Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Actually no. That is not the original issue of this thread. Here is Jeff Wilson's original post:



His original post was not a complaint that every time he asks for crunch he's gets a wing it answer. His original post was: I don't know why people think there is no point statting up things that aren't PCs--justify.

My bad. Serves me right for reading the thread then trying to get some sleep then replying.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Again, this is a terribly circular form of reasoning. What is the game you are going to play, then?

Lets take this by the other end.

When and why do you not roll ?

Do you roll for the spatio-temporal coordinates of the PC at the beginning of play ?
Do you roll for number and prepare stats for every people, animals and object they may encounter ?
Do you roll reaction roll for every single npc they speak to ?
If they enter a random house and open a random cupboard, do you roll for each items inside ?
Does your game entirely consist of random table encounter ?
Do you actually run a roleplaying game, or just a world simulation ?

if you do not roll at random for everything, where do you put the limit. And why ?
What is, for you, unworthy of a roll ?

Some real example for my last game.

during their enquiries, my player arranged to meet someone who can provide them with a needed boat.
Now, i had readyed several possibilities for them to get a boat, and that man was one of those i have expected the player to contact, and i have put down a few word to describe him.
The player, however, actually did extended research on the man, figured the best way to approach him, arrangued to have a introduction from someone he respected,
and roleplayed a adequate fast-talk.
By strict obedience to the rules, i should have roll a reaction roll, with huge bonus but a non-zero chance of failure, especially since there was danger involved for the man, and little money available.
Given what the player had done, i did not roll.
Why should i have ?
Would it really had improved the game if, after all their work, i rolled a 3 and denied them the help of the man ?
If i had rolled a 18, should i have given them everything they asked for and more, not because they spent 2 hour of game setting the meeting up, but because i rolled a 18?

Did i cheated my player of fun because i deprived them of the unexpected randomness of the dice. ?

Later on, they fought a guardian beast, going somewhere i had not expected them to go, but that, in my mind, would have been left guarded.
I did not even looked at my books, i just pulled essential stats out of nowhere.
Am i a bad GM because i did not have a full write up of the thing ?

Mid fight, one of the player noticed a clue, dropped his gun and switched to a blessed weapon they had obtained a few game earlier, and rolled a 3 on a heroic and desperate default broadsword roll.
I did not ask him to roll damage, i did not check the vulnerabilities rules, i did not rolled Ht, i pronounced the monster dead, vanished in a shower of sparks.

Was it that wrong ? Am i somehow a game criminal that should get his rulebooks taken away ? Did i forfeited my Gurps GM license ?

Please note that
I had stats for several things the player encountered earlier and later in that game.
I rolled reaction roll for several other minor encounter during that game.
There was another fight that night wich was rolled down to the last hp.

I do not say you should never use full write-up and never roll.
But sometimes, going with the flow is better than rolling.

In my opinion, and in my games.

Celjabba

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=89

Also, I still feel they should not have to take an extra step on a board where mechanics are meant to be discussed.

*Shrug*. If we don't have a way to indicate anti-wing-it threads with an single rather short word, then we're gonna see even more of those 'wing it' answers than if we have none. Also, at least we'll be able to separate the newbies mistakenly asking for detailed mook write-ups from people who know that they want stats.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Would you feel justified to overlook the cost of a cab ride when preparing for characters of limited means and instead make up some uninformed cost figure when the party needs to get from the a park on Waverly Place to the provost's office at Stanford?

Yes. And yes.

Neither I nor my players would care, should a guess on such a thing prove to be factually wrong, as long as the guess was believable and game-coherent.

Celjabba

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

Players are players, they/we ALL do wierd stuff because it keeps the game fun and exciting and makes us feel clever as players. We need those dice outcomes to keep some imparitality in those decisions, otherwise its just the GM saying 'thats a dumb idea.'

Dude, you've never played Amber, or any other diceless system, have you?
I don't think you'd want to know what a typical Amber player would think of you for that type of statement...
*ig*

Originally Posted by Nymdok

Brief example: I once threw a potato at a hovering alien who carried a laser rifle and was actively shooting us. The GM (and other players) immediately berated me for such a foolish action...untill I dropped aces.

Which is fine in some cinematic campaigns, but silly results attributable to crits aren't always going to fly in other settings.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Molokh

*Shrug*. If we don't have a way to indicate anti-wing-it threads with an single rather short word, then we're gonna see even more of those 'wing it' answers than if we have none. Also, at least we'll be able to separate the newbies mistakenly asking for detailed mook write-ups from people who know that they want stats.

You have my vote too, should it matter somehow :)

Celjabba

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

I don't have an objection to this sort of thing.The spontaneous creation of particulars whose need could not be reasonably foreseen is an important and proper game-time function of the referee. But I feel that it is an equally important and proper prep-time function of the referee to set down the particulars with reasonably foreseeable needs. I believe this is supported by the GURPS rules as a whole and individually, and that a builds of novel abilities or geographical data that the GM has a mind to use ahead of time are foreseeable particulars. Would you care to run a game based in San Francisco without dwelling on the logistics of traveling around the city, for instance? Would you feel justified to overlook the cost of a cab ride when preparing for characters of limited means and instead make up some uninformed cost figure when the party needs to get from the a park on Waverly Place to the provost's office at Stanford?

You know Jeff, if you really mean what you're typing here, you should realize that that type of attitude is what kills games and destroys GMs.

If more people did what you suggest this forum would be a desert with a couple of gearheads in it and the hobby would be dead.

[Ragitsu]

Originally Posted by Molokh

*Shrug*. If we don't have a way to indicate anti-wing-it threads with an single rather short word, then we're gonna see even more of those 'wing it' answers than if we have none.

Unless we discourage that kind of impulsive posting.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

Unless we discourage that kind of impulsive posting.

Not going to happen, teaching people to wing it is the best advice anyone can give any prospective GM.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

Unless we discourage that kind of impulsive posting.

Describing it as "impulsive" is not very accurate. When I see a poster coming in asking "how do I build this with points", I don't fire up my "don't worry about the points!" macro and then go for lunch, job well done. I actually, you know, think about whether its appropriate advice, given the poster's history, their described purpose for the trait, and so forth.