So me and my friend (the GM) have a disagreement about a game mechanism
We've played a couple of session Star Wars FFG and started D&D this week. We haven't played roleplaying game for about 15 years.
So it happened again within D&D and tonight I've did bring the topic because I found this a little irritating, well that's not how I would run the game as a GM.
So we were 6 PC starting the game in a fight defending against a horde of zombies. The paladin and Barbarian were in front holding the line.
When our second turn was over, he decided that an NPC mage from one of the castle's tower threw a fireball at a group of NPC zombies close to the two melee fighters. So he decided to throw the dices to see if the fireball would hit, the saving throw and how much damage the zombies would take.
Similar situation before, he would roll the dice to define how the NPC we would meet would behave...instead of deciding himself...
From his saying, rolling his own dice could lead the campaign to somewhere completely different...
My take on this, is that he shouldn't roll NPC to NPC because this should be narrated and he should be the one deciding what was going on in his world rather than let the dice decide as if he wasn't in control of the surrounding thinking he was more of a game designer looking at what was happening rather than a conductor of an orchestra.
Of course it ended up by I run this like I want because I'm the GM so I couldn't care less if you ask for peoples opinion...
Well I've decided to ask anyway...because to me that's the job of the GM, to control the surrounding...not let the dice decide...
The question becomes, the best GM, how do they handle NPC to NPC....
------------------------------------
Keep in mind that what I'm talking about is that the GM is randomizing using dice his own NPCs action or interaction between his own NPCs
NPC to PC of course they are dices ....this is not a question and if there would be a NPC companion to the PC with a complete background and that the PC would ask the NPC to do something, haggle a vendor, then yes there would be dice thrown because it would be the PC engaging the request
What I'm talking about, it's the GM generating random stuff/action/behavior base on him throwing dices... (because he wants the possible deniability of his action)
To me that NPC Wizard (that we didn't even know was there) throwing that fireball to the NPC Zombies is like a cinematic....the GM chose and decides what happens...it adds flavor to the game by his own story writing... not "let the dice decides what happens"
I mean, he is always saying, your character may die when you play in my game....well of course it may happen, but as a GM, it is your duty to create scenarios where we have a "good" (not ask to roll a 20 on a D20) possibility to survive.... and your randomness doesn't seem to grant you that control.... nor knowing what you want the PC to experience within the game because your leaving this to random
It's absolutely fine (and fun) for the DM to run things like that through dices and let the outcome drive the narrative. There are plenty of situations written right into the rules and official adventures in and out of combat where the dice rolls determine the paths of the story and encounters (Random Encounter tables, for example). Part of the fun of D&D is that while the DM is the guide and arbiter of the story and world, it's not all under his control. It's more fun and less arbitrary when the world respects the same rules that the players have to adhere to. If not, it can become too arbitrary and unfair. It's not just the DM's story, it's the story of the world and those characters, and as much the player's story as it is the DM's.
That said, as a DM he should be careful not to bog the game down with NPC vs NPC rolls, because it can get boring to watch the DM play a game against himself. But just for a fireball or something like that I would absolutely have let the dice decide.
One style is not more right than the other, but there are wrong ways to do either style.
As stated already, so long as the rolls don't bog down the overall game, detract from PC scenes, or make it so that NPC interaction is so random that they can't be reasonably interacted with, then deciding to allow rolls to dictate certain NPC action is perfectly fine. And he's right, the rolls might determine a different approach than he might have considered himself.
It might be more important to ask why this is the style he chose, and why it matters to you. Maybe the GM is looking to explore the story as a participant, and this allows him to be surprised by outcomes.
But why does it bother you? I'm asking honestly, not accusatorily, because I'm assuming that it's not the fact of rolling but the product of the rolling.
Edit: Upon rereading, it actually sounds to me like all he did was roll to hit, damage and saving throws. Is that what you mean by "deciding NPC behavior," and you prefer narrating it out without those rolls?
i gave 3 examples, not to just stick to the fireball...
