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

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by pyratejohn

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. My games are partially based on the roll of the dice, and partially based on how everyone plays there role.

I'm pretty sure we both need to agree on what "agree" means to have a meaningful conversation about this. Do you let the people you play with know that you will feel free to substitute die results based on your opinion of their role-playing?

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Which is why I don't ask people how I should go about designing my stretching character who can extrude and control nanoscale tentacles that can reach right between molecules, complete with point costs. If I'm doing it for the exercise, then asking other people to do it for me defeats the purpose.

That's a terribly all-or-nothing way to look at it. Different people need different degrees of assistance, and being supplied with an example of another person's process this time can help you learn the process for next time, and improve and customize your process for another time. Or they may already have a build in mind but don't have all the books, or simply are interested in alternate takes to broaden their range of possibilities.

[zorg]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Do you let the people you play with know that you will feel free to substitute die results based on your opinion of their role-playing?

I let my players know that we'll ignore die results which don't fit in the game we're going to play. The decision to ignore a dice roll is usually a consensus, since we all agree about the kind of game we're playing. Game > Dice.

Winging and Fudging are only bad if you want them to be.

Originally Posted by Ze

Sure, and most of us enjoy designing something clever too; however, I am still going to stress the point that many newbie GMs, especially when faced with all the potential which GURPS has to offer, will then proceed to overstat and burn out.

I'd much rather have more GMs out there running a game, then having them call off their games 'cause they think they need to spend hours upon hours statting up their settings. Or see them switch over to some other system which gives them the ready made stat blocks in a setting which they think they need.

Exactly.

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

If we agree to play a game where the outcome depends on the roll of the dice, and you unilaterally decide to misrepresent the true result in favor of one more to your liking, you are lying and cheating. These are bad things and should be discouraged.

Originally Posted by pyratejohn

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. My games are partially based on the roll of the dice, and partially based on how everyone plays there role.


Eh. My mileage obviously varies. I'm more than happy to toss out a crappy roll in order to move the story in a fun and exciting direction.

If your willing to abandon dice rolls, where do you draw the line at what to throw out and what to keep? If one dice roll doesnt matter, do any of them?

The Rules are the covenant by which we all agree to play any game. Once you start playing fast and loose with those rules, your not playing the same game any more. In the case of RPGing, your not playing a game at all, your just sitting around saying 'Wouldnt it be neat if....'

There is nothing wrong with that, but it aint GURPS.

The hubris comes I think from the idea that 'I as GM know whats best for the story' when its the unexpected that truly drives the game and tests the imaginations of GM and PLayers alike. If this were not the case, we wouldnt use dice at all.

This is where GMing has gone afoul. GMing has become associated with story telling and we have lost sight of the fact that the story needs to be allowed to tell itself and even suprise us once in a while. It does that through dice and unexpected results.

Nymdok

[copeab]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

If we agree to play a game where the outcome depends on the roll of the dice, and you unilaterally decide to misrepresent the true result in favor of one more to your liking, you are lying and cheating. These are bad things and should be discouraged.

That's why my players have always known that I may fudge. Die rolls are usually my least favorite things to fudge (damage rolls being the biggest exception, since I roll it privately). It's less obtrusive to change NPC skill levels and numbers based on the situation. So, for example, as the battered party enters the shrine the four elite guards might become two mooks.

Having fun is not a bad thing. Having fun in a way you disapprove of is not a bad thing.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

If we agree to play a game where the outcome depends on the roll of the dice, and you unilaterally decide to misrepresent the true result in favor of one more to your liking, you are lying and cheating. These are bad things and should be discouraged.

OK.
But myself and, i think, many others Gurps GM/player do not play such a game.
In my games, outcome does not -only and always- depend on a roll of dices.
This is not unilateral, it is know and accepted by all players.

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

This is not correct. For example, regardless of ultimate costs, a "weird" defensive ability that includes Insubstantiality will make the presence or absence of the Affects Insubstantial enhancement in the builds of attack abilities in the game important, even if neither sort of ability will be paid for from a limited pool of character points.

And what is the difference, in gameplay term, between a NPC with written stats including affect insubstantial and a NPC with no written stats and a GM choice to have his attack affect insubstantial ?

Unless the GM is a computer without imagination, blindly following numbers and scripts ?

Celjabba

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

If your willing to abandon dice rolls, where do you draw the line at what to throw out and what to keep? If one dice roll doesnt matter, do any of them?

My benchmark is "Would this roll kill a PC?". Getting hurt -- badly -- is fine. Failure is fine. Death is not fine.

The Rules are the covenant by which we all agree to play any game.

All that matters is how that group wants to play the game. As long as they are having fun -- and I would game for no other reason -- it doesn't matter much to me how they are doing it. I might not want to participate, but I wouldn't tell them they are doing the wrong thing.

The hubris comes I think from the idea that 'I as GM know whats best for the story' when its the unexpected that truly drives the game and tests the imaginations of GM and PLayers alike. If this were not the case, we wouldnt use dice at all.

I would say that easily the best gaming moments I've been a part of had nothing to do with die rolls, but on unexpected player action.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

If your willing to abandon dice rolls, where do you draw the line at what to throw out and what to keep? If one dice roll doesnt matter, do any of them?

As GM, i choose not to roll when a " bad" roll result would, in my opinion, irremediably damage the game.
Or when i see no use for randomness in an event.
And yes, it is purely subjective.

When i tell the player : 'it is raining', i usually don't roll before on a weather chart.
I decided, on my own free will as a GM, that it was raining.
It doesn't make the game worse, or less of a game, in my opinion.
Now, if a player ask me what the weather is, and i haven't decided, i may well roll it.
But if i feel the game require rain, rain there is.

Originally Posted by Nymdok

The Rules are the covenant by which we all agree to play any game. Once you start playing fast and loose with those rules, your not playing the same game any more. In the case of RPGing, your not playing a game at all, your just sitting around saying 'Wouldnt it be neat if....'

I think your definition of game is my definition of simulation game.
This kind of thread truly show that, in tabletop rpg, noone play the same game.

Originally Posted by Nymdok

There is nothing wrong with that, but it aint GURPS.

The hubris comes I think from the idea that 'I as GM know whats best for the story' when its the unexpected that truly drives the game and tests the imaginations of GM and PLayers alike. If this were not the case, we wouldnt use dice at all.

Isn't it also hubris to say : only total randomness can truly drive a game, a GM and players mind are unable to do so ?

Originally Posted by Nymdok

This is where GMing has gone afoul. GMing has become associated with story telling and we have lost sight of the fact that the story needs to be allowed to tell itself and even suprise us once in a while. It does that through dice and unexpected results.
Nymdok

My player are perfectly able to surprise me without needing a single dice, trust me.

Celjabba

[vicky_molokh]

Ahem, the issue is not whether we need to stat up everything. The issue is that some people don't want to hear 'wing it' as a reply to the question they ask on a forum. What's wrong with adding the nowing tag to threads where the OP doesn't want to get a 'wing it'?

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by Molokh

the nowing tag to threads where the OP doesn't want to get a 'wing it'?

Where did the name "Nowing" come from?