Quote from: AsenRG;888726How do you know whether the character knows chess better or worse than you? Keep in mind that there's no applicable skill:).

Or did you just miss what the OP said;)?

You're just being obtuse now. If there is no skill, then use INT or WIS or just roll d6 or d20 and compare rolls.

The point is: I don't want to play mini-games like this.
The counter point is: others do.
The take away is: make sure potential players understand this before you start.

Quote from: Tod13;888716Yes. Because I'm role-playing a character, who may know chess better or worse than me, which is what I want to be doing, not playing chess.

Here's the thing. You could say that about almost anything that happens in an RPG, and in most of it, it's entirely inappropriate.

DM: Do you go down the corridor to the left, or through the door to the right?
Player: Fuck this. I just want to role-play my character. I'm not a professional dungeoneer and afficianado of ancient architecture. My character is! Let me make a skill check, and you tell me which way I should go if I succeed.

The problems with this are like a million-fold.

For starters, what does it mean to role play? It includes making decisions for your character. If you pass on all your decisions preferring to defer to some dice roll or skill check, well you're not exactly the epitome of role play.

Second, it shifts the burden onto the DM to make decide which path is the better alternative. It's often not that simple. The DM may have to think several moves ahead, and even then, the DM lacks perfect knowledge of what is preferable to your character. You're the one who knows that best, because you're the one that's supposed to be role-playing.

I appreciate you feel your character is better at chess than you and should therefore come up with a better move than you could come up with. But what if you're a better chess player than the DM? How could the DM possibly give you a move above your strategy level? Or, more generally (since I understand your conceiving of just skipping the chess game entirely and going straight to the result, which can have its own problems): What if it's literally impossible for the DM to run the game you want it run?

Like most people, I don't like being burdened. So the unwritten rule at my table is, if you're going to raise a point that may be a totally valid philosophical point about RPGs but also places a burden on someone, you're the one that should shoulder that burden since you introduced it. For example, if I run an RPG that has a Planning skill (and I do), the player doesn't get to shift the burden onto me for coming up with a great plan just because he succeeds in a skill check.

I don't care how much you argue that you suck as a strategist and that your character is oh so great at it. Rather, I interpret the planning skill to deal in mundane logistics of running a business or a military campaign. If you succeed in your check, we can assume most of that stuff goes smoothly. But the big picture plan? That's your responsibility.

Typically people raise combat as the ultimate example of being able to play a good fighter without yourself having that skill. But notice, RPG combat still requires choices. Which weapon to use, which opponent to go after. And there are some instances, like if you're attacking a werewolf with your ordinary broadsword instead of using your silver dagger, where your choice trumps all your game stats. If this is possible even in the default go-to example of people who are trying to argue your point, you bet your ass you should be prepared to deal with it in all aspects of the game.

As to skipping over a sub-game... maybe there's good reason to play it out. Just like there's good reason to play out combat. Maybe it's not important just who wins or who loses, but how the events unfold. Maybe there's opportunity to role play during the chess game (in the character dialog sense of the term role play) where, it's not really who wins or loses the game that's important, but the information you gather or communicate. How can you possibly know whether or not that is or isn't the case unless you're willing to find out by playing it out?

I'm not arguing that one is "good" and one is "wrong-fun". I'm just saying I don't like player skill mini-games. That is why I suggested the OP simply make sure people buy into player skill mini-games and (despite being cut out of every reply) keep repeating that there are plenty of people that like player skill mini-games. I'm just not one of them.

Quote from: Tod13;888728If there is no skill, then use INT or WIS or just roll d6 or d20 and compare rolls.

I personally consider this too great a devotion to the simulation aspect of things.  I go by the OSR edict that favors "role-play" over "roll play."  That means I am going to put things as much in the players' hands as is possible.

Quote from: Tod13;888728The point is: I don't want to play mini-games like this.
The counter point is: others do.

