|
Benjamin Davis
Australia
Summer Hill
NSW
-
aramis wrote: datalink7 wrote: I haven't read the rules yet, so I could be off base here, but to add suspense couldn't you roll negative dice behind the screen? Like if a PC was trying to sneak they roll the dice but you could role misfortune dice behind a screen so they don't know if they failed or not.
*Again I don't know the rules yet just got my copy and am starting to read so I could be off base here. while you can, the number of dice thrown is audible, and that sets an upper bound, so the player rolling their dice in fact will tell them pretty well to expect success or failure, plus the dice are, as a default, a singular shared pool, so the Ref grabbing the purples and/or blacks is a dead giveaway of difficulty. Plus, it adds a trust issue.
It's no more of a trust issue than not telling you what the difficulty is. You seem to be coming from a really odd imbalance of GM-Player trust here.
-
William Hostman
United States
Eagle River
Alaska
Gaming in Greater Anchorage area, Alaska since 1978. Looking for Indy-willing RPG players in Eagle River (or willing to drive to Eagle River). Geekmail me if interested.
Yes, this really is what I looked like when I uploaded that avatar. Not that it's quite current anymore.
-
My experience is that players are more likely to trust a GM to be fair in announcing difficulty than in rolling and reading dice, especially given all of TSR's lame-ass "go ahead and fudge" advice.
Especially when difficulties can be figured retroactively by a quick look at opposition stats (not uncommon once the opposition is defeated.
Not all players have the same levels of trust, but in my 30+ years GMing, almost all have more trust for an undisclosed difficulty than for hidden dice rolls.
In part, I think, because the know they are more likely to cheat on dice rolls themselves. (I've ejected players over fudging their die rolls.)
-
David Graffam
United States
California
-
Scudd wrote: While reading the rules I bumped into a specific example where the rulebook states how to use the 'friction meter' on the party sheet. On page 57. It basically says if the players dilly dally coming up with what to do you move the counter on the friction meter up. If they still can't decide you skip that spot in initiative.
I would never do this but I just wanted to mention it because there was a discussion earlier about this element. Strange idea by FFG and one I don't think is at all necessary. The strangest part is the wording. It never mentions 'may' or 'should'. It simply says the GM does this.
It's pretty common advice in RPGs that the GM should skip players who are taking too long to decide their actions, and move onto the next character in line. Just the threat of doing that is usually enough to spur a player into making a decision rather than lose their turn. This is nothing new, and I think it's good advice.
Only the GM can decide when enough is enough, so there's no way a game can force the GM's hand here. In fact the rule can only be "may" or "should," no matter how it reads out of the rulebook. If it said, "After 2 minutes, the GM must skip the player and/or raise party tension," then I'd have problem with it. But that's not the case.
WFRP3 gives the players a lot of freedom to decide the order that they take their turns, and what they'll do. I like the idea of empowering the players in this way. But it's possible for players to abuse that freedom, and this can be detrimental to having a good time if it slows things down to the point where the GM is actually annoyed. Some GMs will have a high tolerance, and a good GM should know when the players have passed the point of making a plan and are simply being indecisive or argumentative about their course of action.
The party tension tracker is an additional (and usually harmless) way for the GM to alert the players that they're taking too long. I think it's a much better way to spur the players into making a decision, and far less punitive, than skipping their turn.
The alternative is to sit and do nothing, indefinitely, or to engage in a pointless discussion with the players about why it's important for them to take their actions in a timely fashion.
I think this is a clever rule, a player-friendly rule, but one that can have teeth if the GM really thinks the players are being unreasonably slow. But the rules don't force the GM to do something that's against their better judgment.
-
David Graffam
United States
California
-
aramis wrote: I always try to play rules as written; I'd rather not have to houserule. When a particular mechanic, tho, provides such a viable venue for abuse in the rules as written as does the party stress mechanic, it's sufficient grounds for me to despise it. It's the one despicable mechanic. And it's the one unique mechanic.
