Let the players vote, and stick to whatever the decision is.

Really -as a GM-- I just leave these (kinds of) decisions up to the players.

I have a bit of an advantage in fantasy gaming in that all the tools are in the players hands. If they want to raise dead, it's like 6500 gold.

Quote from: David R:shrug: It was an unlucky roll(s) against an insignificant mook of the campaign's elusive BigBad - hardly a hero's death.



Regards,
David R

You obviously haven't seen enough heroes die. Often they don't even get to see the one that got 'em. :pundit:

Just puttin' in my two cents and all that..

Quote from: David RThis used to be my style of GMing. When I strated running games for my current crew, they made it very clear, that they got a lot of fun from the "roll with it" philosophy.[...]

Now, it seems, some think that perhaps my old style of GMing has some merit, and they want to explore that I'm good either way, but I think, exploring new methods of play should be left in their hands.

No. Because players are whimsical creatures. What they love today they'll hate tomorrow. If the players had their way each session, the game would be Sopranos one day and Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman the next. And overall they'd be miserable. And they'd blame you for that - and rightly so. The GM is there to provide consistency, because players are inconsistent, whimsical, flighty, indecisive, and basically crazy.

You should be deciding this yourself, without direct input from the players. Indirect input, yes - but not direct. The rules are what you say they are, not what the book or the dice say, or God forbid, what the players say.

Indirect input is superior to direct input because players say a lot of things about their ideal game which they don't really mean or feel. For example, almost every player will claim they want deep and meaningful roleplaying, dealing with the depths of multi-dimensional characters - then in the game, they beat someone up and toss him in a dumpster. Then they claim they want to let the dice fall where they may, but the first character cops it, and what do they do? Start mumbling about how he shouldn't die. When players talk about their wishes, they speak of ideals which they'll never practice in play.

So you have to judge it, and balance all the indirect input of your different players, to give them not what they say they want, but what they really want. What that is, I don't know because I never met the guys, but with a little thought you will know.

If you've got a 3-3 deadlock, the player whose character it is casts the deciding vote. In this case he's abstaining, but he says he's a "roll with it" guy. That sounds to me like "I don't want to get in the middle of this, but I'd call for death if I were to vote." Kill him.

I think you should put the responsibility on to the players, and particularly the player whose chr it is. The way I see it, you've been put in a very difficult position. Three players want it one way, three want it another, and you're the bad guy either way. Clearly, this sucks.

I'd say: "Look, folks. My understanding was that we let the dice fall where they may. Since this is a surprise crisis-point, I think we should let Dead Boy choose whether or not he wants to continue playing this chr. After that, we should have a talk about how we want this to go in future."

Thanks for all the interesting replies.

John Morrow: You are right. I don't think this is a one time deal. Earlier I mentioned that some of the players wanted to review/amend the "roll with it" philosophy. Honestly, this change of attitude amongst certain players has been bubbling in the background. We've been having some intense character driven campaigns, intricately plotted and there is much invesment by the players in their characters. sometimes when a player nearly dies esp when the death is based on a bad roll, there have been murmurs of discontent.

This had never happened before,or at least when I began gaming with them, there was a certain collective point of view. Even when new players joined the group, this POV was accepted by the new guy/gals. Strange then, that two of the old timers are the ones who want a change, and the new folk are pretty content with the philosophy as is.

I shoud have reacted earlier, but I thought it would be better if any change of policy was brought upon by play instead of me ( the GM and one who has a prefered style of play), perhaps that was unwise but yet I think, if I had brought it up, it would be going over old ground and really, my assumptions of discontent amongst certain players could have been wrong.

So, yes, we will as a group, have to discuss this issue before going any further. From what has been said so far, I think all sides want this issue resolved before going any further.

Lastly, your ideas are pretty interesting. I do think that one of the ideas I'm going to discuss with them is the possibilty of Fate points. That seems like a good rule compromise that all can live with.

JimBob: Our experiences with players are obviously worlds apart. The folks I game with are always on the same page with regards to the kind of games we want to play. For instance, This Hunter campaign is based on early John Carpenter movies. Before the campaign we had pretty intensive and fun discussion about what exactly that meant. They asked about tone and atmosphere and we talked about how they could contribute towards it. Part of the discussion was about the role of humour (black) in the game. There was a lot of talk about action and drama...a lot of film watching too.

