Looking for a T5 Review.

[Murdoc]

Okay, first off, Murdoc, if you read my post again, I clearly state that the 40% is only if I am armed with a handgun, otherwise my chances are ZERO. As knowing the odds, that is both because I study, I train, and I actively attempt to use probability manipulation in real life. As for the other guy's skill, that can be determined. I got out of a car because I saw the copper getting ready to initiate combat on my little "I know my rights and the fanarking law and no you can't look in my stuff." butt. Again, I calculated the odds and they came up "Rodney King" so I got out of the car.

And it is, I'm afraid, quite irrelevant to we are talking about. I was speaking hypothetically, because this discussion is about characters, not you. So perhaps I would have been more clear if I had said "Your character may know..." instead of "You may..." My point is that no, you cannot, no matter what your training is, know all the odds all the time. You are not omniscient. And even if you were, thanks to all this time and training, your characters are likely not so skilled, because not everybody goes to the effort to "study, train, and actively attempt to use probability manipulation in real life". By using this as justification for the way a basic task system works, you are saying that this happens absolutely every time, that every person and possible character does what you claim to be able to do. I am simply stating that this is not the case, so why have it incorporated at the basic task resolution level?

EDIT: And one last thing, a mugger is a pretty bad example since, my life and health such as they are, are worth more than any mugger is going to rob me of, so I will just like I always do just give them the damned money. Again, I am a coward like that.

That is why I used two other examples to better clarify my point.

 

[Shonner]

To open a stuck hatch? None. That's my call as GM in a CT game. 2D or 3D for STR or less.

So a character with a STR of 4, who makes his roll, is really just opening a hatch that wasn't really stuck.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Move the goalposts much?

Hey now Murdoc, you asked me about my odds, not my character and I answered your question and now you say you meant my character, which are you asking about, me or my character?

As for knowing odds, you do realize that odds are a range of possibility and thus yes I can know them. Can I say that I have exactly X% chance of Y? No, but I damn well can say that I have an A-C% chance which is good enough to try or not try.

So, at this point I don't think I can convince you of my side of the question no matter what I do.

Oh, yes, my characters are like me, we believe in training and testing ourselves all the time, lest we lose our edge. But that is because I tend to play variants of myself, power fanasties and all that.

 

[Shonner]

As ref, how would you handle the situation I described earlier in the thread.

The PCs have discovered an ancient ruin on a world. Exploring it, they think the place is of alien origin and at least several thousand years old. And, they think the aliens used biomechanical technology.

I'm curious what alien means in this situation to the characters? And how did they decide about the biomechanical stuff?

One PC stands in front of a long rectangular stone. He'd call it a dias or a table except the top surface is concave, bowled as it it could hold water. There are several green mushroom looking growths spread throughout the bowl. Though they resemble mushrooms, their texture is flexible but tough and rubbery.

Your player wants to make throw for his character to figure out the use of the table.

How would you govern this?

If the "table" is vital to the characters, the player would attempt an 8+ roll using 2D6 + INT modifier + social science or mechanic skill (whichever is higher) + a difficulty of 0 because I'm a nice ref. -3 for attempting a skill he doesn't have, of course (like engineering maybe). And no use of EDU in this case since you said it was alien technology which was probably not taught in any school. Then I describe the object to him depending on the effect (his total roll - 8). So maybe it is unknown from looking at it? Maybe it is a sink (a hole is discovered)? Maybe it is a lab bowl for cutting things in?

Maybe there is some alien writing about it somewhere to be found still? Maybe there is a video to watch, showing how it was last used? Maybe it was a press of some kind for metal (a piston comes down and flattens whatever is on the table when an object is placed on it)?

Whatever I relate to the players, they role-play their findings with each other. If just one player is looking at the table, I'll give him a note saying what it is. He can decide to tell the others or keep the knowledge to/for himself.

Another player could try a DEX roll to see if touching it in some way activates it without them losing a limb?

BTW, I might even just roleplay it out through answering the player's investigating questions, but this is not about roleplaying. We're talking about mechanics. So, let's just focus on the roll and not skirt the question by going the roleplaying route. Assume the player is out of ideas, and you're willing to tell him or give him a hint on a successful roll.

What roll would he make?

(You know that the table is an alien diagnostics bed. The "mushrooms" suck blood, fluids, and cell samples through the skin, fed to the biochemical diagnostics device in the center of the rock. No humm or machinery can be heard. It's almost like a plant device.)

