GMing Tips and Hints

[Mr. Death]

So...how about this. Have you ever just "hand waved" a NPC death?
Basically, Harrys going to take out the low level mook, thats not interesting, its interesting what happens because of that.
I've had people take Law breaker because they go "So I shoot a Fireball at him" and I have to say, "Dont bother rolling, it hits him, he's dead"
mechanically conceding before he rolls (you can concede to death, its been covered)

The player had the option to refuse that concession, right? Otherwise that seems rather unfair.

[finnmckool]

I don't have hypothetical correlaries based on my very narrow use. I'm just saying, dice rolls can get in the way of players having fun some times and some times you gotta let the players win one to keep them from being too discouraged. Not all players are the bounce back extroverted types. I care more about creative problem solving and wow factor than numbers. The numbers provide necessary structure, but at the same time I always refer back to rule 0.

[Mr. Death]

Really, "Don't roll if there isn't going to be an interesting failure" is the biggest rule I follow. Hell, my players only have to roll out any thaumaturgy spell under 5 or 6 shifts when they're in the middle of a fight, because the worst thing a failed roll is going to do is give them a mild consequence, which will only last through the next scene.

Though here's an interesting alternative, finn: Compel them with a "succeed, but..."

So if that wallflower goes for the awesome but doesn't have the stats to pull it off, compel their wallflowerness to say, "Okay, you shove the innocent bystander out of the way, but you're too unathletic to escape the blow yourself, so that's a moderate consequence," or "...but now you've got the ghoul's attention on you."

[blackstaff67]

The player had the option to refuse that concession, right? Otherwise that seems rather unfair.

How many shifts is the fireball?  I mean, if I say throw a 5-shift force attack and you say "he's dead," aren't I allowed to do something that mitigates the attack?  From your example the PC was deliberately targeting the mook; if I were to say "I'm aiming to sweep his legs ouit from under him, leaving him with nothing worse than broken limbs," can I inflict a Consequence less than death (and avoid the Lawbreaker stunt?)  IIRC, Lawbreaker stunts are something to be negotiated.

[Hick Jr]

Hey guys, remember this argument? Evocation weapon rating and its relation to the actual breaking of the First Law?

Because we had it in the Law Talk thread. If we're going to have it again, lets move it there.

[blackstaff67]

Sorry, off topic.  Mea culpa.

[fantazero]

Really, "Don't roll if there isn't going to be an interesting failure" is the biggest rule I follow. Hell, my players only have to roll out any thaumaturgy spell under 5 or 6 shifts when they're in the middle of a fight, because the worst thing a failed roll is going to do is give them a mild consequence, which will only last through the next scene.

Though here's an interesting alternative, finn: Compel them with a "succeed, but..."

So if that wallflower goes for the awesome but doesn't have the stats to pull it off, compel their wallflowerness to say, "Okay, you shove the innocent bystander out of the way, but you're too unathletic to escape the blow yourself, so that's a moderate consequence," or "...but now you've got the ghoul's attention on you."

My only problem with that is, Magic users should be stacking consequences its what "levels the field" with non-Magic users.
Also, a Mild should stick around for a scene or two, the stress may be gone, but the consequence can hang around for a little bit.

But if you dont want to have a combat round with 1 low level NPC, I have no problem with saying "You kill him, or he gets knocked out" thats just you the GM as the NPC conceding.

[Mr. Death]

My only problem with that is, Magic users should be stacking consequences its what "levels the field" with non-Magic users.
Also, a Mild should stick around for a scene or two, the stress may be gone, but the consequence can hang around for a little bit.

Most of the time this happens, it's something that's no rush--like opening a Way when they're not under any real pressure, so even if I was going to roll it out, there's nothing stopping the players from dividing up the rolls to something super easy to succeed at anyway.

[fantazero]

Most of the time this happens, it's something that's no rush--like opening a Way when they're not under any real pressure, so even if I was going to roll it out, there's nothing stopping the players from dividing up the rolls to something super easy to succeed at anyway.

I'll give you that, because like its been said, "why roll the dice if something interesting isn't going to happen"

[Keryth]

I've had people take Law breaker because they go "So I shoot a Fireball at him" and I have to say, "Don't bother rolling, it hits him, he's dead" mechanically conceding before he rolls (you can concede to death, its been covered)

So, you forced a Lawbreaker onto someone? How did the player NOT object to that? Concessions have to be agreed upon by all, you can;t just say "He's dead, he conceeded"

[Hick Jr]

So, you forced a Lawbreaker onto someone? How did the player NOT object to that? Concessions have to be agreed upon by all, you can;t just say "He's dead, he conceeded"

Hey, look at at all that discussion we already had. over about twenty links. In thirty threads.

[fantazero]

Hey, look at at all that discussion we already had. over about twenty links. In thirty threads.

DING DING DING


or


DING

[toturi]

Evidently it is such a point of contention that it keeps coming up. And I realise that it comes up most often in threads that purport to suggest ideas to challenge the players.

My suggestion is to look at the PC sheets. A strong physical combat but weak social character is supposed to be challenged in the social arena, not in physical combat. A character is that is defensively strong in all areas is not supposed to be challenged defensively. Boring characters are not supposed to be interesting, don't try to force something onto the player, the player has to buy into wanting to play an interesting character, it is likely that the character is as interesting as the player is willing to play. If the player wants to play a boring character, let him. From experience, I have found that if a player with a boring character is challenged, he is likely to make the character even more boring.