Roll-playing for DuMmies.
Mar. 17th, 2004 03:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeksTonight, my roomies played their game with a DM I feel is doing a rather poor job. Tonight, one character swung his sword and missed. But not only that, he rolled a natural-One, a critical miss. So the DM had him roll a fumble, which he also failed -- and then dealt enough damage to put himself in critical condition. Tell me how you twist your body in order to chop your own legs off.
OK, so we already know that I have some odd issues with much Role-playing.
First, I need it to be believable. If I can't believe that you're toting around a greatSword, a greatAxe, twenty-seven throwing knives, a largeCrossbow, a smallCrossbow, a bedroll, a tent, and a pouch of 2228 gold pieces, all while fighting (and winning) against an army of orcs -- it doesn't work for me. If I can't believe that you travel through a labyrinthine maze of cavernous tunnels over-run with giantSpiders, darkElves, twoToedSlothes, and the wombatOfDhoom! for over three weeks straight without eating, sleeping, or returning to the surface for supplies -- it doesn't work for me. i have to believe that game I'm in, to feel the fire in the sails and smell the noxiousBodyOdor of the troll about to eat me, or it's just so many guys sitting around a table full of books and waving dice at each other, yelling "I am Sparticus!"
But a lot of players have that quirk. We want to escape from reality, but to do so, we need a sense of suspended disbelief. yeah, elves don't exist in reality, and even if they did, he'd be squished by a band of rampaging ogresWithOffensiveBodyOdor, sure. But if it's believable enough, we can forget that.
The other issue I have is emphasis on story. That is, if it comes down to playing something ByTheRules of the MostHighPriest of SteveJackson or doing what is thematically best for the story, I would lean towards thematic rather than mechanic. Hell, I'd say "fuck the mechanics," in most cases, but they can be useful to keep players out of godMode and such. More specifically, though, is I believe it is the DM's (or ST or GM or whatever it is you play with) duty to advance the story and make the adventure interesting, not mechanically flawless. That is, when a character dies an uneventful and/or uncalled for death (the sloth bit him, or he failed his save vs noxiousBodyOdor and *happened* to be unlucky enough to take maximum damage) it is the DM's fault. The DM has failed in his duty whenever a character dies, unless that death is particularly fitting to he story at hand.
Some would argue that if a player is being stupid, they deserve to die. To this, I point out the obvious -- in a world inhabited by dragons, zombies, ghouls, and mad wizards, anyone who steps outside the confines of their house is stupid. Player characters are out for adventure, taking chances, and overcoming huge odds! If your player does something 'stupid' and accidentally summons the oldOneCthulu from his millenia-long slumberOfDarkness, roll with the punch and make it work for the story. Don't cop out and say "Cthulu eats Bamfin. Roll another character" just because you didn't plan every possible permutation of actions your 'stupid' players might take!
This is not to say players should never die, or that they should over-come every obstacle ever put in front of them. Sometimes, player-death can be wonderfully dramatic and fitting to the story, so long as the player is informed ahead of time ("Yeah, it was cool that I got to sacrifice my immortal soul to Baalzaemon to save Princess Cindy, but I liked that guy.") And sometimes a character will get out of hand and start taking risks he probably shouldn't have, like calling The ArchWarlord of the Bloodrock Barbarian Clan that his father wore ladies undergarments and his mother was a tribble-lover. This does not mean they should die. However, having said ArchWarlord perform a privative version of reconstructive surgery on said players face without anestesia and then leaving him nekkid and scourged in the desert may teach him a lesson. In the case of Cthulu, instead of having the Old One eat the offending player, if he instead made said player his eternal pawn of 3vil, enslaved for all time to carry out the dark god's foulest business -- that would work, too. In fact, these alternatives to death not only keep players playing, but add dimensions and facets to the game, and additional adventure opportunities, that may never have been otherwise!
OK, so we already know that I have some odd issues with much Role-playing.
First, I need it to be believable. If I can't believe that you're toting around a greatSword, a greatAxe, twenty-seven throwing knives, a largeCrossbow, a smallCrossbow, a bedroll, a tent, and a pouch of 2228 gold pieces, all while fighting (and winning) against an army of orcs -- it doesn't work for me. If I can't believe that you travel through a labyrinthine maze of cavernous tunnels over-run with giantSpiders, darkElves, twoToedSlothes, and the wombatOfDhoom! for over three weeks straight without eating, sleeping, or returning to the surface for supplies -- it doesn't work for me. i have to believe that game I'm in, to feel the fire in the sails and smell the noxiousBodyOdor of the troll about to eat me, or it's just so many guys sitting around a table full of books and waving dice at each other, yelling "I am Sparticus!"
