![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There has been a lot of talk about how the thing is to Roleplay or to Tell a Story or to do any of a number of things, and, with that as a goal, the rules should not be an issue.
Hogwash.
Or, as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mnemex said, "The story is important. It is more important than the rules. The rules are tools. But, if you don't want a player using a tool, don't give the player that tool."
I gm for a group of veteran rules hackers. They are also excellent roleplayers. The two are not incompatible. But, if they are given a tool, they will use it. If I later say, "This is not working," they will nod, and help me rework the rules. But, if the rule is there, they will use it. If the rule is not to be used, it should not be there.
This is true of board games as well as of rpgs, and it is true of larps. I still remember the Foundation larp at the second Arisia, where the faction I was involved with had created a planet destroying weapon. The gms spent a lot of time trying to talk the player of the faction leader out of having his character use it, and they eventually came up with what he agreed was a sufficient reason for that.
But, as the player said, "You should never have let me create that device. See, the way you set things up, all it took to create it was money, and I'm playing the richest character in the game."
The gms knew that he was working on creating this device. The gms agreed that he had created it. Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the player will probably have his character use it.
There was a supplement for AEG's Legend of the Five Rings that spent an awful lot of time talking about how the GM could stop players from doing things that the rules were specifically designed to let them do. I found this very annoying. Second edition L5R changed the rules so that the players could no longer do those things. I found this acceptable. Changing the rules because they're just not working out is fine. Penalizing players for having the nerve to use what you've given them is not fine.
Part of the context for this is a question I asked on the Forge in preparation for the first actual play session of my Sorcerer campaign. I'd mostly figured out the various important NPCs, what they were up to, the hows and whys, all of that. The next step was to stat them out.
When I run anything using the Over the Edge rules, I can create NPC stats nigh instantly. I can create them on the fly in the middle of the session, as an NPC I hadn't bothered to stat out suddenly comes into conflict with the PCs. It's very simple: Characters have a default of 2 dice in things normal people can do. So, if a PC tried to hit an average NPC, I roll 2 dice. If a PC tries to seduce, bully, or trick information out of a normal NPC, I roll 2 dice. If there is anything odd about the NPC, I factor it in. Good fighter? 3 dice in a fight. Really Strong Will? 4 dice vs others' attempts to bully or seduce information. Gullible? Either 1 die or 2 dice plus a penalty (i.e., roll 3 dice, keep the lowest two) vs others' attempts to use con artistry.
I don't yet have that feel for Sorcerer. Eero Tuovinen was kind enough to give me the formula he used, and Ron Edwards, who wrote the game, pointed me at a supplement which has 3 scenarios with statted out NPCs. This was exactly what I needed.
At the same time, I was reminded that Sorcerer is not "about" statting NPCs to create challenges for the PCs. This is true. It is why I am not statting out every NPC I expect the PCs to meet. It is why I did not begin to consider statting any of them out until I had my building blocks in place.
I do not plan to stat out a grave robber. This is not because he's not important. He is important; I just don't expect the PCs to come into the kind of conflict that would require rolling dice. But, it could happen. If it does, I most certainly do want to know how to stat him out on the fly without accidentally making him too much or too little of a challenge. Once I know how to do this, I can go back to ignoring the mechanics. The story is more important. How Herr Skell looks, moves, and talks; what he wants out of life; whether he has a wife and kids; how he may find himself unexpectedly tangled up in schemes involving the PCs and what he does about this; and. most of all, how the PCs feel about him and what they do about that -- this is all far more important than whether I roll 3 dice or 5 for him.
But, if it happens that there is a conflict where we all agree that I should not simply decide the results by fiat, then, yes, it is important to know how many dice I am rolling for him. And, it is important that I know quickly, so that the flow of the game, which includes the flow of the story, is not blocked.
Or, to take another example:
One of the ways in which Sorcerer pushes the players and the gm to focus on the story is the use of Kickers. A Kicker is created by the player, and it tells the GM, "This is what has just changed everything for my PC. Please focus on this."
So, one PC is about to become aware that someone has just been kidnapped. That is the player's Kicker. This means that I am being told to take that idea and make it important. I have done my best, using every piece of information she gave me, and several tidbits from the other players, and a few ideas of my own. I know who is behind the kidnapping and why. I have no idea how things will resolve, of course, but I have a range of options that I might use, and that will help me in coming up with a different option on the fly when the PCs go in a totally unexpected direction. That's Story.
It is certainly possible that the PCs will not come into a conflict requiring that I roll dice for the people who did the kidnapping or the party or parties who requested the kidnapping. But, this is not the way to bet. I most certainly do want to be able to stat out the kidnappers, preferably ahead of time. Not doing so would be to do a disservice to the story.
