Re: [DL] Fudging

[Greg Vose <kitsune@xmission.com>]

We aren't talking about reality in Star Wars, we are talking about
cinematic space opera.  There is a huge difference.  Danger is fine.
Suspense is fine. Death is fine, but one astrogation roll that is there for
no good reason (it's routine!) blowing a 1.5 year campaign is not fine!  If
that 1.5 year campaign had to go down in flames then it should have done so
in a situation against insurmountable odds where the characters had a
chance to be heroic. Where is the heroism in blowing a roll that you aren't
supposed to roll because it is routine?

You bring up the point of the Astrogation skill being wasted.  I explained
how it wouldn't have been wasted in my earlier e-mail that crossed this one
to which I am replying.  The simple answer is to give the character an
opportunity to act heroically by giving him a roll in a situation where he
can truly shine.  Make the roll under stress rather than as a routine roll.
 If one must make people roll at every turn because one is an anal git then
at least make the failure of a routine roll be something minor, not a major
blunder like popping out into an asteroid field.  This all has to do with
routine vs exceptional circumstances.

BTW, my writing is not formulaic. When you are a member of SFWA I will be
happy to discuss it with you further.

Insinuating that I railroad or advocate the railroading of players through
the adventure simply shows that you know nothing about me or what I am
talking about. That's understandable, we haven't spoken much yet.  Perhaps
at a later time you'll come to see what I am about and I will probably come
to see your position as well.  Please do not get the impression that I do
not believe your position to have value. That is not the case.  This is not
an "I must win and you must lose" situation.

You say that you want a chance to mess up and I applaud you for that.  As a
matter of fact, I would look forward to it.  But your messing up shouldn't
kill you in a routine situation. While it is certainly true that people die
in freak accidents (slipped on the first stair and broke his neck) it does
not make for a good story nor does it make for a good adventure.  There is
no adventure in it.  It doesn't ring true, it rings hollow.

As for your D&D GM, I agree with you (the major problem here is that you
are playing D&D but we won't get into that *grin*).  He has a problem if he
isn't willing to kill you off.  I'm not saying that you have to drag the
characters through your own reality keeping them safe at all turns until
you hit the end, I am saying that ignoring stupid rolls at the right times
and keeping the story moving along and enjoyable is what it is all about.
The best sequence in a game session I ever participated in was for Boot
Hill.  A friend of mine dove through the window of a building into the
street outside, shot the outlaw in front of him, rolled over, shot the
outlaw on the roof above him, and rolled to his right, and simultaneously
shot the third outlaw and was hit in the head by the third outlaw dying
instantly.  Could you ask for a better sequence?  He was grinning from ear
to ear for days after that.  In that case it all happened thanks to rolls.
But he would have been pissed if he had slipped on horse dung on the way to
the saloon for a drink earlier in the day and broken his neck.

So I have no problem if someone dies along the way. I am just saying that
you need to at least give them a good reason for dying because these are
adventure games, not some stupid reality show. There is a reason that those
shows suck, okay?

As for your last comment of my being arrogant, I resent that. It isn't a
question of arrogance, it is a question of the GM we are discussing holding
slavishly to rolls that make no sense.  I am opinionated, yes.  Do me a
favor and can the personal attacks.

Best,

Greg



At 08:53 PM 3/15/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 01:26:28PM -0700, Greg Vose said:
>> You obviously missed the point, Wishkah.  
>
> Doesn't look like it, because what you write below reiterates what I'd taken
> the original point to be.  I'll try to clarify my case a little.
>
>> The point is that the payoff of the story was saving the galaxy.  The
>> reality of what happened was that a dice mechanic killed the group before
>> they even got there.
>
> The galaxy's a dangerous place.  If interstellar travel were a walk in the
> park, if people didn't die doing it, the setting would be different.
> Personally, I like the idea that a Cyberpunk character can be killed by a
> mugger on the streets of Night City - pointless, meaningless deaths DO
> happen, and it's this element of danger that makes the setting real and
> provides atmosphere.  How are you supposed to feel that you live in a
> dangerous place if there's no actual danger to you?
>
> Another point is the aforementioned Astrogation roll.  If the game mechanic
> for it isn't going to be used, then the player pretty much wasted his
> character points taking the skill.  He could have spent those points on a
> combat-related skill, since it looks like that's the skills most likely to
> actually require being used - after all, the GM isn't going to let the fact
> that nobody can actually fly a ship get in the way of the story, he'll find
> a way that things work out.  If there's no chance of messing up Astrogation
> being fatal, then it's not a very important skill, and personally I'd want
> combat skills so I can be a hero, not the guy who sits in the background
> because he doesn't have any useful skills.
>
>> If I, as an SF&F author, wrote a novel where the payoff was that hero was
>> going to save the galaxy (survive or not), killing off the hero in the
>> sixth chapter while he was traveling to his destination because he flew
>> into an asteroid would make my editor very unhappy and if it managed to get
>> past my editor, my readers (who are smart people) would pick the book up
>> and chuck it across the room.  
>
> Well, people do like formulaic stories, there's no surprise there.
>
>> The exact same thing holds true here.  The GM screwed up.  It is all about
>> suspense. It is all about the "good death."  It is all about the story.  It
>> is not in the slightest bit about the die rolls.
>
> Again, I disagree.  When I play an RPG, I WANT the chance to mess up.  I
> expect my GM to be able to handle that and incorporate it.  I do NOT want to
> be railroaded through the GM's story.  Unless it's been agreed beforehand
> that that's what the game will involve.
>
> At the moment I'm playing in a D&D game that has a great background and
> setting, but our GM just won't kill anybody off.  So although it's fun to
> see what happens next and enjoy the story, there's no sense of challenge or
> achievement when we succeed at something.  Which means it's basically like
> reading a particularly immersive book.  Personally, I like something more
> dynamic than that.
>
>> It is the manner in which it happened and the slavish devotion to dice
>> rolls expressed by what is a truly incompetent GM.  
>
> Like I said, each to his own, but I think it's a tad arrogant to write a GM
> off as incompetent because his style doesn't appeal to you.
>
> Wishkah
>
>-- 
>       -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>       | This is pointless and will only promote in-jokes and cliquism.|
>       -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
>	unsubscribe deadlands@gamerz.net
>as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>
>
>