Since the succession of Covid lockdowns put an end to game group meetings here I have been listening to a lot of online rpg sessions via YouTube. Doing so I noticed, then found irritating and have now come to hate the climactic death scene commentaries.
GM "...and he goes down, sinking slowly to his knees, his last faltering breaths wasted, cursing you and your kin. <pause for effect>
...............So tell me what that looks like"
Where the fuck did that come from? Have a whole array of GMs simultaneously adopted the Mercerism "Howd'ya wanna do this?" or is it now supposed to be a required part of the way games are run? One stream I was watching the GM extended it to every critical hit the PCs made.
It's a bad adaptation of Mercer's 'how do you want to do this?', yeah.
I didn't really mind Mercer offering players the opportunity for cinematic kills or successes. But yeah, at some point the GM has to pick up his end of the table.
Personally I mix it up, sometimes asking the player to describe how they dispatched an enemy is good for PC engagment. If I have described a number of enemy deaths in quick succession it also gives me a break without being repetitive. This only really happens if the combat involves a bunch of named bad guys rather than just mooks or random goblins.
On the other hand describing a completly gratuitous death is part of the fun of being a GM (if I can make the players laugh and gross them out at the same time it's been a success).
In my opinion, as soon as players are given agency to describe action that doesn't directly arise from their own character's volition, the game has crossed over into storygame territory, creating a completely different feel.
Definitely not my thing: players get to describe what their characters attempt in however much detail as they like, and the DM describes the rest. That's a hard and fast rule for the game I want to play.
Quote from: Zalman on March 25, 2021, 10:06:02 AM
In my opinion, as soon as players are given agency to describe action that doesn't directly arise from their own character's volition, the game has crossed over into storygame territory, creating a completely different feel.
Definitely not my thing: players get to describe what their characters attempt in however much detail as they like, and the DM describes the rest. That's a hard and fast rule for the game I want to play.
But particularly in attacks, the player usually *doesn't* describe in detail what he is attempting - just "I attack him with my sword". That's because based on the hit and damage roll, very different outcomes may happen. So GM-described critical hits often mean that the GM is describing exactly what the PC is attempting as well as the result -- i.e. "You sweep your sword over his shield and chop his head off".
I find a lot of GM description often involves PC actions.
Particularly for very skilled and successful PCs, I think this can reduce the feeling of being in-character -- because the PC is supposedly skillful and in charge, but the player just has to shrug his shoulders and let the GM speak. i.e.
P2: "Yes! You got a critical success in Deduction! What did you discover?"
P1: "I have no idea."
GM: "You spot a smudge on the windowsill, so you carefully walk outside and note the footprints in the flower bed."
Quote from: Zalman on March 25, 2021, 10:06:02 AM
....... players get to describe what their characters attempt in however much detail as they like, and the DM describes the rest. That's a hard and fast rule for the game I want to play.
That is how I have always played it (as PC or GM)
Quote from: jhkim on March 25, 2021, 12:10:47 PM
......because the PC is supposedly skillful and in charge, but the player just has to shrug his shoulders and let the GM speak. i.e.
P2: "Yes! You got a critical success in Deduction! What did you discover?"
P1: "I have no idea."
GM: "You spot a smudge on the windowsill, so you carefully walk outside and note the footprints in the flower bed."
No, the PC should never know the actual die result of a "search/spot/intuition" type roll, they should only be aware of the narrative result the GM feeds back after making the hidden die roll.
The GM is "in charge" NOT the player.
Quote from: Zalman on March 25, 2021, 10:06:02 AM
In my opinion, as soon as players are given agency to describe action that doesn't directly arise from their own character's volition, the game has crossed over into storygame territory, creating a completely different feel.
Definitely not my thing: players get to describe what their characters attempt in however much detail as they like, and the DM describes the rest. That's a hard and fast rule for the game I want to play.
I think it's a balance. A player laboriously describing in detail their action when mechanically it is the same as the basic action can get very boring very quickly, especially when they are actually just fishing for a mechanical advantage over and above already established rules.
Equally if a player has critically hit the bad guy and it is a killing blow whatever happens, I just assume we are retrospectively finding out what the player's action was that led to the critical hit. Or to put it another we know the PC succeeded,
now we are finding out what they attempted.
Because I am the GM and I am in charge at my table I am also in charge of which way cause and effect gets determined. :-)
But then this is still determining the players actions ("I swing my sword and lop the orc's arm off"). I wouldn't really ask my players to tell me how the NPC reacts ("he looks shocked as he dies etc").