Why it bothers me, because it doesnt feel like he is in control.....it feels like his own rolls like throwing the fireball, he could end up throwing a 1 and say well ive critically miss, therefor the fireball hit the barbarian and paladin the the back....heyy its the roll...i didnt do that.... on top of rolling, he also have to create the stats and dc for the wizard who threw that or use some stats on top of his head which wouldnt be exact....
of course, im making an exageration there....because throwing a 1 could lead to a different result but same could be said at let say, everyone is walking quietly in a room not to wake up that dragon over there....you've guys succeed, how lucky are you....well lets see....there are rats arround, hey so lets npc roll to see if the rats are waking up that dragon now... sooo sorry guys, the dragon is awake now...
i understand that he would prefer to be a player (truth)......but these roll to me, are a waste of time and ressource.....maybe he is challenging himself to deal with stuff......but when you have a story in mind, you know where you are going, and anything else, you could on your own think about new stuff to add along
it was quiet unclear how many soldiers were assisting the paladin and barbarian at the front, but it was about 7.....threw dices to see how many would die each round
in the end game, it wasnt going to matter considering that one zombie/squeleton was going to shoot at one of the 7 mages doing the incantation and end up teleporting us in another world/time/we don't know where.....but if he was more in control, maybe we would have lasted more than two round before he had to get us away....since we were all almost dead
lastly, the people that did create Skyrim ....or world of warcraft, or any similar game, do you seriously think that they've decided what type of npc you would encounter by the throw of a dice? no it is carefully selected...
Well, to be honest it seems like your friend is DMing the way that the majority do. Your way is not wrong, but neither is his. I misunderstood what you wrote first, it doesn't sound to me like he's rolling to be like a player. He's just rolling like most DMs would.
I agree with Conn_Eremon. NPCs are frequently subject to the whims of the party, and therefore the dice. The combat rules don't change, that's the risk you take in enlisting NPCs. Usually DMs are trying to avoid railroading the players into sticking to a script, so the NPC interactions aren't set in stone, and there is a risk of social failure (or at least a non-optimal result).
Edit to add: Yes, you are completely correct in saying that a botch by an NPC could result in injury to allies. 'Control' of the game is always transitory in a cooperative game.
Anyway, I've spoke to my boss at work who also do RPG... well he's more into warhammer at this moment, but he ran as the GM a campaign that lasted 6 years... his input is that the fewer rolls, the better....because its all to promote and create a story...like writing a book.... you want to keep the random events that are not prepared at its minimum...
But he does understand that everyone has their own ways...
I guess that's why me and my friend are forever in disagreements... because we think differently....
Keep in mind that what I'm talking about is that the GM is randomizing using dice his own NPCs action or interaction between his own NPCs
NPC to PC of course they are dices ....this is not a question and if there would be a NPC companion to the PC with a complete background and that the PC would ask the NPC to do something, haggle a vendor, then yes there would be dice thrown because it would be the PC engaging the request
What I'm talking about, it's the GM generating random stuff/action/behavior base on him throwing dices... (because he wants the possible deniability of his action)
To me that NPC Wizard (that we didn't even know was there) throwing that fireball to the NPC Zombies is like a cinematic....the GM chose and decides what happens...it adds flavor to the game by his own story writing... not "let the dice decides what happens"
I mean, he is always saying, your character may die when you play in my game....well of course it may happen, but as a GM, it is your duty to create scenarios where we have a "good" (not ask to roll a 20 on a D20) possibility to survive.... and your randomness doesn't seem to grant you that control.... nor knowing what you want the PC to experience within the game because your leaving this to random
I roll dice ahead of time for NPC interactions ... sometimes. Like I try to predict what the players will do during the interaction and roll for whether or not the NPC will believe them, follow them, be sympathetic or aggressive, based on what the dice said plus any advantages or disadvantages that the NPC has.
That way, I have several story paths ready and conditions under which a specific story path is used already established.