Entirely legit.  However, I don't think that this necessitates a "warning" unless it becomes a regular part of the game.  If players are going to freak out because of one encounter that they didn't particularly enjoy, then they are just ridiculous.  That was never the issue in our case.  In fact, one of the players for whom I had intended this challenge was totally psyched, up until the other player plopped himself down across from the ghost.

Quote from: Edgewise;888744
Entirely legit.  However, I don't think that this necessitates a "warning" unless it becomes a regular part of the game.  If players are going to freak out because of one encounter that they didn't particularly enjoy, then they are just ridiculous.  That was never the issue in our case.  In fact, one of the players for whom I had intended this challenge was totally psyched, up until the other player plopped himself down across from the ghost.

Sounds good especially since you designed it for a player who likes it. It definitely isn't what I think of as OSR but I think that discussion was in a different thread this week

I'll have to ask my players what they think of this mechanism as a "once in a long while" thing. From observation, they tend to like theatrical and personality or action driven "role playing". That is, role playing starting from "my character loves blueberries and eats them every chance she gets" and moving to "I jump from my horse onto the chandelier, and swing past the kitchen window to steal the blueberry pie, because I love blueberries."

Quote from: Tod13;888728You're just being obtuse now. If there is no skill, then use INT or WIS or just roll d6 or d20 and compare rolls.

I think you're being (probably deliberately) obtuse now. My point, as stated in my first reply to you, is that OSR-style systems aren't even meant to be played in that way (though  yes, they can). If you want to play that way, you don't pick an OSR system, as a general rule.
(And yes, different systems are meant to be played differently. Otherwise, they wouldn't add or omit different rules).

QuoteThe point is: I don't want to play mini-games like this.
The counter point is: others do.
The take away is: make sure potential players understand this before you start.

That's entirely legit. The point you're ignoring is that the players in question, by picking or agreeing to play LotFP, have implicitly accepted that they're not in the same group as you on that matter.
Yes, you should make sure potential players understand that, but it makes sense to assume that they know what the system they're using would entail. The OP has mentioned them having played related systems, too, so this is even more true.

Quote from: Rincewind1;888653You might notice a lot of those "stamp your foot" comments also have appendages like "2 players was the best time I ever had", so that's something to think.

You want to keep playing with all four people? Change the campaign.

You want to play with just 2 guys? Stick to your guns.

I've had campaigns fall apart because of differences of communication more times than I've had hot dinners. I've also had a campaign totally fall apart because I stuck to my guns  and said "No" even though I should've just probably scrapped a few things and reworked a new one, because I did not know the players - but in that case, they weren't close friends, so no real loss.

Either way, you need to bite the bullet. Sticking to your guns might work for all four, but don't be surprised if the other two will have a sudden influx of overtime, sick wives/girlfriends, homework etc. etc. when game time rolls around. The fault is on them per se, but it won't change the fact that they won't play.



The second part is very sound advice. The first too, but again - most likely this will result in "flushing asses".


Indeed, you might want to lay off FFV and instead just play some relaxed games, maybe even narrative ones - something to give everyone a feeling of control, that perhaps this guy is now missing from his real life.

There's nothing wrong with what Brother Alf said, but just thought I'd throw in some of my experiences...

Specifically when the point of contention is DIFFICULTY, I have noticed that tempers flare, people walk...then they come back.  At least in my experience.  Maybe some won't.  If so, you don't need them, you really don't.  You have at least two who are in for a challenging, difficult campaign, stick with it.  The people who want rewinds and easy rez will move to another table, but again, in my specific experience, they come back, because once you've been to Fantasy Fucking Vietnam...Disneyland just doesn't get the adrenaline pumping anymore.

Quote from: dragoner;888717The bolded part could be fun, the players toting around a corpse, looking for it to be raised ...

...and then all getting burned at the stake for being Necromancers.  Good Times.

It's not uncommon for players to be upset when their PCs die. Don't get upset in turn; stay calm and move on.