In CT, I said ealier that I'd decide on a 10+ throw needed to figure the machine, because I thought the device quite alien and different from what the PCs are used to. For DMs, the character can use his Medic skill, and give the PC a +1 DM if EDU 13+.

The GM knows the character has Medic-2 and EDU 13, so the ref simply calls for a 2D throw. The target number of 10+ has been lowered to 7+ to accomdate the PC's DMs.

If the player makes this throw, the ref will either tell the player what it is (the character figured it out, but the player didn't) or give the player a real big hint as to the device's function--pointing him in the right direction (I'd probably do the latter, unless the game was dragging, then I'd just let the player know what it is and move on).

I don't do Hand of God stuff to my players (telling them what they think, or where to run and hide to). I always have at least two ways out of any situation before players even get near one. The players can usually figure out one of the two ways. They don't know there are two ways. Sometimes, they come up with their own way, which is excellent.

Here's the important part: If the player bricks the roll, I've given him no hints--no information about what the thing is. He doesn't know how hard I made it to figure it out, and he doesn't know that his Education and Medical skill are important clues to help him figure it out.

Using the T4 task system, how would you achieve the same result in a game?

I don't use T4. But if a player doesn't understand what all of his skills/stats mean on his character sheet, I'll remind him. If a player makes a roll, and does not even know what he was rolling for, then I guess the character is role-played as a lucky guy all the time who has no idea why things just seem to work around him simply by banging on them.

 

[aramis]

I have bowed out of games that this happens consistently in. Part of the fun of RPG's for me is the rules themselves. If I'm never going to have any idea why I'm rolling or what I'm rolling against then it ceases to be a game for me and becomes just playing a puppet in the GM's storytelling.

Same here.

Using it sparingly can be highly suspenseful. Especially if you reveal later what it was for once relevant (or if no one made it, no longer relevant, as in, "these are the guys you missed noticing earlier").

Overused, it destroys trust and raises feelings of railroading and puppetmastering by the GM.

 

[Murdoc]

Hey now Magnus, easy now. I did not move the goalposts, you misinterpreted me, which I said could have been my fault. Chalk it up to a problem in english. I did not ask you about your abilities. I said "You may know..." which can be interpreted in english as speaking generally, as in "Anybody may know...", and I said in my next post after that that I could have been more clear, and attempted to clarify, which apparently didn't succeed either. The reason I did not attempt to be clear right away is because we are discussing a rule mechanic that would affect all characters, and I assumed that you'd realize that I was speaking generally, because why would just one case affect all characters? As I attempted to say before, even if what you say about yourself is true, it would not apply to all characters. Now you say that it does apply to all of your characters, which I still say is irrelevant, because not everyone does that. Therefore, other characters that other people play will not have the same attitude, training, whatever. Therefore, the rule mechanic has to apply to them as well. Doing it the way T4/T5 does assumes that all characters, regardless of ability, background, attitude, or training, will know exactly what the odds are all the time. Since your argument that you are able to do so does not apply to all characters, this assumption in the rule mechanic is clearly mistaken.

As for the other argument I made that even you IRL cannot know all the factors involved in your chances to succeed, how about we stop using what we both agree is a bad example, and use one of the other ones I presented instead? How would you, with all your training and paying attention, know that someone had already spoken to the person you are trying to convince and said something that will make them uncooperative with you even for a simple request? As far as they (and the GM) are concerned, your chances are low to none. As far as you are concerned, your request should be granted easily. How would you know? Or would you prefer a more specific example?

So, at this point I don't think I can convince you of my side of the question no matter what I do.

If you want to shut down the conversation that way, go ahead, but you have no grounds. Your assertion that I am "moving the goalposts" was incorrect. You misunderstood what I was saying, even after I very clearly clarified that I was talking about all characters, not you. If you can't counter my arguments based on their own merits then I guess we are done here.

 

[Supplement Four]

So a character with a STR of 4, who makes his roll, is really just opening a hatch that wasn't really stuck.

If a player makes a 4- roll on 3D, I'd say that the character got lucky.

Also, remember, in Classic Traveller, a STR 2 isn't an invalid. There are soldiers in CT with STR 2, straight out of the Veterans supplement.

STR 2 is Jeremy Davies in his role in Saving Private Ryan.

I'm curious what alien means in this situation to the characters? And how did they decide about the biomechanical stuff?

Doesn't matter. It's part of the question, giving the GM facts and setting up the situation.