For example: An NPC gives the players some information that will help them on their quest and the players try to persuade the NPC to give them more info. If I rolled low on persuasion, I wouldn't require the players to roll, I would just give up the extra info when pressed. If I rolled high, and then during play, the players try to persuade the NPC, I'd have them roll for persuasion and give up the info if they players beat what i rolled ahead of time. If they don't beat my roll, my NPC might become aggressive or agitated or whatever.
Rolling ahead of time means that I don't need to break my narrative for a roll unless the players go in a direction that I have not anticipated.
So basically, just because I might not be seen to be rolling, doesn't mean to say I haven't. I just prefer narrative over sitting at the table and rolling dice. So I do rolls ahead of time when preparing an NPC.
I totally get your point, and that's an entirely valid viewpoint to have and style of GMing. It has its value, in that it does streamline the process and ensures a cinematic feel, as your boss mentioned (lucky you!).
His way is also valid though, and is more the norm. I'd recommend having a conversation with him and the other players on the matter. If this is something ruining your fun, but not theirs, then perhaps it'd be best to look for a game elsewhere.
For what it's worth, I at times do what SocialFoxes mentions, but I always roll even when standardized results are offered like for enemy health totals. To speed the process, I roll health and initiative ahead of time, but the variable health allows me to add deeper descriptions and add variables to the situation. I roll more than can be necessary, or is the norm, but the group enjoys my methods so far and maintaining consistent narratives is very important in my games nonetheless.
Well, I'm playing because I'm playing with my friends...although we do have our disagreement..... between me and the GM about multiple things how we run stuff....the other party member are more of the flexible type....one way or the other, they couldn't care less
So we can't play DOS2 together. I'm the type, we should do all in our power to win the fight without anyone dying and without having to reload and therefor gearing up accordingly and being strategic with our actions. His way is lets just run head first in the fight, everyman for himself and let's see who can kill the most as long as one survive and can resurrect the other or in worse case just reload...
So my post here was to simply get experience players' opinion ....and maybe prove my point....
I guess it proves that no way is better than the other .....but one seem more popular than the other...
So me and my friend (the GM) have a disagreement about a game mechanism
We've played a couple of session Star Wars FFG and started D&D this week. We haven't played roleplaying game for about 15 years.
So it happened again within D&D and tonight I've did bring the topic because I found this a little irritating, well that's not how I would run the game as a GM.
So we were 6 PC starting the game in a fight defending against a horde of zombies. The paladin and Barbarian were in front holding the line.
When our second turn was over, he decided that an NPC mage from one of the castle's tower threw a fireball at a group of NPC zombies close to the two melee fighters. So he decided to throw the dices to see if the fireball would hit, the saving throw and how much damage the zombies would take.
Similar situation before, he would roll the dice to define how the NPC we would meet would behave...instead of deciding himself...
From his saying, rolling his own dice could lead the campaign to somewhere completely different...
My take on this, is that he shouldn't roll NPC to NPC because this should be narrated and he should be the one deciding what was going on in his world rather than let the dice decide as if he wasn't in control of the surrounding thinking he was more of a game designer looking at what was happening rather than a conductor of an orchestra.
Of course it ended up by I run this like I want because I'm the GM so I couldn't care less if you ask for peoples opinion...
Well I've decided to ask anyway...because to me that's the job of the GM, to control the surrounding...not let the dice decide...
The question becomes, the best GM, how do they handle NPC to NPC....