I don't have a strong opinion re availability of raise dead; allow it if you wish but I think for LoTFP there ought to be consequences, such as the Raisee leaving behind a piece of his soul. Perhaps a Demon of the Outer Dark uses the ritual to slip through, forming a dark negative of the Raised PC, and proceeding to wreak havoc on his friends and loved ones. Ursula Le Guin's "A Wizard of Earthsea" has a good model there. :cool:

Quote from: Lunamancer;888732For starters, what does it mean to role play? It includes making decisions for your character. If you pass on all your decisions preferring to defer to some dice roll or skill check, well you're not exactly the epitome of role play.

The issue you describe is the old player skill vs character skill. When it comes to games like the older versions of D&D, I see "class" as just a very broad character skill. Now, obviously players themselves rarely have matching skills, especially in fantasy rpgs. So this is why they ask to just roll for it.

But I think that between "decide everything yourself" and "check against skill X" there's a third option: group discussion and time. The depth of knowledge of combat and tactics held by a 3rd level fighter, or of magic by a 5th level illusionist, can be simulated by that game table chatter. You may be a tactical idiot or not know the spell descriptions very well, but someone else at the game table will have a clue, you discuss it and then decide.

That's discussion, but simply taking some time to think about it - rather than the minute or less that our characters often have to decide things - will often lead to wiser decisions.

This really is one of the reasons we have game groups. Not only so that someone can be the fighter, someone can be the illusionist and so on, but so that if a player's not that smart about X, well someone else can cover for them. And maybe they're not generally clueless, they just happen to have no ideas at the moment.

So this is why we have all that jibber-jabber at the game table, and yes even between combat rounds. Obviously we have to draw the line somewhere. A friend's GURPS game took 2.5 fortnightly sessions to deal with an 18 round combat - so this means it took them 6 weeks of sessions, or 7.5hr game session time, to deal with 18 seconds. But most DMs will be able to keep it sensible, I think.

But in this case, it wasn't that the players were too slow to decide, but rather -

Quote from: edgewiseThen, as soon as I explained the rules, he made three moves before the experienced players had a chance to give advice.

So the player was too hasty.

Quoteearlier that session, I had interceded for the same player (against my better judgement) to warn him, as the GM, to not do something phenomenally stupid that would have killed him even earlier.

Now I've got two unhappy players, and two who don't have any problem with what happened, and would in fact be disappointed if I made the campaign too safe. I don't have a lot of role-playing contacts, and all of these folks are friends, so I don't want to alienate anyone.

I don't think, edgewise, that this should be something that destroys friendships. You just say, "Hey, slow things down a bit, talk to the others. This is a social creative hobby after all, we are meant to talk to each-other. Take your time, there's no hurry, it's a tabletop rpg, not a first person shooter."

This is what it's all about - talking, managing expectations and so on.

Quote from: AsenRG;888825I think you're being (probably deliberately) obtuse now. My point, as stated in my first reply to you, is that OSR-style systems aren't even meant to be played in that way (though  yes, they can). If you want to play that way, you don't pick an OSR system, as a general rule.
(And yes, different systems are meant to be played differently. Otherwise, they wouldn't add or omit different rules).


That's entirely legit. The point you're ignoring is that the players in question, by picking or agreeing to play LotFP, have implicitly accepted that they're not in the same group as you on that matter.
Yes, you should make sure potential players understand that, but it makes sense to assume that they know what the system they're using would entail. The OP has mentioned them having played related systems, too, so this is even more true.

I disagree. To me, OSR does not mean mini-games and to me mini-games aren't "role-playing". Hence, my suggestion for player buy-in beforehand. I think the way the OP did it is fine--he had a couple of players he knew would enjoy it and was targeting them. I could similarly have a "write a 3d20 word story" in my game that three of my four players would love, because they are all writers.

I've read LotFP and read a several of the LotFP modules from the recent Bundle of Holding. Nothing in any of them indicates the mandatory inclusion of mini-grames. The rules are typical 1 in 6 for climb or opening a stuck door. I didn't see any mini-games in the modules from the Bundle.