As for intuition/perception/search rolls I have played it both ways as both a GM and a PC. After many years the conclusion I have come to is it makes zero difference to the mystery and suspense of a game but it makes the players happier if they get to roll and less work for the GM. I think they think it makes it less likely the GM can fudge dice rolls.
They are wrong.
Quote from: Visitor Q on March 25, 2021, 01:59:31 PM
Quote from: Zalman on March 25, 2021, 10:06:02 AM
In my opinion, as soon as players are given agency to describe action that doesn't directly arise from their own character's volition, the game has crossed over into storygame territory, creating a completely different feel.
Definitely not my thing: players get to describe what their characters attempt in however much detail as they like, and the DM describes the rest. That's a hard and fast rule for the game I want to play.
I think it's a balance. A player laboriously describing in detail their action when mechanically it is the same as the basic action can get very boring very quickly, especially when they are actually just fishing for a mechanical advantage over and above already established rules.
Equally if a player has critically hit the bad guy and it is a killing blow whatever happens, I just assume we are retrospectively finding out what the player's action was that led to the critical hit. Or to put it another we know the PC succeeded, now we are finding out what they attempted.
Because I am the GM and I am in charge at my table I am also in charge of which way cause and effect gets determined. :-)
But then this is still determining the players actions ("I swing my sword and lop the orc's arm off"). I wouldn't really ask my players to tell me how the NPC reacts ("he looks shocked as he dies etc").
As for intuition/perception/search rolls I have played it both ways as both a GM and a PC. After many years the conclusion I have come to is it makes zero difference to the mystery and suspense of a game but it makes the players happier if they get to roll and less work for the GM. I think they think it makes it less likely the GM can fudge dice rolls.
They are wrong.
Often when introducing a new player to a game like D&D, I get a sense of dissapointment when they discover that their character can't just "slay the orc!". They have to go through the process of depleting the monsters Hit Points so that it stops being an active opponent. I think most RPGers take it for granted that this is how the system actually works.
The time for the player to make input is when he announces his action, not after resolution. If the player says, "I take his head off with my sword, or at least try to" and the dice decree a kill, then I say "His head makes a gentle arc, bounces twice, and rolls to your feet, a slightly surprised look on his face." If the player says "I attack" and the dice are favorably disposed, the I just say "Okay, he's down," or "You take him in the chest and he folds." The "Mercer" things you're describing, or whatever it is, is just weird.
...after a few more moments of thought this is just another application of "Players control their character, GMs control the rest of the world." If you're giving players narrative control of the world, then you're starting to move out of classic RPGs and into something else.
I dont really see the problem in getting the player to describe how they kill a monster.
Just seems like some kind of weird power dynamic.
I don't ask the player what kind of things the enemy does, but I do ask them how the player deals their finishing blow when they kill a monster sometimes. It helps adds some variety so it doesn't get tedious.
Quote from: Mishihari on March 25, 2021, 05:01:20 PM
The time for the player to make input is when he announces his action, not after resolution. If the player says, "I take his head off with my sword, or at least try to" and the dice decree a kill, then I say "His head makes a gentle arc, bounces twice, and rolls to your feet, a slightly surprised look on his face." If the player says "I attack" and the dice are favorably disposed, the I just say "Okay, he's down," or "You take him in the chest and he folds." The "Mercer" things you're describing, or whatever it is, is just weird.
...after a few more moments of thought this is just another application of "Players control their character, GMs control the rest of the world." If you're giving players narrative control of the world, then you're starting to move out of classic RPGs and into something else.
The hobby develops. Otherwise we'd all still be playing Chainmail. Keep what you like, discard the rest. As a GM the only question that need concern you is did you and your players have fun?
Quote from: robh on March 25, 2021, 08:54:12 AM
(...) Where the fuck did that come from? Have a whole array of GMs simultaneously adopted the Mercerism "Howd'ya wanna do this?" or is it now supposed to be a required part of the way games are run? One stream I was watching the GM extended it to every critical hit the PCs made.
Mercerism my extremely jiggly behind. I've been doing this since the late 90s and it has always made the game better - until some people stopped understanding the concept and thinking of Mercer as some genius. Actually, I think most people have played like that here, since the beginning of the hobby's boom in my country in the early 90s
The battle of Hack vs Thesp has been going since 1974. We must always work to vanquish the Thesp.
