tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post5317018625933022116..comments2024-03-18T20:22:06.331-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: Open Friday: How Much Control?James Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-36745392077695753492010-06-19T09:59:12.894-04:002010-06-19T09:59:12.894-04:00I let my players invent any kind of a biography fo...I let my players invent any kind of a biography for their character that they want. I have the final word in altering the final details to make sure that they fit with the game's setting. Players get the full in-game benefit of their character background, if they can think to invoke them in a game, but the DM also provids the complications for the game. Thus, if the PC is the son of a wealthy merchant, he gets the beenfit of staying int he big house and being able to afford plate mail armor and any other thing that his doting parents can reasonably afford, however, being an wealthy heir, his rival siblings might try to poison him, his dad's partner can try to set him up to become an outlaw so as to disinherit him, one of the evil henchmens of te vile orcs might actually be a scion of a respected noble family and might bring the lawsuit agaisnt the PC's dear old dad to get recompense for damages that the PC has so callously wrought, and beiong of noble blood, he just might get the ruling in his favor...<br />I give players everything and anything they ask for. It makes for interesting and arresting gaming with players often ending up in the hot seat.Brooser Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08487438364129415650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-63129307179547703652010-06-19T09:28:48.395-04:002010-06-19T09:28:48.395-04:00@Russell: I took the question as the player wants ...@Russell: I took the question as the player wants to bring in a Gnome character. That is one reason why I would disregard the table, with the caveat of adding some condition to it as I mentioned previously. If the player was just wanting a Gnome NPC to follow him around and do his bidding, then he would have to take his chances with the table.<br /><br />"So, Glorin, how many of your dwarf sons will be joining us today? 3 or 4? Still hoping for a Gnome, eh?"<br /><br />Ciao!<br />GWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-14464118385468607612010-06-19T01:08:40.742-04:002010-06-19T01:08:40.742-04:00Y'know, I think I would be tempted to roll on ...Y'know, I think I would be tempted to roll on the failure table anyway.<br /><br />There's a 1 in 3 chance of it coming up a gnome.<br /><br />And if it came up a knocker, wouldn't it be interesting for the player to try to "civilize" his son of his more acquisitive and malevolent tendencies? Might make for some interesting roleplaying.Aaron E. Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789462075611254929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-86867970875438865552010-06-19T00:24:04.416-04:002010-06-19T00:24:04.416-04:00@ Wade - Not the same thing at all. It would be mo...@ Wade - Not the same thing at all. It would be more like "I want my fighter to swing and miss by a mile, accidently throwing his sword across the room, where it will, by dumb luck, spear the Minotaur right between the eyes." <br /><br />@ Russell - See above. Not the way I read Mr. Maliszewski's intent at all. If it was that simple, there wouldn't be a reason to ask the question.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192212467523179768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-9109903700533624552010-06-18T22:16:48.479-04:002010-06-18T22:16:48.479-04:00"Which may be a topic worth discussing. Are t...<i>"Which may be a topic worth discussing. Are those sort of rules necessary, or even desirable? We DM's tend to like these little situational tables. We certainly like making them. Judging from the responses, here, many have no problem discarding them. Are they unimportant, or even detrimental to RPing?</i><br /><br />Tables are like any other rule: they're useful when well done, but you should forego them when doing so makes the game better.<br /><br />As for this specific case, I always allow players to make their characters fail. I don't see making a gnome son as any different from making a character walk blindly into a trap or break up with his one true love.Rose Baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16201318275929153053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-10995632053796558312010-06-18T21:26:40.896-04:002010-06-18T21:26:40.896-04:00What if he simply, wants a Dwarven son? Really, re...<i>What if he simply, wants a Dwarven son? Really, really wants one. Would you ditch the Table in that instance, to make sure he gets what he wants?</i><br /><br />Hmm. But a Dwarven son is a successful result on the table. A gnome is a failed result. If a player said, "I really want to hit this monster," you'd require him to roll. But if he said, "I want my fighter to take a swing at this monster and miss by a mile," would you tell him that he has to roll in order to fail?Wade Rocketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02785499425476736769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-76300669469773006142010-06-18T21:07:20.785-04:002010-06-18T21:07:20.785-04:00I was all set to answer one way, but then I read I...I was all set to answer one way, but then I read Ian's comment: "I'd make creating a gnome son an adventure rather than a throw away."