thread: 2010-06-14 : A Bit of Hardcore
On 2010-06-23, Alexander D. wrote:
Mauro:
traditional RPG rules, I think, are based on the assumption that what the players want is to feel like cool pulp heroes, which means focusing on "showing off", which is more satisfying if modelled by the rules; just saying "I kill all the mooks" doesn't feel like an accomplishment, whereas if the rules tell you that, after much struggle, you killed all the mooks, it does
>>The point here is, I think, "Why is he trying to kill the >>mooks?".
>>If it's color, he could not care if dice are not rolled.
>>If it's because he cares for something other than the >>kills themselves (he wants to save his daughter? he's >>obsessed by revenge?), it doesn't matter if he managed to >>kill them, because the focal point is the struggle itself >>towards that "something other", struggle that is >>fulfilled whether he kills them all or not.
>>If it's because he's a cool fighter that definitely would >>be able to kill them all, dice rolling could be more >>satisfying, but failing to win the battle could ruin >>player's fun. And if the master fudges the dice to make >>him win... the thrill in winning by rolling the dice is >>because player doesn't know if he'll win or not. Knowing >>that you'd have win for the master fudging the rolls you >>wanted to do, that you'd have win despite the rolls, >>doesn't shrink the satisfaction of winning by rolling >>them?
I could be wrong, but the reasons I see (based on the "river" example above) is that difficulties, uncertainty, and failure can be interesting. A mook could get a lucky hit and hurt the hero, then be killed (and that wound could get infected and fester if the hero's not careful!); the mooks could slow down the villain, allowing the villain to prepare or escape; the mooks could use an un-foreseen strategy or their numbers to defeat the hero, or do so through luck; and so on and so forth. Of course the hero is very likely to defeat them, but there may be some unseen cost or complication, and he may fail altogether.
Having an elaborate rules system tends to model and support these situations, even if a player or the group as a whole would not consider them or use them on their own. Certainly the GM could simply fudge the roll to make the hero succeed, but it is my understanding that (at least in Rafael's group) that the GM would only do so if the result was so terrible as to ruin or break the story or game.
Am I understanding this correctly, Rafael?