------------------------------------
Keep in mind that what I'm talking about is that the GM is randomizing using dice his own NPCs action or interaction between his own NPCs
NPC to PC of course they are dices ....this is not a question and if there would be a NPC companion to the PC with a complete background and that the PC would ask the NPC to do something, haggle a vendor, then yes there would be dice thrown because it would be the PC engaging the request
What I'm talking about, it's the GM generating random stuff/action/behavior base on him throwing dices... (because he wants the possible deniability of his action)
To me that NPC Wizard (that we didn't even know was there) throwing that fireball to the NPC Zombies is like a cinematic....the GM chose and decides what happens...it adds flavor to the game by his own story writing... not "let the dice decides what happens"
I mean, he is always saying, your character may die when you play in my game....well of course it may happen, but as a GM, it is your duty to create scenarios where we have a "good" (not ask to roll a 20 on a D20) possibility to survive.... and your randomness doesn't seem to grant you that control.... nor knowing what you want the PC to experience within the game because your leaving this to random
It's absolutely fine (and fun) for the DM to run things like that through dices and let the outcome drive the narrative. There are plenty of situations written right into the rules and official adventures in and out of combat where the dice rolls determine the paths of the story and encounters (Random Encounter tables, for example). Part of the fun of D&D is that while the DM is the guide and arbiter of the story and world, it's not all under his control. It's more fun and less arbitrary when the world respects the same rules that the players have to adhere to. If not, it can become too arbitrary and unfair. It's not just the DM's story, it's the story of the world and those characters, and as much the player's story as it is the DM's.
That said, as a DM he should be careful not to bog the game down with NPC vs NPC rolls, because it can get boring to watch the DM play a game against himself. But just for a fireball or something like that I would absolutely have let the dice decide.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorOne style is not more right than the other, but there are wrong ways to do either style.
As stated already, so long as the rolls don't bog down the overall game, detract from PC scenes, or make it so that NPC interaction is so random that they can't be reasonably interacted with, then deciding to allow rolls to dictate certain NPC action is perfectly fine. And he's right, the rolls might determine a different approach than he might have considered himself.
It might be more important to ask why this is the style he chose, and why it matters to you. Maybe the GM is looking to explore the story as a participant, and this allows him to be surprised by outcomes.
But why does it bother you? I'm asking honestly, not accusatorily, because I'm assuming that it's not the fact of rolling but the product of the rolling.
Edit: Upon rereading, it actually sounds to me like all he did was roll to hit, damage and saving throws. Is that what you mean by "deciding NPC behavior," and you prefer narrating it out without those rolls?
i gave 3 examples, not to just stick to the fireball...
Why it bothers me, because it doesnt feel like he is in control.....it feels like his own rolls like throwing the fireball, he could end up throwing a 1 and say well ive critically miss, therefor the fireball hit the barbarian and paladin the the back....heyy its the roll...i didnt do that.... on top of rolling, he also have to create the stats and dc for the wizard who threw that or use some stats on top of his head which wouldnt be exact....
of course, im making an exageration there....because throwing a 1 could lead to a different result but same could be said at let say, everyone is walking quietly in a room not to wake up that dragon over there....you've guys succeed, how lucky are you....well lets see....there are rats arround, hey so lets npc roll to see if the rats are waking up that dragon now... sooo sorry guys, the dragon is awake now...
i understand that he would prefer to be a player (truth)......but these roll to me, are a waste of time and ressource.....maybe he is challenging himself to deal with stuff......but when you have a story in mind, you know where you are going, and anything else, you could on your own think about new stuff to add along
it was quiet unclear how many soldiers were assisting the paladin and barbarian at the front, but it was about 7.....threw dices to see how many would die each round
in the end game, it wasnt going to matter considering that one zombie/squeleton was going to shoot at one of the 7 mages doing the incantation and end up teleporting us in another world/time/we don't know where.....but if he was more in control, maybe we would have lasted more than two round before he had to get us away....since we were all almost dead
lastly, the people that did create Skyrim ....or world of warcraft, or any similar game, do you seriously think that they've decided what type of npc you would encounter by the throw of a dice? no it is carefully selected...
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorWell, to be honest it seems like your friend is DMing the way that the majority do. Your way is not wrong, but neither is his. I misunderstood what you wrote first, it doesn't sound to me like he's rolling to be like a player. He's just rolling like most DMs would.
I agree with Conn_Eremon. NPCs are frequently subject to the whims of the party, and therefore the dice. The combat rules don't change, that's the risk you take in enlisting NPCs. Usually DMs are trying to avoid railroading the players into sticking to a script, so the NPC interactions aren't set in stone, and there is a risk of social failure (or at least a non-optimal result).