Quote from: robh on March 25, 2021, 08:54:12 AM
Since the succession of Covid lockdowns put an end to game group meetings here I have been listening to a lot of online rpg sessions via YouTube. Doing so I noticed, then found irritating and have now come to hate the climactic death scene commentaries.
GM "...and he goes down, sinking slowly to his knees, his last faltering breaths wasted, cursing you and your kin. <pause for effect>
...............So tell me what that looks like"
Where the fuck did that come from? Have a whole array of GMs simultaneously adopted the Mercerism "Howd'ya wanna do this?" or is it now supposed to be a required part of the way games are run? One stream I was watching the GM extended it to every critical hit the PCs made.
Actually descriptive deaths goes way back. Garry would do it I believe. Though sparingly. Players are free to describe their characters final moments however. Depending on the system. In BX for example those last gasps are it so ham it up since zero hp was DEAD. Not unconcious and pleading out.
Mercer in absolutely no way invented this. Its as old as RPGs. The DM is the senses of the players through the characters and some DMs are verbose and some are not. Or somewhere in between.
Same for everything else. Whats next? Complaining about the DM describing the scenery or monsters?
Quote from: Omega on March 27, 2021, 03:23:07 AM
....... since zero hp was DEAD......
And so it was, so it is and so it always shall be. :)
QuoteThe Czege Principle is an idea in role-playing game theory that it isn't fun for a single player to control both a character's adversity and the resolution of that adversity. The principle is named after Paul Czege, based on a comment he made to Vincent Baker at The Forge after playtesting one of Baker's games.
This comes from one of the de facto founders of #Storygaming while talking with another (https://rpgmuseum.fandom.com/wiki/Czege_Principle).
I've found the trick is while we're always creating story, it only breaks the illusion if we're made conscious of it, which sadly is exactly what most modern #Storygames do.
Quote from: Omega on March 27, 2021, 03:23:07 AM
Actually descriptive deaths goes way back. Garry would do it I believe. Though sparingly. Players are free to describe their characters final moments however.
There's a world of difference between a player describing their
own character's death and a player describing their adversary's death.
Quote from: Zalman on March 27, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
Quote from: Omega on March 27, 2021, 03:23:07 AM
Actually descriptive deaths goes way back. Garry would do it I believe. Though sparingly. Players are free to describe their characters final moments however.
There's a world of difference between a player describing their own character's death and a player describing their adversary's death.
Of course, as GMs are not allowed to kill characters anymore that can't happen so presumably it has to be the adversary >:(
Quote from: Zalman on March 27, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
Quote from: Omega on March 27, 2021, 03:23:07 AM
Actually descriptive deaths goes way back. Garry would do it I believe. Though sparingly. Players are free to describe their characters final moments however.
There's a world of difference between a player describing their own character's death and a player describing their adversary's death.
Fair is fair; if a player gets to narrate the NPC deaths they inflict with their PCs, the GM gets to do the same when NPCs kill a PC.
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 27, 2021, 11:50:37 AM
Fair is fair; if a player gets to narrate the NPC deaths they inflict with their PCs, the GM gets to do the same when NPCs kill a PC.
That's certainly how I do it.
Hmmm... I usually verbosely describe a kill in my games. I will have to ask my players if it is too much.
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 27, 2021, 11:50:37 AM
Quote from: Zalman on March 27, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
Quote from: Omega on March 27, 2021, 03:23:07 AM
Actually descriptive deaths goes way back. Garry would do it I believe. Though sparingly. Players are free to describe their characters final moments however.
There's a world of difference between a player describing their own character's death and a player describing their adversary's death.
Fair is fair; if a player gets to narrate the NPC deaths they inflict with their PCs, the GM gets to do the same when NPCs kill a PC.
That's an interesting point. I do occasionally allow players to describe how an NPC has been dispatched. But it occurs to me that I've always given the description for the PCs deaths, they've never had input. I think it's better that way.
I narrate the outcome of a PC's actions by default. But if a player has a sudden inspiration for how they want things to work out then they're free to speak up and suggest it. I'll usually accept their version of events unless it gives them too big an advantage or breaks the narrative somehow. This doesn't actually happen too often- not even in every session. My experience of trying out games where players have more narrative agency is that when it's time for them to add something they just sit there in silence and wait for me to take up the narration as per usual.
