Re: GM-controlled Bad Luck points

"Peter Knutsen" <peter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:46a21168$0$21932$157c6196@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> However your percentages are really out whack with respect to jam
>> chances, so it would be a exceedingly poor method in any event. Of
>
> What percentages? The roll mechanic is a generic usage roll mechanic; it

> was never created specifically for the purpose of simulating firearm
jams.

Yes, I was agreeing with you on this point. Using fumbles for it wouldn't 
properly reflect a good simulation of the causes and likelyhood of real 
world jamming.


> As you may not now, in the last couple of decades (with Hero System -
and, 
> interestingly, Quest FRP - being among the very few exceptions) it has 
> become customary in RPG rules systems to have a single roll mechanic
which 
> is used for both to-hit (and to-parry/dodge/block) rolls in combat and
for 
> non-combat skill rolls.

I disagree with respect to Hero, it uses the same mechanic- but frames it 
differently.


> If you have any specific criticism of the roll mechanic, I'd like to
hear 
> it.

I intensely dislike variable dice resolution systems be they simple X
number 
of dice per X skill levels (4.0 Shadowrun) or different dice per skill
level 
(Savage Worlds).

Whatever their virtues in managing probabilities (and I don't consider
them 
significant), their impact on the player (and even GM) is nearly uniformly

negative. They hide the real chance of success and the impact of
individual 
modifiers behind highly unintuitive and in some cases exceedingly complex 
math. If the system works correctly (which they often don't, and I've 
learned to check this myself as designers are often very wrong about the 
outcome of their own work), the best in-play feel you normally get is a 
fuzzy 'more is better'- and that IME is an highly fustrating way to play.
A 
reaction that has been uniform in anyone who fits in with my own desired 
gaming style.

It's reached the point where I consider the designer to be flatly either 
hiding the fact that his game sucks behind complex mechanics, or he's 
chasing an illusionary target that's meaningful only to him.


> I don't see much of a problem. The BL points of all incidents are 
> player-knowable, so if a player is concerned, he can keep track of the 
> GM's BL point expenditure. If he notices something amiss, such as the GM

> not spending his full quota on one particular PC, the track-keeping
player 
> can talk to the GM about it, and if the problem then persists the player

> can confront the GM with an accusation of cheating.

I'm sorry, but all this (including the previous unquoted parts) doesn't 
really alter my reaction. The mechanic's design impacts me as "GM gets to 
screw the players" at whim, limited only by minor resource management.
It's 
not something I'd accept.

That may be in part due to my own gaming style. There the ability of
anyone 
to alter a single event could alter the final outocome of the entire
battle. 
There instead of 'bad luck' being favor, it can be decisive. The GM could
in 
fact decide the make the players lose, and that is something I build my 
games not to do.