If the "table" is vital to the characters, the player would attempt an 8+ roll using 2D6 + INT modifier + social science or mechanic skill (whichever is higher) + a difficulty of 0 because I'm a nice ref. -3 for attempting a skill he doesn't have, of course (like engineering maybe). And no use of EDU in this case since you said it was alien technology which was probably not taught in any school. Then I describe the object to him depending on the effect (his total roll - 8). So maybe it is unknown from looking at it? Maybe it is a sink (a hole is discovered)? Maybe it is a lab bowl for cutting things in?

If the player knows about the INT modifier and whatever skill you decide to use, then you've given the player meta-game info about the object.

On the surface, that's not bad. But, if the players are having a lot of fun with the mystery and the discovery, you've just shot yourself in the foot.

I always have at least two ways out of any situation before players even get near one.

Interesting. I rarely figure "outs" of a situation. I just set up challenges and play against whatever the players happen to come up with.

If what they come up with is reasonable, I let it work.

I don't use T4.

OK...but that's what we're talking about in this thread. That, and T5, once it can be talked about.

But if a player doesn't understand what all of his skills/stats mean on his character sheet, I'll remind him.

Why wouldn't you? I'd do the same thing. I don't see the point of this.

If a player makes a roll, and does not even know what he was rolling for, then I guess the character is role-played as a lucky guy all the time who has no idea why things just seem to work around him simply by banging on them.

Never made a roll to see if a character notices something?

For example, a PC walks into a cave where a spider-analog is camped out in the darkness above the opening. As GM, you want to spring this beastie on the PCs at the appropriate dramatic time, having it drop from the roof of the cave onto them.

But, you're a fair GM, so you want to give the PC a diced chance to notice the creature. At the same time, you don't want to make the player suspicious if the character doesn't happen to look up.

Unless the player specifically describes looking up a the dark ceiling and pointing the lamp, the only chance the PC has of discovering the spider before it attacks is by the throw.

Secret throws, or players throws where they know not what they're rolling for, are another tool the GM keeps in his toolbox.

Using it sparingly can be highly suspenseful.

I'm not advocating that mystery is used on each and every throw. I'm just saying it's one tool removed from the GM's tool box with the T4 system.

A good GM, I believe, will have ebb and flow in his game. Sometimes, the visit to the merchant is roleplayed. But, at other times, if the bargaining is getting old and not very fun, the GM should just result to a Bargain throw and be done with it, then move on.

A good GM needs to keep his finger on the pulse of the game. Roleplaying trumps dicing, but dicing certainly has its place. Like a good movie, the scenes cut from one focus to another, sometimes showing detail, and sometimes skipping a lot of detail assumed to be done in between scenes.

The same goes for combat. I'll mix it up with description (usually, a lot of that) and just dice throws, depending on interest and the flow of the game.

I don't like it when a tool is taken away from me, though, as it is with the T4 task system. That hampers where the movie in our collective heads can cut to.

Overused, it destroys trust and raises feelings of railroading and puppetmastering by the GM.

"Railroading" gets a bad wrap. It, too, can be a good GM tool, very effective, and very fun, when used appropriately.*

Especially when the GM knows the game will be no fun if the action flows in an unexpected direction.

I say that as a GM who actually enjoys the tangents that players come up with. Part of the fun of the game for me is being intrigued and following the right turns that Players can influence in the plot.





*An example of "good" railroading? Usually, a player has a hand in it's creation. Let's say, as the game develops, that a NPC family member is created for whatever reason. The GM sees that the player really likes this NPC, and he roleplays his character accordigly.

As a "pull" into the next adventure the GM is setting up, he has the bad guys kidnap the NPC. Now, the player and the PC have a vested interest in going after the NPC to save him. There's really no other choice. If somebody kidnaps your wife or your brother or your daughter, then you go after them--try to save them.

This is a railroad. But, it's a good railroad. The players are interested, and there's true emotion invested into the plot of the next adventure.

 

[aramis]

*An example of "good" railroading? Usually, a player has a hand in it's creation. Let's say, as the game develops, that a NPC family member is created for whatever reason. The GM sees that the player really likes this NPC, and he roleplays his character accordigly.

As a "pull" into the next adventure the GM is setting up, he has the bad guys kidnap the NPC. Now, the player and the PC have a vested interest in going after the NPC to save him. There's really no other choice. If somebody kidnaps your wife or your brother or your daughter, then you go after them--try to save them.

This is a railroad. But, it's a good railroad. The players are interested, and there's true emotion invested into the plot of the next adventure.