Hogwash.
Or, as
mnemex said, "The story is important. It is more important than the rules. The rules are tools. But, if you don't want a player using a tool, don't give the player that tool."I gm for a group of veteran rules hackers. They are also excellent roleplayers. The two are not incompatible. But, if they are given a tool, they will use it. If I later say, "This is not working," they will nod, and help me rework the rules. But, if the rule is there, they will use it. If the rule is not to be used, it should not be there.
This is true of board games as well as of rpgs, and it is true of larps. I still remember the Foundation larp at the second Arisia, where the faction I was involved with had created a planet destroying weapon. The gms spent a lot of time trying to talk the player of the faction leader out of having his character use it, and they eventually came up with what he agreed was a sufficient reason for that.
But, as the player said, "You should never have let me create that device. See, the way you set things up, all it took to create it was money, and I'm playing the richest character in the game."
The gms knew that he was working on creating this device. The gms agreed that he had created it. Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the player will probably have his character use it.
There was a supplement for AEG's Legend of the Five Rings that spent an awful lot of time talking about how the GM could stop players from doing things that the rules were specifically designed to let them do. I found this very annoying. Second edition L5R changed the rules so that the players could no longer do those things. I found this acceptable. Changing the rules because they're just not working out is fine. Penalizing players for having the nerve to use what you've given them is not fine.
Part of the context for this is a question I asked on the Forge in preparation for the first actual play session of my Sorcerer campaign. I'd mostly figured out the various important NPCs, what they were up to, the hows and whys, all of that. The next step was to stat them out.
When I run anything using the Over the Edge rules, I can create NPC stats nigh instantly. I can create them on the fly in the middle of the session, as an NPC I hadn't bothered to stat out suddenly comes into conflict with the PCs. It's very simple: Characters have a default of 2 dice in things normal people can do. So, if a PC tried to hit an average NPC, I roll 2 dice. If a PC tries to seduce, bully, or trick information out of a normal NPC, I roll 2 dice. If there is anything odd about the NPC, I factor it in. Good fighter? 3 dice in a fight. Really Strong Will? 4 dice vs others' attempts to bully or seduce information. Gullible? Either 1 die or 2 dice plus a penalty (i.e., roll 3 dice, keep the lowest two) vs others' attempts to use con artistry.
I don't yet have that feel for Sorcerer. Eero Tuovinen was kind enough to give me the formula he used, and Ron Edwards, who wrote the game, pointed me at a supplement which has 3 scenarios with statted out NPCs. This was exactly what I needed.
At the same time, I was reminded that Sorcerer is not "about" statting NPCs to create challenges for the PCs. This is true. It is why I am not statting out every NPC I expect the PCs to meet. It is why I did not begin to consider statting any of them out until I had my building blocks in place.
I do not plan to stat out a grave robber. This is not because he's not important. He is important; I just don't expect the PCs to come into the kind of conflict that would require rolling dice. But, it could happen. If it does, I most certainly do want to know how to stat him out on the fly without accidentally making him too much or too little of a challenge. Once I know how to do this, I can go back to ignoring the mechanics. The story is more important. How Herr Skell looks, moves, and talks; what he wants out of life; whether he has a wife and kids; how he may find himself unexpectedly tangled up in schemes involving the PCs and what he does about this; and. most of all, how the PCs feel about him and what they do about that -- this is all far more important than whether I roll 3 dice or 5 for him.
But, if it happens that there is a conflict where we all agree that I should not simply decide the results by fiat, then, yes, it is important to know how many dice I am rolling for him. And, it is important that I know quickly, so that the flow of the game, which includes the flow of the story, is not blocked.
Or, to take another example:
One of the ways in which Sorcerer pushes the players and the gm to focus on the story is the use of Kickers. A Kicker is created by the player, and it tells the GM, "This is what has just changed everything for my PC. Please focus on this."
So, one PC is about to become aware that someone has just been kidnapped. That is the player's Kicker. This means that I am being told to take that idea and make it important. I have done my best, using every piece of information she gave me, and several tidbits from the other players, and a few ideas of my own. I know who is behind the kidnapping and why. I have no idea how things will resolve, of course, but I have a range of options that I might use, and that will help me in coming up with a different option on the fly when the PCs go in a totally unexpected direction. That's Story.
It is certainly possible that the PCs will not come into a conflict requiring that I roll dice for the people who did the kidnapping or the party or parties who requested the kidnapping. But, this is not the way to bet. I most certainly do want to be able to stat out the kidnappers, preferably ahead of time. Not doing so would be to do a disservice to the story.