thread: 2006-05-09 : T equals ... approximately zero, right?
On 2006-05-20, Duke wrote:
Hey, Vincent. First time writer-inner.
I'mma test this thing asap. Curious about:
As GM, I see it as a duty to keep things as off-balance for the PCs as possible, and a lot of this is keeping circumstances true. The way I see it (an no, I haven't tested it yet) a sort of "circumstance creep" is in the rules: less true circumstances>more dice at hand for characters>better chance of experience fallout/winning circumstance-removing stakes>removal of true circumstances; OR more true circumstances>less dice at hand for characters>better chance of long-term+ fallout>addition of circumstances. Both sort of positive feedback cycles.
If I'm not seeing this right (likely) what am I missing? I know that players/GMs can use discretion when adding/removing circumstances, but. . .
If I am seeing this right, is this how it's supposed to be? Some PCs creep down to death (reflection fallout's great!) and some PCs rise to heroics leading to the ability to disempower/kill the monster/cronies? I can see this—it's pretty much how a horror movie goes. At the same time, as a GM I want to keep the PCs in trouble. Can there be GM-only experience fallout allowing me to add a circumstance (or something to keep it more of a negative feedback cycle)?
Can't wait to try!
