[Runequest] Highlevel combat

Bjørn Are Stølen stolenbjorn at hotmail.com
Wed Nov 17 11:32:43 EST 2010


The problem with theese kind of solution is in the opposite situation, when the GM has a lower IQ than the players. That's a bit silly put, what I'm trying to say, is that sometimes you have GM's that have a quite rudimentary knowledge of how things work (like riding, use of certain types of equipment, etc). It can be quite trying to be a player that happens to know quite a lot of some skill, and have the players do something utterly stupid and be rewarded by it, because the players have successfully rolled an idea test, and the GM have supplied the players with advise he believes to be smart. The best thing in theese situations have been for me (as player) to keep quiet, but I must admit that it makes me a bit weary of Idea-rolls. 
 
We played CoC-dark-ages once, with a gm that knows as much about horses as I do about Pebbel-sizes in the town of Bismarck in USA (which isn't much), It was not very fun to be given "advise", but I didn't want to tell him to shut up, because I didn't want to ruin the game for my fellow players, I didn't want to embarras the GM, and my character did succeed thanks to the utterly stupid things he did with and on that horse, on GM advise :D
 


From: tcantine at incentre.net
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:23:04 -0700
To: runequest at rpgreview.net
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Highlevel combat





On 13-Nov-10, at 2:42 AM, Dale Long wrote:

(snip)


If we take purely simulationist roleplaying, we would also need to consider removing the smart input from players, the good results derived from role-playing and other similar factors. These elements also operate at the same "story telling" level as Hero points, but Hero points do it in a measured mechanical way, that can also be used to complement those elements.
Actually, I stumbled upon a trick for that (i.e. PCs coming up with ideas beyond their IQ capacity) that worked really well in my gaming group. Whenever you want to make an OOC suggestion to another player as to what their PC should do, you ask them to make an INT check. If they don't make it, you keep quiet; if they do, you can tell them your idea.

I found that my players bought into the concept quite eagerly, because they like sharing ideas but they also like an IC rationale for why their party member didn't think of it in time (i.e. that darned low INT). And if the INT check is failed, they really enjoy watching the PC struggle through without the suggestion. 

And in the big picture, since all the players are entitled to make and receive suggestions by the same rule, statistically it ends up making a very nice simulationist result: smarter PCs act smarter (with a greater chance at benefiting from the collective wisdom of the players) while dumber characters generally have to make do with only the intellect of their own player, and even if the player of a slow-witted PC is very bright, all the other PCs have access (on a successful INT check, of course) to that same bright player's insights, so the slow-witted PC is still at a comparative disadvantage.

Also, the more obvious ideas get another kick at the can for each player who individually comes up with it. If I think of a suggestion for the PC, but he misses his INT check, I don't get to share that suggestion and that's the end of it for me. But if someone ELSE comes up with the same idea independently, she CAN invite another INT check.


_______________________________________________ Runequest mailing list Runequest at rpgreview.net http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20101117/02228e47/attachment.html>


More information about the Runequest mailing list