<br /><br />Damn if he isn't dead on target. Well done sir!<br /><br />In general, we play the game to have fun, as players and DMs. I prefer to give my players <i>reasonable</i> things that they want, than to be a hard case about keeping my little version of Oz/Narnia/Nehwon "consistent." Years hence, my players might not even remember some inconsistency between how I originally presented the gnomish race and what gnomes eventually became through play. They <b>will</b> remember going to rob the library of a dragon-lich (who was way too powerful for them to face head-on, thus a resort to burglary) and having to sacrifce a beloved trinket to the King of the Earth-Elementals just to get the information necessary to create the PC's gnome-son.<br /><br />That doesn't make me a pushover. That makes me a good GM.L. Beauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13652846614886274866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-14281487628013357342010-06-18T20:24:46.214-04:002010-06-18T20:24:46.214-04:00P.S. I would give the Player what he wanted. If he...P.S. I would give the Player what he wanted. If he's that into the nuances of the campaign and this would help him "Imagine the Hell out of it," then definitely, yes. A part of me doesn't like it, though. :)Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192212467523179768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-81117338877174361122010-06-18T20:20:38.550-04:002010-06-18T20:20:38.550-04:00This is a sticky one. If you're going to dismi...This is a sticky one. If you're going to dismiss the Table, so your player can have his gnome, what about this scenario? <br /><br />What if he simply, wants a Dwarven son? Really, <i>really</i> wants one. Would you ditch the Table in that instance, to make sure he gets what he wants? If he asked you to? Ignoring the Table, is ignoring the Table.<br /><br />Your rules have options, allowing the player to increase his chances of having a True Dwarven offspring. If the <i>Character</i> wants a Gnome, you could allow him to research the matter and take steps to increase that probability.<br /><br />If I'm going to make the rules in the first place and I'm playing D&D, I'm not going to throw them overboard, so long as they work and I feel there's a valid reason for them. I wouldn't ditch the Table, unless I was willing to ditch it completely. <br /><br />Which may be a topic worth discussing. Are those sort of rules necessary, or even desirable? We DM's tend to like these little situational tables. We certainly like making them. Judging from the responses, here, many have no problem discarding them. Are they unimportant, or even detrimental to RPing?Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192212467523179768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-81688634494457243132010-06-18T20:20:08.868-04:002010-06-18T20:20:08.868-04:00If you want your world to grow in new & exciti...If you want your world to grow in new & exciting ways, allow the players' the opportunity. You'll both be challenged. <br /><br />If you only want your world to grow as you see fit to allow it, with all its fine details, then write a novel or two. You won't need anyone's input.<br /><br />Ciao!<br />GWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-16530538831596923002010-06-18T19:18:03.660-04:002010-06-18T19:18:03.660-04:00If it adds to the fun, go for it.If it adds to the fun, go for it.5stonegameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10694550968360550229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-12246493807483582762010-06-18T18:30:56.244-04:002010-06-18T18:30:56.244-04:00+1 to what Anthony said.+1 to what Anthony said.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12508594597349248576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-69007127777146313912010-06-18T18:01:57.343-04:002010-06-18T18:01:57.343-04:00In the hypothetical you've given, I'd be i...In the hypothetical you've given, I'd be inclined to grant the player his wish, assuming it would create more fun in the game and that the player was not the type to abuse the situation. Also, this kind of rules-variance is appealing because it makes the player more invested in the setting.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01254215329246851683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-45238900653170753072010-06-18T17:05:02.291-04:002010-06-18T17:05:02.291-04:00That's not the question that was being asked. ...<i>That's not the question that was being asked. It is, instead, the related question as to whether players should have a hand in establishing totally new facts about the world.</i><br /><br />If you're running an RPG, the answer to this question better be yes. Because players introduce facts all the time...<br /><br /><br />FrankFrankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15855679156477779666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-78829479461433120232010-06-18T16:42:30.068-04:002010-06-18T16:42:30.068-04:00I think the rule of improv applies here. Don't...I think the rule of improv applies here. Don't say "no", say "yes, and..." <br /><br />I've had sessions where I followed the will of the dice unerringly and the results sucked. Randomization is just a way of asking the questions you say "yes, and..." to if you don't have any questions of your own in mind. <br /><br />I've heard it said the proper way to flip a coin is to flip it and then decide whether you're happy or disappointed in the result.