When you say "I can see some merit in placing fun over simulation verisimilitude", you don't understand that to me, the risk of death happening IS part of the fun, and that my character dying makes playing other characters after that even MORE fun because I know the game isn't rigged in my characters' favor, even in that "1%" of cases which really makes the whole difference to me between a game I really enjoy and a game I might tolerate if playing for other reasons primarily.

At some point you will have to own it: we do see part of the pleasure in playing role playing games very differently you and I, and that's okay.  Just don't tell me we're doing the exact same thing, because that is wrong, and condescending, the same way that the GM pulling an illusionist trick to save my character is hugely condescending, either thinking I'm not mature enough to accept my character's death, or favoring other aims, such as "the story," over my own choices in the game. Either way it stinks when I am at the receiving end of that condescension, I don't like it, and I don't inflict it on the players at my own game tables.

PS: don't put me in a "simulationist" box, please. I am not a "simulationist."

Quote from: Benoist;709252When you say "I can see some merit in placing fun over simulation verisimilitude", you don't understand that to me, the risk of death happening IS part of the fun

I do understand. I am just stating that that is NOT true for me ... or more accurately, the death of a character because some roll says so is NOT the absolute most important thing to ME.

It is indeed a point on which our tastes differ.

QuotePS: don't put me in a "simulationist" box, please. I am not a "simulationist."

If we allow all game related terms to be assigned variable emotional baggage, communication will quickly become impossible.  When I said 'simulation verisimilitude', I mean nothing more than maintaining the absolute integrity of the artificial world being created at all costs. You seem to place the integrity of your 'world' as the absolute highest priority in your games. If the GM miscalculated and the entire group of adventurers dies as a result ... you would find that an acceptable outcome as long as it remains true to the 'laws' governing that world.

In contrast, I would place the fun of the players (which might mean allowing all of the characters to die, or it might mean involving GM fiat) above the integrity of the 'world'.

Quote from: S'monI ask my players how many hp their PCs have left so my monsters can target the weakest ones

Similarly, I sometimes ask my players how many hp they have left in order to get a better mental picture of the battlefield.  Even with abstracted hp, I figure that characters at lower hp would be visibly wounded, fatigued, shaken, bruised & battered, etc.  Some monsters might be able to smell blood or sense fear, and intelligent monsters may factor in the state of their enemies when prioritizing attacks - either to finish off a weak enemy or to concentrate on more robust enemies and let henchmen target the wounded ones.

I keep track of my player's HP so I don't have to ask them meta game questions.

Quote from: atpollard;709260In contrast, I would place the fun of the players (which might mean allowing all of the characters to die, or it might mean involving GM fiat) above the integrity of the 'world'.

I don't think anyone is saying that the integrity of the world should take priority over the fun of the players. I think the point is that for some people, the fun of the players is derived from the integrity of the world. You can't sacrifice one for the other because they are intertwined.

Other people such as myself feel similarly about no GM fudging. It's not that we  prioritise dice rolls over our fun, rather that our fun is in part drawn from having events play out randomly with no-one secretly at the tiller.

Quote from: Tristram EvansI keep track of my player's HP so I don't have to ask them meta game questions.

I try to do this too, but in my main game I have 6-7 players and many fights involve 8-12 enemies or more (plus various effects, spells, potions, wand charges, etc to record), so I do occasionally lose track and need to check in to update my numbers.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;709137Pathetic wanker.

Could you imagine the hours of despondent sobbing he'd have gone through if he played team sports and his team had lost a game? He'd be another statistic on one of Pat Pulling's lists!

Quote from: Elfdart;709272

Quote from: Black VulmeaPathetic wanker.

Could you imagine the hours of despondent sobbing he'd have gone through if he played team sports and his team had lost a game? He'd be another statistic on one of Pat Pulling's lists!

These comments are as valuable and insightful as they are polite.


Hans

Quote from: TristramEvans;709265I keep track of my player's HP so I don't have to ask them meta game questions.

I track hp in my online games (AD&D, BX etc). It's not practical in my tabletop 4e D&D game.

1) If a player wants a game a given GM doesn't want to run, then the solution is for that player to find (or become) an alternative GM.

2) If a GM wants to have players, then the game had better be one that appeals to somebody who is actually available to play.

I've come across a few cases of a couple of buddies who simply GM for each other, because they can't find anyone else who wants to play the way they do. Most people are more likely to get into mutual compromises with a larger group of friends: on one hand alternating games that suit different preferences, and on the other hand excluding games that are too unacceptable in that particular mix of players.

Quote from: Steerpike;709269I try to do this too, but in my main game I have 6-7 players and many fights involve 8-12 enemies or more (plus various effects, spells, potions, wand charges, etc to record), so I do occasionally lose track and need to check in to update my numbers.

My PCs rarely have more than 10hp max anyway so it's academic.

Quote from: TristramEvans;709265I keep track of my player's HP so I don't have to ask them meta game questions.

Same.

Quote from: soviet;709266I don't think anyone is saying that the integrity of the world should take priority over the fun of the players. I think the point is that for some people, the fun of the players is derived from the integrity of the world. You can't sacrifice one for the other because they are intertwined.

Other people such as myself feel similarly about no GM fudging. It's not that we  prioritise dice rolls over our fun, rather that our fun is in part drawn from having events play out randomly with no-one secretly at the tiller.

Exactamundo.

Quote from: soviet;709266I don't think anyone is saying that the integrity of the world should take priority over the fun of the players. I think the point is that for some people, the fun of the players is derived from the integrity of the world. You can't sacrifice one for the other because they are intertwined.

Other people such as myself feel similarly about no GM fudging. It's not that we  prioritise dice rolls over our fun, rather that our fun is in part drawn from having events play out randomly with no-one secretly at the tiller.

Yes. Thank you.

Somewhere... the Conan D20 game perhaps... I encountered a "Left for Dead" rule where a dead PC would be not quite dead.

We decided collectively to put that rule into our Star Wars d20 game with the proviso that you had to have at least 1 Force Point.

Last game of the campaign, my charcter was indeed "killed" so I spent a FP to be "left for dead."

But it was a real anti-climax.  I now realize I'd have been perfectly happy to have a die roll for it.  Even if I had a 99% chance of surviving, that die roll means all the difference; there is a CHANCE of dying, even if you DO have a Force Point left, or whatever.  Especially since we won the combat so there was never any doubt I survived.  I guess had everybody THOUGHT I was dead, and then found out I was only Mostly Dead, and had to rescue me, THAT would have been more interesting.

But if I EVER incorporate a "Left for Dead" rule again, there WILL be a chance of failure.  Looking back, I ... almost would rather my character had died.  And that was one of my very favorite characters ever.

(Worst attribute scores of anybody in the group -- I started the campaign with exactly one attribute over 12.  And I ended up the most renowed Jedi in the galaxy, because I PLAYED like a Jedi, not a putz.)