I suspect that it's all down to the differences in groups rather than any hard and fast rule. Some groups will love this style of play and hate to do it Old School, and vice versa. It works so well for Matt Mercer because he's got a table full of the kind of players that thrive on this sort of thing, rather than purely being GM talent.
As good a show as Mercer and other internet GMs can put on... Just once? I'd like to see them put up a video of them GMing a session for the sort of group that the rest of us GMs have to run games for rather than a hand-picked dream team like they usually have. A lot of younger people are coming into the hobby thinking that Critical Role is how games work by default when Knights of the Dinner Table is far closer to reality.
Few years ago, at the birth of CR, I did see Mercer doing it and I copied him. It was a refresher, not gonna lie.
But nowadays it's both mandatory (as in "Mercer does it, so you should too") and players are kinda reluctant to describe every kill themselves. Because of the dichotomy I ditched the schtick alltogether and went back to narrating everything myself. Nothing changed for the worse.
I don't mind the players describing their critical hits, but surely the goal should be to establish this pattern quickly and minimize occurrences of the GM telling other people to speak now.
On the topic of letting players narrate their PCs deaths, or even asking for final words, in my experience that doesn't work out very well.
The player is still in too much shock, and perhaps denial, to give a good description.
You'll usually get something like...
GM: What are your last words? How does your character die?
Player: Eh. They die.
GM: ... okay.
So it's better for the GM to just go ahead and handle it, so you can give the character a suitably dramatic sendoff.
Quote from: Visitor Q on March 25, 2021, 07:48:29 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on March 25, 2021, 05:01:20 PM
The time for the player to make input is when he announces his action, not after resolution. If the player says, "I take his head off with my sword, or at least try to" and the dice decree a kill, then I say "His head makes a gentle arc, bounces twice, and rolls to your feet, a slightly surprised look on his face." If the player says "I attack" and the dice are favorably disposed, the I just say "Okay, he's down," or "You take him in the chest and he folds." The "Mercer" things you're describing, or whatever it is, is just weird.
...after a few more moments of thought this is just another application of "Players control their character, GMs control the rest of the world." If you're giving players narrative control of the world, then you're starting to move out of classic RPGs and into something else.
The hobby develops. Otherwise we'd all still be playing Chainmail. Keep what you like, discard the rest. As a GM the only question that need concern you is did you and your players have fun?
Obviously things can develop with time, and RPGs can become more refined as we better understand the concept. But I would say that is certainly not the only concern.
Other concerns are:
- How much fun did everyone have?
- How likely are people going to want to keep playing this campaign?
- How likely are they going to want to keep playing this game system?
- How invested are they in the game world and the story?
- How much fondness and nostalgia will they have about this campaign after it's over?
You can have plenty of fun in a one-shot where you're level 20 and you kill thousands of orcs. No one would say that's a good way to run a normal game, just like no one would say the happiness of a night of hookers and blow has anything to do with a life full of joy.
Quote from: theOutlander on March 28, 2021, 06:19:22 PM
Few years ago, at the birth of CR, I did see Mercer doing it and I copied him. It was a refresher, not gonna lie.
But nowadays it's both mandatory (as in "Mercer does it, so you should too") and players are kinda reluctant to describe every kill themselves. Because of the dichotomy I ditched the schtick alltogether and went back to narrating everything myself. Nothing changed for the worse.
The whole discussion about the Mercer effect is muddied by the silly assumption that people just choose a random way to play RPGs and stick with it. All of us veteran roleplayers have had to learn how to play, and are still learning how to play better. The reason we don't play like him is because we all tried it, or something like it, at some point and found it wanting. It's more of a problem for new players and casual players that haven't had time to figure this stuff out, and the concern is more about making sure they stick around long enough to figure it out.
I have allowed players to describe some kill shots for decades. My rule of thumb is the kill has to be an important or particularly tough opponent, and the final blow either comes after a LONG tough battle, or a crit/massive damage roll. Even then it's usually only 1 time per player and not every session.
Further, if a player doesnt show as much interest in describing the kill shot, I dont ask them to do it, or ask far less often. sometimes those players will decline an offer, and I narrate, on occasion a player asks to describe the action on a dramatic kill, so I allow it.
My players seem to enjoy the way we do it, so that's good enough for me.
If somebody enjoys describing violent stress relief who am i as a gm to rob them of that possibility? If i see the players dont want to hear about another bucket of blood beeing spilled i stop myself and start on another subject. Also the question makes me want to snark reflexivly. It does not make me expect fun times ahead. So eh.