That's not railroading. Not even close. Your scenario has NOT removed agency from the Player - his or her character could be callous enough to decide this is the divorce he's been waiting for. And, lacking a defined personality and relationship on the sheet, you as a GM have no leg to stand upon when they decide to simply leave it to the cops. Or worse, decide, "Good Riddance!"

Railroading is removal of Player Agency - the denial of both the player and the character the ability to make a difference in the story.

Railroading is making the PC fail a roll which, mechanically, should have succeeded in order to kidnap said NPC right from under the PC.
Or ignoring the Morale rules and declaring the PC cowers in fear during the attack.
Or declaring the attack with the taser put the PC down without rolling the to hit nor damage.

The only good railroading I've seen is starting mission based games in media res. Those wonderful introductions in WEG's adventures? MASSIVE railroad.

The Scripted kickstart scene in those same adventures? VERY BAD railroad. So bad, that I don't use them. They're fine for novice players, because they help get people into the story and get information, but they're bad for experienced players and/or long played characters because they remove agency, and are often irreconcilable to the characters as played.

 

[Shonner]

Supp 4,

Players do know what their INT modifiers are. It's one of the most important modifiers in Mongoose Traveller. Not sure why you hide player's INT from themselves. Normally, a person will know how smart they are. They would even know what they don't know about a subject. You, Supp 4, GM using luck for everything. You don't like dice. You don't like the players knowing the goal of their roll or what they were succeeding to roll for. Might as well put the players in a chair on a Disney attraction ride and railroad them through your cool GM tools.

 

[Murdoc]

Supp 4,

Players do know what their INT modifiers are. It's one of the most important modifiers in Mongoose Traveller. Not sure why you hide player's INT from themselves. Normally, a person will know how smart they are. They would even know what they don't know about a subject. You, Supp 4, GM using luck for everything. You don't like dice. You don't like the players knowing the goal of their roll or what they were succeeding to roll for. Might as well put the players in a chair on a Disney attraction ride and railroad them through your cool GM tools.

Dude, I think that you're being a little harsh and misunderstanding him here. He is not saying that he wants to do everything one way, exactly the opposite in fact. He's saying that there are a range of circumstances, such as ones where the characters know exactly what their chances are, ones where they have some idea, but not all, and others where they have no idea at all. He's also pointing out that the T4 system make every situation like the first one there, and he likes to be able to use the others when it helps make the game more fun for the players:

I'm not advocating that mystery is used on each and every throw. I'm just saying it's one tool removed from the GM's tool box with the T4 system.

See?

A good GM, I believe, will have ebb and flow in his game. Sometimes, the visit to the merchant is roleplayed. But, at other times, if the bargaining is getting old and not very fun, the GM should just result to a Bargain throw and be done with it, then move on.

A good GM needs to keep his finger on the pulse of the game. Roleplaying trumps dicing, but dicing certainly has its place. Like a good movie, the scenes cut from one focus to another, sometimes showing detail, and sometimes skipping a lot of detail assumed to be done in between scenes.

The same goes for combat. I'll mix it up with description (usually, a lot of that) and just dice throws, depending on interest and the flow of the game.

I don't like it when a tool is taken away from me, though, as it is with the T4 task system. That hampers where the movie in our collective heads can cut to.

This is me also, because I am a writer and this is what (at least many) writers do as well. You try to make the characters (and by extension, the players) experience certain emotions. Then you string those altogether into a story like musical notes in a symphony. Doesn't always go how you want, but that's part of what makes it a game for the GM too.

 

[aramis]

I really do have a clue of S4's position here:

• hidden difficulty allows him to remove player metagame knowledge from the equation to a large degree.
• Hidden rolls allow him, when needed, to trust to the dice certain decisions and provide character skill-agency or stat-agency.
• He wants players to feel as if it's them and him (and not luck) shaping the story
• He's not averse to ignoring the occasional called-for roll when the rules call for one, but does so by not rolling at all, or sometimes by deciding the outcome and rolling simply to appease the players.
• He sometimes rolls to make the players think a decision is being made by consulting the dice when he's just rolling for atmosphere.
• He clearly wants to be THE center of attention for his group.
• He wants the pull to be based in the character as portrayed, not forced by his overriding their player-agency.

I'm unclear about how tightly he has a story planned in advance... but I suspect not much more, really, than I do...

By comparison, I...

