thread: 2010-06-14 : A Bit of Hardcore
On 2010-06-18, Rafael wrote:
I'm starting to get it, I think...
Jesse Burneko: I've noticed a lot of gamers place their character's identity in a pre-game sense of how things should turn out for the character.
I've seen that too, but it's not what I mean.
As a data point I haven't had to fudge a die roll to "save the story" in over 10 years. Assuming the two or more acting characters are motivated by sympathetic passion it doesn't matter "who wins" each clash. You might end up with two vastly different stories but neither will be "unsatisfactory."
It hardly ever comes up in my groups either, for exactly the reason you mention, except that in my case, the GM rather than the game system sets up the situations so that all outcomes of a clash are satisfying. The exception is instructive, though: PC death without dramatic justification is usually unsatisfying. Therefore, if a mook in a skirmish would suddenly kill a PC with a lucky shot, it is better to fudge.
But precisely this is a situation that can be avoided through different game mechanics! In Fate, for example, you never die unless you, the player, have volunteered to risk death, presumably for a dramatic payoff.
That's one example that I understand in which system design allows more "consequential" use of dice. So far, so good. It still requires a skilled GM to ensure that pointless death is the only potential "drama-breaker", though.
You have to be willing to play NOT KNOWING whether you are in a comedy or a tragedy until the last die has been rolled.
This is interesting and something I will have to try... but is that in any way superior to having a skillful fiat GM, or is it just a way to allow good play without such a GM?