Quote from: Tod13;888747Sounds good especially since you designed it for a player who likes it. It definitely isn't what I think of as OSR...

Making players play chess or solve some crossword puzzle on behalf of their PCs is not something I enjoy, but definitely feels Old School to me - especially if the reward for failure is death (rather than just the AP stalling out, as happens in Paizo railroads).

Quote from: S'mon;888837I don't have a strong opinion re availability of raise dead; allow it if you wish but I think for LoTFP there ought to be consequences, such as the Raisee leaving behind a piece of his soul. Perhaps a Demon of the Outer Dark uses the ritual to slip through, forming a dark negative of the Raised PC, and proceeding to wreak havoc on his friends and loved ones. Ursula Le Guin's "A Wizard of Earthsea" has a good model there. :cool:

Actually, I have something like that in mind.  My setting is generally magic-poor.  One of the big exceptions was the relatively high availability of healing potions (still expensive and uncommon by Monty Hall standards, but something you can actually buy at a major city).  It was always in my mind that these potions are made by a particular cult that secretly engages in demonology and human sacrifice.  The PCs may find out about this, and it will present them with a dilemma, since taking down the cult will also dry up supplies of healing potions.  Not only that, but the existence of these potions is the main reason by the PCs continent hasn't been invaded and enslaved by a more technological civilization on the other side of the planet.

By adding resurrection magic to the mix, that's just a less subtle hook to the same plot, presenting an even greater dilemma.

I've run the idea by my group, and they seem receptive.  I'm going to finish off the current adventure, and see how it goes.  If I'm not happy with things, I'm going to go back to how things were, and let the chips fall where they may.  The players are aware that this is provisional. At this point, I'm willing to part ways with my two complainers if we can't see eye-to-eye.

Still, I think there may be some interesting potential to this new approach.  For instance, characters who eschew resurrection will get an XP bonus.  And I'm planning to make use of resurrection as well, for certain adversaries that get left behind.  We'll see.

Quote from: Tod13;888859I've read LotFP and read a several of the LotFP modules from the recent Bundle of Holding. Nothing in any of them indicates the mandatory inclusion of mini-grames. The rules are typical 1 in 6 for climb or opening a stuck door. I didn't see any mini-games in the modules from the Bundle.

This specific puzzle came from Tower of the Stargazer, encounter 17 on the map.  That is in the LotFP bundle for 2009-2015.  It's a big bundle, so I can understand missing it, but just so you understand, I'm not pulling this out of my ass.  

The encounter itself says "At this point, the Referee should actually take a game out and play it with the player who is risking his character's soul."  In boxed text below, James Raggi goes on to provide the following caveats:

QuoteWhen this adventure was first played, the game was specified to be chess. Chess boards and chess challenges are classics of role-playing, so the idea was to keep it pure. The concept was that all of the players would collaborate to defeat the Referee in the chess game in a tense struggle with a character's soul at stake. What actually happened was that only two players were interested in the chess game and everyone else basically napped until the chess game was over. You will probably know your group fairly well, so choose a challenge that will interest as many of them as possible, or at least one that will go by quickly

So there is some warning here that this might not be the ideal encounter without a little preparation by the GM.  Also, I realized while re-reading this that the ghost announces "Who will gamble their soul in a game of chance and skill for the opportunity to pass through the door?"  I didn't do that; instead, it gestured silently to the chair.  In retrospect, I can see that this omission caused problems, since the PCs complained that they were surprised by the outcome.

Quote from: Edgewise;888876Also, I realized while re-reading this that the ghost announces "Who will gamble their soul in a game of chance and skill for the opportunity to pass through the door?"  I didn't do that; instead, it gestured silently to the chair.  In retrospect, I can see that this omission caused problems, since the PCs complained that they were surprised by the outcome.

So they just lost their soul? That does not mean automatic death, right? Though, it does sound that they didn't know what they we risking.