in Burning Wheel game play: When there is conflict, roll the dice. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game.

The character will end his or her saga in a specific role. As the story progresses, the character may develop and change, but it is always in light of the eventual fate known to the gm and player.

I would also point to the whole of "Anatomy of Authored Role Playing" chapter in this book.

There's other games that I own (InSpectres, The Mountain Witch) that, while they do not get as explicit as, say, the quote from BE above, they do outline procedures of play (i.e., resolving conflicts) that basically negate the possibility for "golden rule" play on the part of anyone at the table.

(I'm really hoping that you're not going to go for "proof by omission" or whatever, i.e., because these games don't specifically prohibit or mention Rule 0/Golden Rule, they thereby include it. They don't work that way.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

His rationale: an escalating HP system is an abstraction of how proficient a PC is at avoiding damage. If the PC chooses not to avoid the damage, he takes the realistic results of his actions.

That's your choice, but its not what the _rules_ do; its you essentially using GM fiat or a house rule.

FWIW, there is even language in the 3.5Ed PHB (which, given the site in which we're posting, is probably pretty familiar to all here) that supports KS's rationale, though not quite as harsh an implementation.

Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.<snip>Even if you have lots of hit points, a dagger through the eye is a dagger through the eye. When a character is helpless, meaning that he can't avoid damage or deflect blows somehow, he's in trouble (see Helpless Defenders, page 153). (3.5Ed PHB p145)

In a very real sense, a PC choosing to ventilate his own skull is "at (his own) mercy," and is using a full round action to deliver a Coup de Grace to himself- meaning an auto hit, auto crit, and (if he has HP enough to survive the blow) a Fort save DC10 + damage dealt or die.

The Phineas Gages of the RW are rare...but in RPGs, it would seem they are slightly more common.

I'm really hoping that you're not going to go for "proof by omission"

Nah- I'm not going to.

I don't think it's quite the same. The player has the option not to enter into the conflict, and even if they do, dice are going to get rolled to determine the outcome. The GM does not get to declare the outcome unless the dice say so.

And that's what I'm talking about. There are simply certain situations that are so ridiculously dangerous that fatality or mortal injury is inevitable- but you don't railroad your PCs into them. You always, always give your PCs a choice.

The GM sets the table, the player chooses what the PC will eat. Some dishes are going to be ice cream, others will be jumbo-sized fugu...prepared by a housewife from Milwaukee. Choose the fugu and you get what you deserve...

If I tell my players a cliff top is 200yds above the ground with a face that is relatively crumbly, and they still decide to climb the cliff face, its not really GM fiat to say that a PC who critically fails (assuming the system has a gradation of failures & succeses) his climb check dies. The player was forewarned and took the risk.

Similarly, if your PC is in the bad end of the Dirty Harry "Do you feel lucky, punk?" type situation (highly experienced shooter who has the drop on you with an extremely lethal weapon)...and you decide to trust your luck? Failure is highly probable. Negotiation and/or surrender are much more likely to have a PC positive outcome.

Or suppose a 1st level party encounters a Dragon...Smaug's older, bigger, step second-cousin. Assuming they don't flee immediately in terror, they have several options. If the option they choose is to attack him because they'll "have the element of surprise," I'll let them have surprise, as in "Surprise, you're dead!"

If I set up an encounter that is ridiculously out of a party's capabilities, in all likelyhood, its a hint to turn around or negotiate or wait and observe, not rush headlong into some kind of confrontation, because unless there is divine intervention, rolling dice won't help you.

Its not nudging, its not fudging, and it is controlled. You were warned.

RE: Burning Empires & Burning Wheel:

Interesting language that I must admit supports your point. Must make discussions about unclear rules very interesting.

 

[buzz]

Danny, thanks for indulging me. All I can say at this point is that the games I'm citing mess with the "GM sets the table, the player chooses what the PC will eat" dynamic, so that the "GM controls lethality" issue becomes a lot less cut-and-dried.

So, like I said before, if you ever get a chance to try some of these games out, I recommend you do so. I find them a really refreshing change.

 

[Eric Tolle]

1So I can't set up a town where a disease like smallpox is rampant (at the time, incurable- the disease ran its course and you either died or you didn't)? Or ravenous demons dominate? Or something as simple & RW as a madman sniping at passersby from the highest point in the town (like the church belfry)?

