That was what I demanded the GM tell us. He hid behind “oh but the rules say you average the stealth rolls”.
I have since found that is bollocks. What the 5e rules actually say is that if half the party succeed their Stealth check then the whole group succeeds. Only one person got a roll (12) which MIGHT have been a fail…
1 Like
It’s Rolemaster - you just need to roll on 8 or 9 sub-tables to get to that level of detail … (j/k)
I read some GMing advice a few decades ago (I’m pretty sure it was Robin Laws, but not 100%) which called out exactly your point. A character sheet (especially in a point buy or skill choose system, rather than a random roll) is a message from the player to the GM.
A high score either means
- I want lots of this
- I hate this so have a high score so I can ignore it.
It’s the GMs job to ask which one of those it is.
4 Likes
That is not how I treat character sheets at all.
Messages to the GM can be communicated in any language we share, so passive-aggressive coded secret messages are unnecessary.
A high skill or Attribute skill means that the character concept is good at this thing. It is something that was causative in their life story, resulted from significant events in it or both. I’m not communicating anything about me, I’m using game mechanics to reflect the character concept as accurately as I can, even if some of those skills may never be used, simply because a character lacking skills they would have been extensively trained in as part of their backstory is not acceptable.
Adding skills because I think they would be useful, or neglecting others because they’d probably not be used in the campaign, amounts to saying you’ll play one character and then creating a different one.
I see the argument but as so often I disagree - the GM should be talking with the players about what they want in the game already, to the point that the message becomes irrelevant. (But as I’ve just said in the latest E&A all the gaming groups I play with are friends-as-well, sometimes friends-first, rather than only getting together for the game.)
2 Likes
So far, all of my successful campaigns have been with friends, some of whom had never played RPGs before. I discovered that playing experience was totally irrelevant, but being someone I enjoyed hanging out with was important. Willingness to buy-in to a campaign is also good, but honestly, I’d rather have a pleasant friend who is less engaged than someone super into the campaign if they are unpleasant company.
I have tried to game with strangers, but it never even gets off the ground. I’m working toward changing that, but at this point, the other people aren’t all strangers. One prospective player is a friend, whom I’ve now spent significant (though not enough) time with in person, and another is someone whom I’ve known for a very long time through forums and Discord.
I’ll give the near strangers, i.e. the people I’ve known about a year and only through Discord a chance, but I’d be happy to play with just friends, even if that whittled the players down to 1-2.
There are people who enjoy hobbies which require multiple players so much so they play squash, tennis, chess or golf with people they don’t even like. Fair enough, but I wouldn’t enjoy roleplaying with people I don’t like and would be happy to do other things instead, like read, research and do setting stuff which might or might not come up in some campaign.
2 Likes
The term ‘casually violent’ seems worth discussing, because I have seen characters who are, but most of them are villains. There are exceptions, but most of them are some degree of antihero.
Unless they are dwarves, of course. Dwarves are regarded as honourable heroes even when casual violence is not only their job, but their vocation and calling is disciplined and professional violence, plus their favourite hobby is casual violence while drunk. Many dwarves are like Paras squashed together to make them squatter and broader, plus adding a beard to make for a better disguise.
There are PCs who are honourable and naive. They live by a code and expect that everyone else who isn’t a card-carrying villain is as honourable. One PC has a chronic hero complex and will rescue a fair maid at the drop of a hat, risk his life for anyone and never expect a reward.
However, because of the culture he lives in, he accepts casual violence as a fun hobby. He’ll brawl cheerfully with men in a tavern and pay for the damages, as well as make good their lost earnings while they are recovering. There are insults he recognizes as fighting words and depending on the status of those involved, that fight might be fisticuffs or it might be drawn daggers and swords.
More than just brawls, he also participates in tourneys, where men joust at each other at with exceptionally dangerous amounts of momentum transferred through a lance to a small point on the other man. The PC paralyzed someone for life in a joust, a young knight he admired, because even as neither of them wants to harm the other, what they were doing was essentially violence as sport. Unlike modern sports, very little of the danger was removed with the transformation into friendly sport. It just meant that there was nothing personal about the violence and if they survived, they might be the best of friends afterwards.