<br /><br />I'd agree with other posters here. Let 'em have the gnome, but have some strings (complete with plot hooks) attached. <br /><br />The "Rule of Cool" should always apply.BigFellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052419088140204154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-91138833332242993372010-06-18T16:20:25.405-04:002010-06-18T16:20:25.405-04:00@ Brian: all right how about this-- a PC dwarf wan...@ Brian: <i>all right how about this-- a PC dwarf wants his son to be a female tiefling?</i><br /><br />That's not the question that was being asked. It is, instead, the related question as to whether players should have a hand in establishing totally new facts about the world.<br /><br />And the answer to that, like most social media, comes down to trust. Do you trust the players to be able to do so? To fit in with the world?<br /><br />If the answers to this are "yes," then it can be very rewarding to have them do so, usually in close cooperation with yourself.<br /><br />However in most cases it isn't so much an overt act of creation such as Athena springing whole from the head of Zeus. Rather it generally as a result of continued play and exploring relationships.<br /><br />Most of my races in my fantasy campaign started out as fairly standard [The exception being orcs, which had already had a history with "me" by being cheap mercenary troops in another campaign I was playing in. This resulted in my further developing the nature of orcs (which I did in a very un-Tolkeinlike direction). Are they still orcs? Game mechanically they are. In play, not so much.]<br /><br />But the people that played them, and interacted with them slowly developed them through the process of these interactions. Elves became creatures of pure chaos, so malleable that they didn't seem to have a true form. Then the player with an elf, who had previously established he was an exile, made the suggestion that what if all elves were actually little more than an illusion projected by a faerie mound, which was really the elf. And that some of the illusions, especially those created for a specific task (in his case it appears to be assassination), were made too well and became independant. [Incidentally half-elves were humans who had dwelt too long in a faerie mound. Elves never breed.]<br /><br />There were almost no dwarves played in my game, which meant that the dwarves did not have a great deal of interaction with the campaign. SO why were they so secretive and stand-offish. It later conspired through play that they were the slaves of goblins (the hidden in plain sight bad guys). Even later, it was discovered that goblins and dwarves, despite their distinctive appearance, were actually the same race that had split during historic times. Not surprising, since the goblins were noted alchemists and eugenicists, particularly when it came to making monsters. I had no idea that this would be the case. It was all revealed through play and necessity.<br /><br />Whilst orcs and humans were closely related species (think sapiens vs neanderthals) there were no half-orcs. That's because orcs were more respectable* in my game, so could appear as characters in their own right. Their principle export was mercenary soldiers or barbarian hordes, depending on the events of the time, and the strength of human civilization. Their inability to deal with a lot of abstract thought (including magic) meant that they were being pushed into less habitable areas by the expanding humans. The benefit was they were fecund and tough. Their mortality was hopeless.<br /><br />The end result is that an organic world grows up around your campaign, not so much from decisions you make, but as a natural outgrowth of the campaign history. That is a true living campaign.<br /><br />So the question I have to ask you in return is: "why do you think this is a good idea? Convince me!"<br /><br />[* Which is not the same as saying they were actually respectable through most of history. But they tended to have fun (and leave a lot of property damage in their wake ... and have very fast horses).]Reverance Pavanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01217657347160811310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-7095855215766915432010-06-18T15:38:34.492-04:002010-06-18T15:38:34.492-04:00all right how about this-- a PC dwarf wants his so...all right how about this-- a PC dwarf wants his son to be a female tiefling?Brian (brian_cooper at hotmail d o t com)https://www.blogger.com/profile/02805168206752602148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-89031996935120518212010-06-18T15:21:10.116-04:002010-06-18T15:21:10.116-04:00“...run the risk of being labelled a hypocrite in ...“...<b>run the risk of being labelled a hypocrite in the future.</b>”<br /><br />Bah! I don’t mind being called a hypocrit. We’re all hypocrites.<br /><br />More seriously, though, referees have to let players understand that nobody needs to feel bound by a (in retrospect) bad precedent. Most players can figure that out themselves, though. We all want our referees to make better decisions and learn from their mistakes. We don’t want referees who slow the game down or make too conservative judgements out of fear of living with a mistake that gets enshired in precedence.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-16404710933400369442010-06-18T15:14:53.726-04:002010-06-18T15:14:53.726-04:00Yes.