• I consider metagame knowledge of rules and rolls to make up for Player lack of knowledge about the game universe. I like my players to have a modicum of rules mastery.
• Hidden rolls tempt me to ignore or alter the dice after I've decided to put a decision to them.
• I want a story to emerge out of the game as played
• I am not averse to ignoring a called for roll when it's obvious that rolling it would be pro-forma only or utterly destructive, but I won't fake rolling it to appease players.
• I sometimes don't tell players what a given roll they made was for until later.
• I stopped the fake-rolls long ago, because I found my players had become inured to them.
• I'm there to play the NPC's and push players into action. It's NOT my story. I'm NOT the director, I'm NOT the author. I'm a bunch of characters. They are the center of attention.
• I want the players to actually define their character's psychology a bit for me to use in pushes and pulls.

I generally have a few events planned, and when they trigger them, they happen. If they avoid or preclude them, fine.

 

[Shonner]

I really do have a clue of S4's position here:

• hidden difficulty allows him to remove player metagame knowledge from the equation to a large degree.
• Hidden rolls allow him, when needed, to trust to the dice certain decisions and provide character skill-agency or stat-agency.
• He wants players to feel as if it's them and him (and not luck) shaping the story
• He's not averse to ignoring the occasional called-for roll when the rules call for one, but does so by not rolling at all, or sometimes by deciding the outcome and rolling simply to appease the players.
• He sometimes rolls to make the players think a decision is being made by consulting the dice when he's just rolling for atmosphere.
• He clearly wants to be THE center of attention for his group.
• He wants the pull to be based in the character as portrayed, not forced by his overriding their player-agency.

I see it that way, too.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Being a grown up...

Hey now Magnus, easy now. I did not move the goalposts, you misinterpreted me, which I said could have been my fault. Chalk it up to a problem in english. I did not ask you about your abilities. I said "You may know..." which can be interpreted in english as speaking generally, as in "Anybody may know...", and I said in my next post after that that I could have been more clear, and attempted to clarify, which apparently didn't succeed either. The reason I did not attempt to be clear right away is because we are discussing a rule mechanic that would affect all characters, and I assumed that you'd realize that I was speaking generally, because why would just one case affect all characters? As I attempted to say before, even if what you say about yourself is true, it would not apply to all characters. Now you say that it does apply to all of your characters, which I still say is irrelevant, because not everyone does that. Therefore, other characters that other people play will not have the same attitude, training, whatever. Therefore, the rule mechanic has to apply to them as well. Doing it the way T4/T5 does assumes that all characters, regardless of ability, background, attitude, or training, will know exactly what the odds are all the time. Since your argument that you are able to do so does not apply to all characters, this assumption in the rule mechanic is clearly mistaken.

As for the other argument I made that even you IRL cannot know all the factors involved in your chances to succeed, how about we stop using what we both agree is a bad example, and use one of the other ones I presented instead? How would you, with all your training and paying attention, know that someone had already spoken to the person you are trying to convince and said something that will make them uncooperative with you even for a simple request? As far as they (and the GM) are concerned, your chances are low to none. As far as you are concerned, your request should be granted easily. How would you know? Or would you prefer a more specific example?


If you want to shut down the conversation that way, go ahead, but you have no grounds. Your assertion that I am "moving the goalposts" was incorrect. You misunderstood what I was saying, even after I very clearly clarified that I was talking about all characters, not you. If you can't counter my arguments based on their own merits then I guess we are done here.

Hey Murdoc,

Fair enough, my apologies. As you can see I tend toward the Dark Side and give into my passions more than I should and can be a bit blind.

How about we use some thing basic like say catching a thrown object, a ball? I think that is something we can both agree most folks can do and is nice and basic.

Taking your example of a Personal, I am not sure we should go there, non-disclosure and all. Social interactions are not handled the same as in T5 as other Tasks. On the other hand, no I might not know that some one talked to my contact, but I still have an idea of my initial chances based on knowledge, skill and possibly stats. Which I think is the part that is missed, I (the PC) will always know my limitations and abilities. I might not be aware of all the factors in a Task, but I will always know my base odds. Which gives me a start to work out what other factors maybe altering the odds.

Now, for this "not everyone is you" while true, it does seem to hold true for those in risky professions, like Travllers. Or they should or they are setting themselves up to be seriously messed up. I guess the issue here is that I really seem to be a mutant and approach my lives (real and make believe) with a sense of exaggerated caution. Risk adverse for the win.

Again, I don't see what the big deal is with exposed Task Numbers. It's not the numbers that decide if there is drama and tension and all that stuff that people seem to think are so tied to the TN, but what happens once the dice reveal what is going to happen for good or ill.

Well, BadPad is about out of juice and I am at work, so I will close here for now.

