psychohist wrote:
> Peter Knutsen posts regarding gamesmaster judgement and his bad luck
> mechanic:
>
> It still seems to me that you, and others in this
> thread, are overlooking a crucial factor of the Bad
> Luck mechaic: That it is extremely regulated, and
> that Bad Luck points are partitioned to each
> character.
>
> The gamesmaster still has discretion as to what events to apply them
> to. To me, that's an overwhelming factor.
That is correct. The GM will also have full knowledge of each PC's
strong spots and weak spots. For instance, Bianca has a high Balance
score, to spending Bad Luck points on forcing her to make Slip Checks,
representing slimy surfaces, is wasteful. The GM should instead spend
her Bad Luck points on calling for Weapon Drop Checks (Dexterity) since
she has average Dexterity, or make her firearm Jam, since it is of
ordinary quality and reliability, and she does not maintain and clean it
obsessively. Or he can spend Bad Luck points to make Bianca's Fumbles
"explode", when they occur. Her Shortarm skill is not very high, so
there will probably be one or two Fumbles throughout a normal duration
campaign (15-20 sessions).
Meanwhile, former Green Beret Harry Johnson spends almost an hour every
day cleaning his AK-47, so it costs a huge amount of Bad Luck points for
the GM to Jam it. Also, even if Harry Johnson's Dexterity is average, he
carries his rifle in a sling, so it costs him only a couple of Action
Points to recover from a failed Weapon Drop Check. And he's a crack
shot, so there's no sense in the GM saving up Bad Luck points waiting
for Harry to Fumble a rifle shot - it is extremely unlikely to occur
just once during the campaign, even if he shoots a lot more that Bianca.
The type of incident to target, with Harry, would be Slip Checks,
requiring Balance rolls to see wheher he slips (on surfaces assumed to
be slippery, or otherwise provide bad footing).
Not only can the GM do that. He is expected to do it. If the GM were to
spend a lot of Bad Luck points on calling Jams on Johnson, or requiring
Weapon Drop Checks, then that could be seen as favouritism by the other
players.
Even if the GM does this favouritism thing for both Bianca and Harry,
the third character's player, Gambler Fred, would resent it, because he
has paid a lot of points for the No Bad Luck trait, so that his
character has no Bad Luck points at all, and thus he feels he is
entitled to seeing a contract between his character and the other two,
and that contrast is quite diminished if the GM spends Harry's and
Bianca's Bad Luck points "inefficiently".
> Here's an example: suppose the heroes are all fallen but one, who has
> one final shot at downing the big bad guy; if he succeeds, the heroes
> win, if he fails, the earth falls into the sun and is destroyed. He
> has a moderately good chance of success. A single gun jam in this
> situation can pretty much determine the outcome of the campaign.
True, but that requires that the GM has any Bad Luck points left to
spend for that character.
Also, "one final shot" situations are rare. And no one says you can't
carry a backup firearm, even if it only a light pistol, so that you
still have something to shoot if your main weapon jams.
> Contrast this to the situation where the heroes were all still up and
> had to down the random guard at the front gate. A gun jam in this
> situation is inconsequential, because there are still five more heroes
> to back up the first one to shoot.
Yes, that is a GM judgement call that will require practice, in order to
get it right, and it also requires the right kind of attitude, in terms
of distributing Bad Luck between minor encounters and major encounters.
> These are extreme examples, but they serve to illustrate how
> gamesmaster judgement can become a major determinant of results here.
> While actual play may not come up with variations so extreme, I think
> it is likely to result in variations big enough for the gamesmaster's
> judgement role to become critical.
You're probably right. I'll have to try to include several paragraphs of
guidelines, about how the GM ought to distribute Bad Luck between minor
and major encounters.
> Now, while I personally don't like the mechanic, I do actually think
> it could be good for a cinematic campaign. The very gamesmaster
> judgement I object to could certainly be used to create dramatic
> turning points and make a seemingly more exciting story, at the cost
> of reduced world consistency and mechanical objectivity. That just
> doesn't happen to be the kind of game I prefer.
Sure. And there's a lot of similar mechanics/traits, just positive.
Minor Coincidences, Medium Concidences and Miracles. I'd assume that
they will give the campaign a more Hollywood (or Dramatist?) feel.
But as for "cinemtic", I use that word in a different sense from yours.
My usage has to do with characters who are highly competent in specific
ways, as with point-based character creation systems where the players
are given large creation budgets:
Gambler Fred's player would spend a lot of his points on Luck traits,
with the result that his character is obviously much luckier (and has
much less bad luck) than the other characters. Harry Johnson's player
spends a lot of his points on soldier/special forces type skills and
traits. Bianca's player spends many of her points on something else
entirely - probably on something not combat-related yet still very
useful for an adventuring group.
A very common failure, sadly, in stories, is to not have this
compartmentalization. If a character needs a trait, even Luck, then he
just gets it, in the middle of things even. Everyone is lucky, and no
one is special.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
|
