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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Water Bob" data-source="post: 5868482" data-attributes="member: 92305">That's the key.  If my "illusionism" doesn't flow naturally and believeably, then I default to BURN 'EM UP, KILL, KILL, KILLL!!! No, seriously.  I do default to a, "Well, dem's the breaks," type mentality where, if you die, you die.  But, I will work with a player and try to think of everything "legal" that he can do to save his character's arse. But, in the end, if the character is dead.  He's kaput.  No go.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> up.  Pushin' up daises.  Feedin' the worms.  Etc.      Explain this to me again....  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />      I lie to my players all the time using Meta-Game information.  But, my players don't think I'm a liar--I don't draw attention to it. I even started a thread about this not too long ago.  Meta-game lying can be a tremendous tool for the GM if you use it sparingly and the players would normally think that you wouldn't lie to them.     META-GAME LYING I'm about to do it again in one of our upcoming game sessions.  Remember the necklace I spoke about on this thread earlier?  Well, the PCs also found a matching breastplate and battleaxe to go with it. There's an old crone that lives in the village with the PCs.  The villagers look to the old blind bat as an Oracle.  Cimmerians are very superstitious, and she's been living with the clan for what some say has been one hundred years.  The villagers shun her and give her the evil eye.  Nobody in town will even allow their bed to face in the direction of her hut--an old ramshackle thing that is not even allowed to be in the village proper, but instead lies exactly 100 feet outside of town. When Cimmerians need answers to questions that they can't find themselves, though, the villagers all of a sudden find the strength to overcome their fear of the old hag, approach her, and ask her questions about things.   I expect that the players will, when they get back to the village, approach Rutcrana (the crone) with questions about what they've found (maybe after asking their clansmen in the village--which they will find out some but little information). As a GM,  I want to play out this relationship between the Cimmerian player characters and the strange, wierd old hag. The players themselves are, of course, not afraid at all of Rutcrana.  When there's no real threat to the characters, sometimes that's hard to play (Or, forgotten--the players will be more focussed on getting the information, I bet, than remembering to roleplay correctly at this part of the game). Now, as GM, I'll remind them that their characters are trepidatious of Rutcrana, but to enhance that, I'm going to lie to them using Meta-game info. So, when we play out the scene where the PCs ask Rutcrana about the breastplate, shield, and necklace, I'm going to roleplay the NPC by having her caution, "Be careful what you want to know.  Most answers, as with most things in life, come with a price.  Are you willing to pay the price?" Then, using Meta-Game information to enhance the situation, I will tell the players that this may mean that, in order to cast the spell that they need, they may have to sacrifice some experience points.  Sorcerery is a bastardization of nature, and when it is warped so, nature demands a price. Now the spell doesn't really require XP.  This is just a device I'm going to use to put some perceived danger on the PCs to represent the real danger and fear that their Cimmerian characters will be feeling. The characters have to overcome their superstition and fear of the situation, so I'll give the players a tangible obstacle to overcome. The decision is, of course, up to the players.  It is my job to make them understand the stakes from their characters' point of view.       Just to be clear, I never, ever, never, ever, never fudge dice throws in front of or behind the screen.  I just never do it. So, even though I will keep "hooks" in the game as contingency plans, I won't change an attack roll or a damage roll to either help or hinder the players. I just don't like using that tool. And, I find that, because I never do fudge, the players tend to trust me more (if they only knew about the Meta-Game lying!).     CONTINGENCY PLANS Also, remember, that I don't always have contingency plans.  In fact, most of the time, I don't.  Typically, I'll set up a contingency plan when I think the scenario I've set up is a bit tough.  I feel that I can set up an encounter that I think is maybe a bit too much for the characters at their level.  If the players prevail, they're true heroes, and I reward them lavishly.  If the players don't succeed, I have the contingency plan ready because I feel like I might have set them up to fail.   So, with the contingency plan, I really set them up to succeed.  If they suceed in the scenario, they've gone beyond the call of duty.  If they don't, I've got the contingency plan. On most situations, I create encounters that I think are fair.  This is 90% of the time.  And for those, there are no contingency plans.      Dude, I don't agree with everything you've said, but I've got to hand it to you--you wrote a good post with a strong point.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />       But....let's look at this from a different angle. Me, as GM, as spent--I bet more than ten times the amount of time on the game than the player.  Tons of work I've put into creating NPCs, scenarios, history and lore, maps, learning rules, and creating a game that I think the player would like to play... We might even call it 100 times the time...maybe more. And, it's not a BAD THING to throw all of that away just because a player got stupid and lost his character? Yeah, I'd call what the player is doing a BAD THING.  Absolutely.      I actually have three other players who have expressed interest in my campaign...I'm just....picky....about who I'm gaming with these days. I may allow some new blood, especially in light of the player in question on this thread. I'm debating it.</blockquote>

Verification