Basically what I'm trying to say is this: They always say what they mean and nearly always mean what they say. For instance, although this major issue came up, they still operated within the unoffical rule of the group, which is : If you got a problem bring it up after the game. They played as normal quite content for the issue to be discussed after the game. We all pretty much know, that what we have is a good thing and that perhaps change is in the air. I'm a pretty hands on GM, but I do believe that player input direct or indirect when it comes to the way how we as a group game is extremely important.

I think our experiences are different because from what I gather, you game with a lot of different folks whereas I game exclusively with friends. We have built up over the years a certain, I don't know, trust? communication? :shrug: whatever it is, it only comes with time spent gaming consistently with the same group of people.

Spike: When I read your post I though of the Micheal Caine version of Get Carter...he was not a hero, but it would be the kind of demise that would be right at home in my current campaign, except...

droog ,Abyssal & beeber : The player in question, will definitely be the guy who makes the call.

An idea (okay a cop out) I am toying with, is to have the player create a new character - he always has a stand by, in this case a defrocked, priest partly based on Mark Ruffalo's character in You Can Count On Me - I'd suggest that this new character does charity work at the hospital . I'd leave dead boy in a coma and have the priest be able to communicate telephatically with him. This way dead boy is not in play, the roll with it rule is left more or less intact, some info can be passed on to the players and there is always the possibility of dead boy making a comeback....

Off course, the group has to decide once and for all, how we are all going to game...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David ROff course, the group has to decide once and for all, how we are all going to game...

I think not: you only have to decide how you're going to play this game.

I can see many choices for this game, but you could change up the rules for any other game. It's being on the same page at any particular moment that's important.

1. You could do the really drastic thing, and switch to a different system, eg HQ, where chrs don't die except as an explicit decision.

2. You could implement that as a house-ruie in the system you're currently using, or some other house rule like "Nobody gets killed by a mook."

3. You could continue to let the dice fall as they may, and damn the consequences.

4. You could continue to make decisions ad hoc. "The GM is allowed to fudge to save chrs when he feels like it."


Which do you feel most comfortable with for this game? But answering that doesn't mean you have to play the same way for all time. I've used both 1. and 3. in different games, for example (I used to use 4. but it's too fraught with difficulty for me).

Quote from: droogI think not: you only have to decide how you're going to play this game.

I can see many choices for this game, but you could change up the rules for any other game. It's being on the same page at any particular moment that's important.

Yeah. I get where you are going with this. I do, think however the roll with it philosophy - at least as far as they concerned - should be used where applicable, as a general rule. I'd much prefer the we are on the same page at any particular moment approach myself...

Regards,
David R

Well, I still stand by my opinion.

The Game (any really) tends towards a really black and white take on getting hurt.  Cross x line and you die, which can rob the game of some much needed drama... does he live or does he die?  That's tension for ya.  It's the GM's perogative to put that tension into the game when someone hits that line, regardless of philosophy. It's not a violation of letting the dice fall, it's taking the GM's duties seriously.

I still say just kacking the guy while he's comatose is anti-climactic, a foregone conclusion. The players are divided, the tension is there. Use it, make a quick house rule roll to see if he makes it, preserving the 'fall where they may' but allowing the character to survive. Put the dice in his hand. Maybe its a stamina check (with bonuses for good doctoring) or a will to live check (willpower? Maybe...)...  IF he lives, he'll still have to recover, if he dies, well, he dies. roll up a new one.

IF your group has been debating this like I think they have, then that will probably be one of the most intense and watched rolls of the season/campaign/whatever you call it....

Quote from: SpikeIt's the GM's perogative to put that tension into the game when someone hits that line, regardless of philosophy.

Odd sentence structure. The part before the comma looks like a statement of philosophy. The part after it appears to be a negation of the importance of philosophy.

Quote from: James McMurrayOdd sentence structure. The part before the comma looks like a statement of philosophy. The part after it appears to be a negation of the importance of philosophy.

The 'dice fall where they may' thing is a philosophy, the 'GM's perogative' is a belief. I have faith in it.

I hope that puts an end to that before Akrasia decides to step in and wave his career in academia at us, and you start popping off with the dictionary thing...:what:

Sure, it clarifies your misconception of the language fairly well. If you don't want to discuss it, I won't try to make you.

There's no hard and fast rule about what you should do, and anyone who's trying to pitch you one is a horse vagina. You should pretty much talk with everyone and see which way they'd rather go, and whether they'd like this to become the way things are handled or not. And then do whatever the conclusion is.

He did talk to them. Half wanted one thing, half wanted another, and the deciding vote pseudo-abstained.

The point isn't to take a vote, but to build a consensus.