I realize that you wrote that a month ago, and maybe your opinion has changed since then. But I think your criticism of the party mechanics was harsh and unfair.
The first thing I noticed with the party cards is that the "punishments" are really minor. Players can elect to inflict that same level of "punishment" on their own characters for relatively small benefits during play. It's not a big deal. Yes, there are a few mechanics that raise or lower party tension, but we're talking about a one-space change. Since the "punishing" benchmarks on the tension track are usually a few spaces in, it means that the group really has to be ratcheting up the tension consistently in order for the negative effects to take place.
The rules as written are highly flexible here. As I've mentioned in an earlier post, a punitive use of the tension meter (as in: "Hey guys, you're slowing it down and I'm starting to lose patience") is entirely based on the GM's tolerances. A GM with infinite patience might let the players discuss their options forever, without needing or wanting to change party tension. The rules don't establish a clear point at which the GM must raise party tension.
Should the players take too long (in the GM's opinion), the GM can raise the party tension. Before anyone complains that this is a meta-game tactic, I want to point out that RPGs are full of meta-game tactics. Knowing your Wound Threshhold is a meta-game way of thinking, and players make in-game decisions based on their meta-game assessment of how many wounds they can withstand. There's a strong narrative component to knowing your current Wounds status, just as there is with knowing your party's current Tension. This is nothing new, and it's nothing to despise.
GMs that abuse their ability to modify party tension are going to lose players, just as they would if they were constantly creating situations that the PCs couldn't deal with.
I don't think I'm going to need to use party tension outside of representing the in-game narrative party tension (although this is an implied use of the rule, not an explicit one). When our adventure becomes tense, and when I want the players to know that this is supposed to be a tense scene, I'm going to raise party tension. I'm going to allow elements outside of the PC party to influence party tension, because the results of having some extra stress or fatigue affect the group is a neat way for me to make it clear that the setting (the adventure and the narrative) is beginning to wear on the characters.
As the GM, this is a tool I can use to authoritatively say "this is a grim world of perilous adventure" and back it up with a little mechanical tweak to the characters' status so that they feel it.
If the PCs are clever and cool-headed in response to a raise in party tension, I'm going to lower the tension. This will rely on some in-character activity that alleviates that tension or emboldens the group. The rules say to do this if "the characters are working together especially well", as mentioned on page 20 of the Tome of Adventure, emphasis mine.
-
-
Building party tension: bad punishment or good drama?
As a player, the tension meter sounds like it offers opportunities for interparty RP. As all good playwrites know tension is interesting, that there is no drama in two people onstage agreeing with each other and always acting in unison.
In WFRP the rise in tension could allow my PC to interact with fellow PCs in a dramatic or even (a narratively appropriate) antagonistic way without being mistaken for just being a "dick"
I understand that some player might not find misfortune and strife befalling their PCs a positive and interesting turn of events but it's fertile RP soil.
And as others have said, this is the world of WFRP.
-
Brian Newman
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
gearchuck wrote: I don't really care for the dice. I like to be able to keep secrets from the players. You can't do that with a system that wraps up the difficulty in the pool and explicitly tells the players whether they've passed or failed.
For instance in a different system I may call for a Stealth roll from a player who is trying to enter a manor house undetected. In many games the player doesn't know whether or not their roll of 15 succeeds or not. It could be that no one is there to spot them, it could be they only needed a 10 and passed. Or they could have needed a 20.. failed.. and were spotted and someone is quietly alerting the guards.
You can't do that in Warhammer. The players know explicitly whether or not they've passed or failed. If they pass they know they are safe. If they fail, they know they've failed. Any suspense is ruined.
Of course you can do it.
- Player builds the dice pool of all positive dice.
- GM builds dice pool of all negative dice.
- Player rolls their portion of dice pool openly.
- GM rolls their portion of dice pool secretly.
That way, the player knows how well they think they did, but the GM knows the true outcome.
-
|
|
|