 

[BytePro]

I'll even use roll low sometimes (just not the majority of the time) in my CT games. ...

Using a higher target (like 14+) with roll+stat also works. Just add 7 to normal 2d6 target, use DMs as normal, and no roll-under.

Hmm... PCs opening stuck hatches manually? Oh, I get it - when their FGMP packs are depleted...

 

[DaveChase]

I can understand where some players might not like the GM that says roll X dice and tell me what you got.

I use that often times when they ask if they notice something or
I have a list of their skills (on a GM character card) and I as them to roll for them to notice something that their character would know but the player might not think of.

After a while players realize that I am using the rolls to help their characters (or the players who might not know what their characters know) in the game.

Even if a player is not actively looking for things, but happens to be a computer expert, they might notice in the bar/store/etc, that someone has new/outdated/etc laptop, or a mechanic might notice that the vehicle driving by does not sound quite right, or a combat expert might notice that someone is carrying something like a weapon concealed.

Once in a while when all the players get stuck due to lack of player real world knowledge of what their characters know, I will have them all roll and once in while a character will think of something that is helpful or not helpful. Even had a non-knowledable character once roll so high compared to the skilled characters, that the character just commented on something that they had seen in a vid (movie) once and wish it was real. Then one of the clueless skilled characters (players) palm to the forehead, went, yes, that's it and came up with a plan.

I don't have players roll to be rolling but I do use random (ie not planned ahead) rolls to help the game along.

Or if the players ask if they notice something in a place where there is nothing truly worth noticing.

Dave Chase

 

[Supplement Four]

That's not railroading. Not even close.

I guess we have different defitions. I always considered railroading to scripted direction of the game when players really have no choice but to go that direction.

I think bad railroading is when you force players to go the route when they want to go another way:

Players: "We're going to run for the hills!"

GM: "No, you've got to get captured in order to get this adventure going."

That's bad railroading.

Good railroading is when the GM sets game events into motion so that the players only have one real choice of action, but the players actually pick that course of action for themselves.

Players: "We're going to run for the hills!"

GM: "OK. You start running across the plains. Your goal, the foothills are in the distance. But, you're being chased. A helo flys overhead and begins to drop gas bombs. These things explode, releasing a heavy gas that float like fog on the ground. It's like tear gas. If you get into the cloud, you can't see, you can't stop coughing, and the stuff contains a skin-contact paralyzer that will cause you to temporarlily lose control of your muscle function. Damage is done to your END at 1D per round, and once that stat reaches zero, you'll be immobilized."

Players:" We're stuck on these plains with no cover, sandwiched between the forces following us and the gas cloud. We could fight, but we think the helo will just drop a gas cannister right in the middle of our defensive positon. We've got no choice. We're going to throw down arms and stick our hands in the air. Live to fight another day."

The only good railroading I've seen is starting mission based games in media res. Those wonderful introductions in WEG's adventures? MASSIVE railroad.

Definite massive railroad. I always change the beginnings and never use those scripts that they provide.

He is not saying that he wants to do everything one way, exactly the opposite in fact. He's saying that there are a range of circumstances, such as ones where the characters know exactly what their chances are, ones where they have some idea, but not all, and others where they have no idea at all. He's also pointing out that the T4 system make every situation like the first one there, and he likes to be able to use the others when it helps make the game more fun for the players:

:rofl:EXACTLY!:rofl:

You try to make the characters (and by extension, the players) experience certain emotions. Then you string those altogether into a story like musical notes in a symphony. Doesn't always go how you want, but that's part of what makes it a game for the GM too.

YES!

I strive to help create a connection between the player, his PC, and the game's universe. If the player is just coming and playing a game as he would a computer game or a board game, not caring if his PC dies "because he'll just roll up another one", then I'm failing as a GM.

I want my players showing up, eager to live some more of the life in this alter ego that they've created. I want them emotionally invested in their character and the story.

As you say, that's sometimes easier said than done, and I'm not always successful. But, that's the goal.

And, when I reach that goal in a game, there's nothing like roleplaying that way. It's addicting. It'll dominate a person's thoughts long after the game session is over in a way that no game or risk or pool or poker can.

Using a higher target (like 14+) with roll+stat also works. Just add 7 to normal 2d6 target, use DMs as normal, and no roll-under.

Yes, like the CT throw rule: Throw 18+, use full DEX as +DM, +skill, -evasion DM.

 

[Supplement Four]

I really do have a clue of S4's position here:

• hidden difficulty allows him to remove player metagame knowledge from the equation to a large degree.
• Hidden rolls allow him, when needed, to trust to the dice certain decisions and provide character skill-agency or stat-agency.