The player roleplays the characters naivety well. When a young lady, a friend of his fiancée, came to him crying that a knight who had been escorting her last night was claiming that their liaison had gone far past a goodnight kiss and his slanderous lies would destroy her reputation, the PC did not for a moment think to doubt the fair maiden. He confronted the dastardly knight and demanded he withdraw his foul lies and apologize to the lady.
The knight showed him courtesy and spoke calmly, said no insult was intended and had his words been hurtful, he would gladly apologize. However, he would not stand being called a liar when nothing he said had been less than the truth. The player knew that the knight might very well be telling the truth. Everyone involved was aged maybe 19 to 22 and were drinking together long into the night. The PC went to bed with his fiancée and neither of them had any way to know where the outraged lady had spent her night. If the knight and the lady friend had slept together, a teenage male would be likely to tell his friends, but in a society where paternity was a big deal for inheritance and noble titles, women could ill afford to be as truthful if they had indeed had sexual relations outside of marriage.
The PC, however, did not consider all that. His beloved said her friend’s reputation was slandered without cause and therefore, said ladyfriend was innocent as the driven snow and the knight a liar twice condemned. So, if the knight would not withdraw his slander and admit his lie, he had best defend his honour with his sword. In the absence of the yellow press and libel trials, duels often served to ‘prove’ the truth of incompatible statements, in this case, about the honour and purity of a fair maiden.
Most duels are to first blood and even when they were not, surrender was more common than a fight to the death. This duel was meant to be to first blood, but both started out with an aggressive and fast attack. What was meant to be a lightning fast feinting swing in front of the face that would flick a cheek on the back cut, for a scar and a bit of blood, turned into a neck wound with full force, because the opponent had taken an extra forward step and lunged just as the feint was launched. The sword, Cairlachan, the Sword That Cuts Stone, has cut through dragonscale to open an artery on a great red dragon. It had no trouble severing the carotid artery and jugular vein, as it cut through the windpipe and touched the spine lightly.
In the world of social media, this would have been morning drama barely of interest to the boyfriend. In a world where judicial duels are a thing and reputations are defended with swords, the PC casually killed a man before breakfast. Someone he liked and had been drinking with the knight before. And while he regretted the death, he still went to his breakfast and thought no more about it, because to do otherwise would have been contrary to his upbringing and out of keeping with his status as a knight and almost-a-noble (once they marry, he’ll have a title of his own and formally dispose of the Cathone estates, in addition to his own).
In a society like our modern day one, to be casual about violence generally carries a stigma, except within certain military units, where such bravado is expected. In past societies, all men were expected to treat violence in that casual way. As their area of expertise, and, often, something in which they enjoyed taking part, or pretended to, at any rate. All men were expected to be eager warriors and killing was not something to regret, but a victory of which to be proud.
And this is why I like straightforward systems. “But Roger, you play GURPS!” Yes, but you don’t need to learn about attacks of opportunity or spell slots to play the game. Having a vague idea of how an actual fight works - a cinematic idea is enough - plus a few minutes of explaining “roll 3d6, tell me how much above or below the target you got” is plenty.
2 Likes
Not just combat. As long as they understand pretending to be a character in a story, which every child who ever played pretend does, “roll 3d6, the lower the better,” are the entire GURPS mechanics which players ever have to know, for any kind of adventuring, intrigue or mysteries, and, yes, combat. They can learn more, if they want, but they don’t have to.
2 Likes
Yup. I mention fights only because (a) of what we’ve been talking about already and (b) they’re the most mechanically complex thing in many games.
This is why I like The Film Reroll (a group of actors who start with the initial premises of films and play through them using GURPS, often completely deviating from the original plot). I’m not a talented improv person like them, but I aim for a similar style: players and GM narrate back and forth until the time comes to check something against the world’s reality, someone makes a skill roll, the conversation continues.
5 Likes