Quote from: Innocent Smith on March 29, 2021, 05:35:56 AM
Quote from: Visitor Q on March 25, 2021, 07:48:29 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on March 25, 2021, 05:01:20 PM
The time for the player to make input is when he announces his action, not after resolution. If the player says, "I take his head off with my sword, or at least try to" and the dice decree a kill, then I say "His head makes a gentle arc, bounces twice, and rolls to your feet, a slightly surprised look on his face." If the player says "I attack" and the dice are favorably disposed, the I just say "Okay, he's down," or "You take him in the chest and he folds." The "Mercer" things you're describing, or whatever it is, is just weird.
...after a few more moments of thought this is just another application of "Players control their character, GMs control the rest of the world." If you're giving players narrative control of the world, then you're starting to move out of classic RPGs and into something else.
The hobby develops. Otherwise we'd all still be playing Chainmail. Keep what you like, discard the rest. As a GM the only question that need concern you is did you and your players have fun?
Obviously things can develop with time, and RPGs can become more refined as we better understand the concept. But I would say that is certainly not the only concern.
Other concerns are:
- How much fun did everyone have?
- How likely are people going to want to keep playing this campaign?
- How likely are they going to want to keep playing this game system?
- How invested are they in the game world and the story?
- How much fondness and nostalgia will they have about this campaign after it's over?
You can have plenty of fun in a one-shot where you're level 20 and you kill thousands of orcs. No one would say that's a good way to run a normal game, just like no one would say the happiness of a night of hookers and blow has anything to do with a life full of joy.
All of this is included in what I said.
Quote from: Godsmonkey on March 29, 2021, 07:35:26 AM
I have allowed players to describe some kill shots for decades. My rule of thumb is the kill has to be an important or particularly tough opponent, and the final blow either comes after a LONG tough battle, or a crit/massive damage roll. Even then it's usually only 1 time per player and not every session.
I've let players do this ages as well. It is a reward for getting the killing blow.
Mercer kind of ruined it for me to a degree. I had someone accuse me of copying Mercer; I told them that "Mercer copied me...probably." 😂
That's why I've always liked the supremely gory crit tables in the Warhammer RPGs. Exploding someone's arm in a shower of flesh and blood is way more interesting than having done 23 damage. A suitably on the ball GM could always narratively describe the damage being done in something other than simple hit point numbers, but in my experience that's not common since they're usually busy dealing with the mechanics of a fight.
I'll let players describe their kills as a way to exploit/extend the positive energy in the room after a really lucky die roll to make the moment more memorable, but of course I'm describing critical failures.
My DM always said, "The red dragon falls over and says, 'GACK!'" Worked for us.
Quote from: robh on March 25, 2021, 08:54:12 AM
Since the succession of Covid lockdowns put an end to game group meetings here I have been listening to a lot of online rpg sessions via YouTube. Doing so I noticed, then found irritating and have now come to hate the climactic death scene commentaries.
GM "...and he goes down, sinking slowly to his knees, his last faltering breaths wasted, cursing you and your kin. <pause for effect>
...............So tell me what that looks like"
Where the fuck did that come from? Have a whole array of GMs simultaneously adopted the Mercerism "Howd'ya wanna do this?" or is it now supposed to be a required part of the way games are run? One stream I was watching the GM extended it to every critical hit the PCs made.
Speaking for myself, it goes back to the 90's, when there was a 1E vs 2E edition war, where the 2E people wouldn't constantly be painting 1E as a mindless wargame, where the only option was kill, not like all the fancy options in the fighters splatbook for taking people alive. Like 2E actually has a rule for pulling your punch. People felt you couldn't do that without a special rule saying you can. I found myself having to explain the whole "hit points are not all physical" thing which Gary spells out nicely in 1E, and that a logical consequence of that is when you strike someone down to zero hit points, they're basically your bitch at this point. If you don't announce some other intent (like subdual), the assumed/default intent is to kill. But you could opt to do pretty much anything else instead.
Well, if you take that to heart, to the point where players consider their intent on each and every attack, that can burden the game some. So why not worry about intent only after you hit to speed things up. And then why not only after the hit that puts the opponent down to zero. And at that point you're pretty much there. The missing piece is easily inspired by the highly popular video game at the time, Mortal Kombat, and it's like, "Okay, describe your Finish Him."