Yes.

He wants players to feel as if it's them and him (and not luck) shaping the story

You're off on this one. Remember the example--I'm forgetting which thread, now--about rolling for the shotgun in the bar?

Luck can play a large part in my games, and we let luck actually influence the story.

He's not averse to ignoring the occasional called-for roll when the rules call for one, but does so by not rolling at all, or sometimes by deciding the outcome and rolling simply to appease the players.

You're off on this one. I'll use fake rolls to make the players believe that they're up against more or less enemies than they are: For example, if I think a player is counting the number of times I'm rolling initiative behind a screen, I may roll six times when I've only got two NPCs to fight them. The first two throws will be the real initiative throws for the NPCs. The other four throws are just fake throws to make the counting player think that he's going up against six baddies even though he's only seeing two.

I don't like fudging rolls, and I try never to do it. I find that players don't like it when I fudge rolls, either. So, by not fudging, even behind the screen, it earns me "dice trust" with the players.

I'm not crazy about "script immunity" for NPCs either. I'll try to protect important NPCs that would normally have script immunity, but if the players think of a way to take out the character, then I allow it.

Also, NPCs that fall of a cliff and are assumed to be dead usually are. I need a real good believeable reason if I ever bring back a character that is assumed dead.

He sometimes rolls to make the players think a decision is being made by consulting the dice when he's just rolling for atmosphere.

Yes. If I see the players are spooked, and I want to play up the tension, I might just do a fake roll behind the screen, smile, scratch something down on a piece of scratch paper, and then just keep the game going without saying anything. If asked, I'll say, "Your character sees no change."

He clearly wants to be THE center of attention for his group.

What an odd comment. I have no need to be THE center of attention, but I do think that every GM is the center of attention at a gaming table by default. It's part of the job, since the GM runs everything.

Sometimes, there are moments when two players have their characters roleplaying with each other. When this happens, I just sit back and watch like the rest of the group. But, when the game returns to normal, all eyes are looking at me to describe what the characters see. That, by default, does put ALL GMs at the center of attention.

He wants the pull to be based in the character as portrayed, not forced by his overriding their player-agency.

I'm unclear what you mean when you say "player-agency". But, if I read the comment correctly, I want story direction in the game to be character motivated.

Sometimes, I'll sandbox it: Just set up a scenario and follow where the players take me. Sometimes, the story is stronger, so I'll use the "good railroad" as I describe above.

It's imperative that the players decide where the game goes. I try to influence their choices sometimes (not all the time) as with the good railroad, but it's always the players who decide where the story takes us.

At the beginning of a game, I'm sometimes very open about what a player can play. Like most other games, I'll allow anything within reason, "Play any alien or human type you want, and tell me about the character's background."

I'll also sometimes restrict player choices, sometimes severely, at the start of a game. I did this in my current Conan game. I'd set up a sandbox with no clear story at the beginning, but the sandbox centered on a Cimmerian village up in the foothills of the Eiglophian mountains. I decreed that all player characters would be members of the Cimmerian clan that lived there. That meant that players could only roll up Cimmerian Barbarian characters--no other types allowed (though I would open that up a bit later in the game as the story grew).

That's a pretty strong game, and it's my current campaign. We've been playing it for a couple of years now.

I'm unclear about how tightly he has a story planned in advance... but I suspect not much more, really, than I do...

Depends. I do usually put in a lot of prep work, especially at the beginning of a campaign. I usually play campaigns and not one-shots.

Sometimes I will plan out the spine of a campaign and flesh out an elaborate story for the first adventure. But, like they say in the film business, have a good script and then be prepared to deviate from it. That's how I look at my pre-planned stories. I start with it in mind, then I see how the players interact with it, and I follow what interests the players. Many times the story of what I planned and what we played are two wildly different things.

I consider metagame knowledge of rules and rolls to make up for Player lack of knowledge about the game universe.

I'll sometimes think this way, sure.

I like my players to have a modicum of rules mastery.

I usually could care less about what the players know about the rules. In fact, the games are sometimes better when they don't know any rules.

I want the player focused on the character--living in that character's shoes, experiencing things. I don't want him focused on rules at all.

The only time I appreciate players knowing the rules is in crunchy games, like d20 Conan: When a character goes up a level, the player has a lot of rule choices to make in spending skill points and picking Feats and such.