Well...no, not for the first two elements, or not as a direct threat to the players. He can certainly set up town where disease or rampant demons is a problem (though the actually actions of demons in a game of DitV are quite different than D&D- more similar to Medieval demons), however he can't simply do a "Roll vs. disease" check.

For all of the above scenarios though, the characters will only have the possibility of death if and only if the player has escalated it to the point where death is on the table. And by "escalate" I don't mean "the players could have avoided the situation", I mean in the specific combat or conflict, the players have the ability to choose the stakes. They can decide "No, this has gone far enough- this combat won't get lethal."

The system is interesting, and has some neat differences from standard task or skill systems. Though I was a skeptic about DitV, after a thorough reading, I decided the system has some interesting possibilities.

A GM can't declare a PC who falls 100' or gets shoved into the ironsmith's (active) forge dead?

No he can't, not arbitrarily. The Fallout (consequences for failure) system doesn't work that way, with arbitrary GM imposed consequences. In essence, a conflict will only reach up to lethal fallout because the Player has escalated a conflict to the pontwhere he's taking lethal fallout, and the effects of the Fallout are in the player's hands.

You haven't proven it- the links provided give no support to your claim. In fact, the point may not even be provable without an actual demonstration of one of the systems you're pointing to.

I think it might indeed be a good idea to do a demonstration of the conflict system in DitV, because its difficult to give the gist of the system without a demonstration. It will take some writing though, so I'll have a go at it tonight.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A GM can't declare a PC who falls 100' or gets shoved into the ironsmith's (active) forge dead?

No he can't, not arbitrarily.

"Arbitrarily" isn't the word I'd use. I think those are pretty realistic consequences, esp. the latter.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

"Arbitrarily" isn't the word I'd use. I think those are pretty realistic consequences, esp. the latter.

Realism has no bearing on the results in game, insofar as you can judge it at all.

I can think of dozens of times it would have been "realistic" (by which you really mean "probable," because people have survived falls much greater than 100 ft.) for Conan to die in Robert E. Howard's yarns about him, or John McClaine in the Die Hard movies - but both are vastly more entertaining because the creators gave all of two bits about "realism."

EDIT: Rereading the complete post you were quoting, you're missing the meaning of the term "arbitrary" in any case. In the context of the game in question, any action taken by the GM outside the bounds of the mechanics is "arbitrary," i.e. not justified within the system.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I didn't miss your meaning for "arbitrary." The decision on what penalty was set was not any more arbitrary than examples on the game's own site. Each consequence- death from a precipitous fall off of a cliff or landing in a forge (where gas temperatures would be high enough to completely scorch/melt lung tissue in a second or so) was reasonable within the context of the environment.

Which is not outside of the mechanics- the site itself explicitly stated that the GM could set up the consequence of failing during a particular course of action. The quoted text declared the GM set a penalty for failing a climb check while going up a particular rock was a minor injury. There was no text saying that a minor injury was as bad a penalty as the GM could have set.

In the cases I set out, the GM would be setting a consequence of "you die if you fall off of the cliff" or "wind up falling into the forge." There may even be other hazards in the area that the GM points out- damaging that weak main support beam with leaky cannisters of kerosene around it would result in a flaming collapse of the building above (with consequences determined by the amount of kerosene, area enclosed, and general size of the building in question.

Its still up to the players to decide whether this is an appropriate area in which to take a stand against the BBEG, play with fireworks, etc- but the potential list of consequences is set.

 

[buzz]

Its still up to the players to decide whether this is an appropriate area in which to take a stand against the BBEG, play with fireworks, etc- but the potential list of consequences is set.

Danny, I think the point you're still missing is that nothing is set in advance. The GM can't have any consequences in mind until they know what the player's intent is. The player and the GM then have to agree to the stakes; if they don't, they never get to the Initiation step, and the GM's suggested consequence will never come to pass. Sure, the GM can choose "you die" as the consequence to everything, but you're going to get a pretty boring game if that happens; as a player, I'm not going to agree to those stakes unless I'm willing to risk my PC's death.

This isn't like D&D or HERO where a player can have their PC walk into a room and then the GM says, "You just stepped on a pressure plate. Make a Reflex save to see if you take half damage from the guillotine trap." This sort of "react to the GM attacking you" stuff just can not happen. The scope of the conflict resolution is larger than that, and the stakes have to be clearly stated, up-front.