Edit to add: Yes, you are completely correct in saying that a botch by an NPC could result in injury to allies. 'Control' of the game is always transitory in a cooperative game.
Thank you for your input Eremon....
Anyway, I've spoke to my boss at work who also do RPG... well he's more into warhammer at this moment, but he ran as the GM a campaign that lasted 6 years... his input is that the fewer rolls, the better....because its all to promote and create a story...like writing a book.... you want to keep the random events that are not prepared at its minimum...
But he does understand that everyone has their own ways...
I guess that's why me and my friend are forever in disagreements... because we think differently....
Keep in mind that what I'm talking about is that the GM is randomizing using dice his own NPCs action or interaction between his own NPCs
NPC to PC of course they are dices ....this is not a question and if there would be a NPC companion to the PC with a complete background and that the PC would ask the NPC to do something, haggle a vendor, then yes there would be dice thrown because it would be the PC engaging the request
What I'm talking about, it's the GM generating random stuff/action/behavior base on him throwing dices... (because he wants the possible deniability of his action)
To me that NPC Wizard (that we didn't even know was there) throwing that fireball to the NPC Zombies is like a cinematic....the GM chose and decides what happens...it adds flavor to the game by his own story writing... not "let the dice decides what happens"
I mean, he is always saying, your character may die when you play in my game....well of course it may happen, but as a GM, it is your duty to create scenarios where we have a "good" (not ask to roll a 20 on a D20) possibility to survive.... and your randomness doesn't seem to grant you that control.... nor knowing what you want the PC to experience within the game because your leaving this to random
I roll dice ahead of time for NPC interactions ... sometimes. Like I try to predict what the players will do during the interaction and roll for whether or not the NPC will believe them, follow them, be sympathetic or aggressive, based on what the dice said plus any advantages or disadvantages that the NPC has.
That way, I have several story paths ready and conditions under which a specific story path is used already established.
For example: An NPC gives the players some information that will help them on their quest and the players try to persuade the NPC to give them more info. If I rolled low on persuasion, I wouldn't require the players to roll, I would just give up the extra info when pressed. If I rolled high, and then during play, the players try to persuade the NPC, I'd have them roll for persuasion and give up the info if they players beat what i rolled ahead of time. If they don't beat my roll, my NPC might become aggressive or agitated or whatever.
Rolling ahead of time means that I don't need to break my narrative for a roll unless the players go in a direction that I have not anticipated.
So basically, just because I might not be seen to be rolling, doesn't mean to say I haven't. I just prefer narrative over sitting at the table and rolling dice. So I do rolls ahead of time when preparing an NPC.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorI totally get your point, and that's an entirely valid viewpoint to have and style of GMing. It has its value, in that it does streamline the process and ensures a cinematic feel, as your boss mentioned (lucky you!).
His way is also valid though, and is more the norm. I'd recommend having a conversation with him and the other players on the matter. If this is something ruining your fun, but not theirs, then perhaps it'd be best to look for a game elsewhere.
For what it's worth, I at times do what SocialFoxes mentions, but I always roll even when standardized results are offered like for enemy health totals. To speed the process, I roll health and initiative ahead of time, but the variable health allows me to add deeper descriptions and add variables to the situation. I roll more than can be necessary, or is the norm, but the group enjoys my methods so far and maintaining consistent narratives is very important in my games nonetheless.
yeah lucky me hehe
Well, I'm playing because I'm playing with my friends...although we do have our disagreement..... between me and the GM about multiple things how we run stuff....the other party member are more of the flexible type....one way or the other, they couldn't care less
So we can't play DOS2 together. I'm the type, we should do all in our power to win the fight without anyone dying and without having to reload and therefor gearing up accordingly and being strategic with our actions. His way is lets just run head first in the fight, everyman for himself and let's see who can kill the most as long as one survive and can resurrect the other or in worse case just reload...
So my post here was to simply get experience players' opinion ....and maybe prove my point....
I guess it proves that no way is better than the other .....but one seem more popular than the other...
Thanks for everyone who took the time to reply