But, I'd much rather have a player with a good imagination that can put himself in the character's postion and see through the character's eyes than I would a player who knows all the ins-and-outs of all the rules.

 

[Supplement Four]

Finishing my replay to Aramis...

Hidden rolls tempt me to ignore or alter the dice after I've decided to put a decision to them.

I don't have this temptation at all. I look to the dice to decide things, then I play off of them.

Plus, I'm always on the players side. I use the NPCs to challenge the PC, and I will play the NPCs as I think they should be played. But, in the end, I'm pulling for the PCs to win and be heroes.

I don't fudge the dice to hinder or help the players. The dice are the dice. Yes, sometimes they are cold hearted, but that's the way of the game.

I want a story to emerge out of the game as played

We completely agree on this.

I am not averse to ignoring a called for roll when it's obvious that rolling it would be pro-forma only or utterly destructive, but I won't fake rolling it to appease players.

Nope. I'm pretty hard when it comes to dice. I don't want PCs to die, but I won't change the result of a dice throw to help them.

First, as I've said, I don't like fudging dice. Second, if I fudge like this, then players can't trust me not to fudge behind the screen with the NPCs.

I sometimes don't tell players what a given roll they made was for until later.

Sure. I'll usually tell them later, when it doesn't matter anymore.

"Hey, what was that roll you made us do when we entered the woods?"

"Oh, I was gave you a check to see if you noticed the bent tree branches. Nobody did, so I didn't tell you anything. But, that would have been a clue to get you looking up in the trees, helping you when the trolls attacked."

I stopped the fake-rolls long ago, because I found my players had become inured to them.

It's a tool, like anything else. I use it sometimes. Other times, I don't.

I'm there to play the NPC's and push players into action. It's NOT my story. I'm NOT the director, I'm NOT the author. I'm a bunch of characters. They are the center of attention.

I'm the director, but the players are the highly paid stars who interpret their parts and take the story into wildly unfortold directions. And, its our story that we are creating together.

I want the players to actually define their character's psychology a bit for me to use in pushes and pulls.

And, what I do is interpret the way the character is played.

I once had a player in a CT Traveller game that got real lucky during character generation and rolled up this monster of a character. He was a Marine with lots of combat skills. In game, the character picked up some formidable equipment.

But, in the game, the player liked the character so much (because he'd gotten so lucky on the dice with chargen) that he never wanted to put the character in harms way.

Even the other players started noticing it. If a combat scenario broke out, and I'd go around the table, trying to figure out just where everybody was standing as round one started, invariably this player would put his character behind another character, shielded by the threat.

And, although this character was the best one in the group to handle a combat situation, the player never had him charging out front, leading the way.

It actually became a joke on the table. "Where's Andrew going to put Daeus? Behind Dave's character!"

THIS speaks a lot more about the character than anything the player had made up about his background.

So, I look at how the characters are played in the game.

I generally have a few events planned, and when they trigger them, they happen. If they avoid or preclude them, fine.

I usually plan a ton of events. I'll even script out the night's game session. I like being prepared.

But, I also let the players define the direction of the game. Many times, that leads us off my prepared path into ad-lib territory.

Many times, I'm completely fine with the PC skirting pre-planned events. Most of the time, I'll just recylcle the idea and use it, in another form, later in the game--probably in another adventure. So, I don't look at that as wasted prep time.

 

[DaveChase]

I let the players railroad themselves.

I usually out of game sit down with them and discuss their characters goals, desires and dreams, then I develop places and situations that can (not always) help them get down the road to achieve them.

Then when they have a chance to change directions, they have to think about what they are giving up to get this new dream/opportunity.

It might be as simple as finding a new strange pet for a players collection to striking it rich in the bounty business. When you get all these small and large ideas from the players and they are presented with the potential to achieve them, it makes direction fairly easy.

I never like creating massive, planned out adventures, I had to many times had the players through a kink into them by either going away from them or deciding that they didn't want to play that adventure.

One PbP game I did have bit of railroading but it was different, the players got hired by a merchant ship that misjumped by 10's of parces and wanted to go home. They lost various crew members do to various things and needed to fill the ship's roster.

They could have left the ship at anytime at a layover but each time they (the players) decided to stick with it. It was a railroad in the route but not what took place each time at a stop.

Dave Chase

 

[Shonner]

I don't see what the big deal is with exposed Task Numbers. It's not the numbers that decide if there is drama and tension and all that stuff that people seem to think are so tied to the TN, but what happens once the dice reveal what is going to happen for good or ill.

Totally agree with this. It is the default for how I play Traveller.