But a lot of players have that quirk. We want to escape from reality, but to do so, we need a sense of suspended disbelief. yeah, elves don't exist in reality, and even if they did, he'd be squished by a band of rampaging ogresWithOffensiveBodyOdor, sure. But if it's believable enough, we can forget that.
The other issue I have is emphasis on story. That is, if it comes down to playing something ByTheRules of the MostHighPriest of SteveJackson or doing what is thematically best for the story, I would lean towards thematic rather than mechanic. Hell, I'd say "fuck the mechanics," in most cases, but they can be useful to keep players out of godMode and such. More specifically, though, is I believe it is the DM's (or ST or GM or whatever it is you play with) duty to advance the story and make the adventure interesting, not mechanically flawless. That is, when a character dies an uneventful and/or uncalled for death (the sloth bit him, or he failed his save vs noxiousBodyOdor and *happened* to be unlucky enough to take maximum damage) it is the DM's fault. The DM has failed in his duty whenever a character dies, unless that death is particularly fitting to he story at hand.
Some would argue that if a player is being stupid, they deserve to die. To this, I point out the obvious -- in a world inhabited by dragons, zombies, ghouls, and mad wizards, anyone who steps outside the confines of their house is stupid. Player characters are out for adventure, taking chances, and overcoming huge odds! If your player does something 'stupid' and accidentally summons the oldOneCthulu from his millenia-long slumberOfDarkness, roll with the punch and make it work for the story. Don't cop out and say "Cthulu eats Bamfin. Roll another character" just because you didn't plan every possible permutation of actions your 'stupid' players might take!
This is not to say players should never die, or that they should over-come every obstacle ever put in front of them. Sometimes, player-death can be wonderfully dramatic and fitting to the story, so long as the player is informed ahead of time ("Yeah, it was cool that I got to sacrifice my immortal soul to Baalzaemon to save Princess Cindy, but I liked that guy.") And sometimes a character will get out of hand and start taking risks he probably shouldn't have, like calling The ArchWarlord of the Bloodrock Barbarian Clan that his father wore ladies undergarments and his mother was a tribble-lover. This does not mean they should die. However, having said ArchWarlord perform a privative version of reconstructive surgery on said players face without anestesia and then leaving him nekkid and scourged in the desert may teach him a lesson. In the case of Cthulu, instead of having the Old One eat the offending player, if he instead made said player his eternal pawn of 3vil, enslaved for all time to carry out the dark god's foulest business -- that would work, too. In fact, these alternatives to death not only keep players playing, but add dimensions and facets to the game, and additional adventure opportunities, that may never have been otherwise!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
*LAUGHS*
Date: 2004-03-17 06:14 am (UTC)Some would argue that if a player is being stupid, the deserve to die. To this, I point out the obvious -- in a world inhabited by dragons, zombies, ghouls, and mad wizards, anyone who steps outside the confines of their house is stupid. HAH! (I'm going to be giggleing about this durring my MIDTERMS! :-p)
ok, hope you're feeling better...
Re: *LAUGHS*
Date: 2004-03-17 08:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-17 10:11 am (UTC)Anyway...I think the DM needs to be quick on his toes to invent explanations for every wacked die roll. In the case of the natural 1, critical fumble, it could be as simple as the character missing his swing, losing his balance, and falling into his own blade that was pinned up against (on even *in*) the wall or table, or tangled in the enemy's clothes...blah... point is -- the DM has to be creative-on-the-fly sometimes...with the additional creativity to cast the DMBlueLightning spell and get the player(s) out of a bind in a creative way.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-17 10:34 am (UTC)And actually, even in this case, if the DM had explained what happened a little better, I think it would have been fine. If instead of saying "You fumble your sword and take 27 damage" he said "Swinging, you lose your balance and slip on your heel, falling backwards and slicing a gash down your thigh (take x-amount of damage)" then it would have been something else all together
no subject
Date: 2004-03-17 11:27 am (UTC)I am in Awe
Date: 2004-03-17 11:03 am (UTC)You ever consider writing for a gaming magazine?
no subject
Date: 2004-03-17 11:08 am (UTC)No, not really... I'd never have any material. ^_^;;