You've already established the fact that...Yes.<br /><br />You've already established the fact that gnomes come from dwarves, so it's not breaking your world rules at all.<br /><br />And it's not fudging the roll if you don't roll.<br /><br />If you want to look at it another way, 1.67% of dwarf births are gnomes. How many dwarves are there? How many times do they try to give birth over their long lives? Compare that to the gnomish die-off, and you get the size of the gnomish community, which hopefully will be considerable.<br /><br />The reason I'd allow it because it would present an interesting story and motivation for the character. "The failed" birth would explore the nature of gnomes and dwarves further, adding more detail to the picture of them in the world. The player is telling you that he wants to explore this "dungeon," which will have it's own monsters and pitfalls.<br /><br />Your world will be richer for it as you discover and build new webs of relationships. The interaction of the player's character with his offspring will determine how much of the greater dwarven community copes with their own failures, and how their failures come to term with them.<br /><br />[And through the correct choice of words, such as "failure," you can shape the direction of how you want the explorations to trend.]<br /><br />In a mechanical sense, the advantage here is that the player wants to explore a problematic relationship. There is an automatic downside to this relationship, which gives plenty of opportunities for roleplaying and interaction. A player insisting on a son would have to roll and take the risk of producing a gnome.*<br /><br />In return for accepting a negative consequence the player gets to choose the roll. It's a fair trade.<br /><br />[Similarly I'd allow a player king of a patriarchal kingdom to only have daughters because of the opportunities involved. Do the princesses have suitors hoping to gain the kingdom? Does the King set quests? Does one of the daughters assume a male persona and take the throne? Is the king Lear?]<br /><br />I love it when the players and actions describe the world for me, and it gives them a stake in building the world (which is why some GMs don't like it). They discover bits and pieces of the world that I have never realised were there before.<br /><br />For example a certain paranoid player, who was always looking for ambushes when travelling through hills, so the Am Bush was invented. They had tasy and invigorating seeds that were chewed and then spat out on the side of the road. So the well-drained hills on the side of the road became covered in Am Bushes.<br /><br />[* The fun in random encounter tables isn't the randomness. It's fitting the results of this randomness into the campaign. Why do you encounter this merchant caravan here? Where is it headed. Why is it carrying furs? And out of this your world grows.]Reverance Pavanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01217657347160811310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-79535431380190249312010-06-18T14:59:27.074-04:002010-06-18T14:59:27.074-04:00ravenconspiracy said...
Also the entire topic is ...<i>ravenconspiracy said... <br />Also the entire topic is frankly rediculous because we all know that gnomes mature from larva hatched from eggs implanted in the chest cavities of player characters.<br /></i><br />No, no. That's how Killer-Rabbits(tm) are born. <br /><i>And halflings are born when they burrow up from Hell. </i><br />Ok, this IS true. <br />Hmm, Hellborn Halflings...<br /><br /><i>Brian said... <br />On this particular example, perhaps I'm overly identifying with the dwarven father-- sure you will love your son happens to be a gnome, but can anyone honestly say he *wants* that? just because he thinks it would be "fun"?</i><br /><br />I think the player would think it is fun. For the NPC/PC Father, it should be unexpected (i.e., disappointment). Sure, they love their offspring. That's why they try to protect them. But there could still be a stigmata attached. But that's a matter for role-play. <br /><br />I'd do it once to see what happens. Twice to see if I liked it. Three times just to be sure. ;)<br /><br />Now, WWJD? (That's James, of course)<br /><br />Ciao!<br />GWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-82076940393636112392010-06-18T14:31:52.105-04:002010-06-18T14:31:52.105-04:00for me this is a very easy no way, no way.
this r...for me this is a very easy no way, no way.<br /><br />this reminds me of how my friends and I used to laugh at the Monster Manual for telling us so many monsters were "rare" or "very rare"-- and yet we'd met up with a lot more spectres than wild cattle. it is a good trick in story-telling to create the sense that something singular is happening, but when you do it by fudging die rolls on things like this, the strings show and it doesn't work for me.<br /><br />On this particular example, perhaps I'm overly identifying with the dwarven father-- sure you will love your son happens to be a gnome, but can anyone honestly say he *wants* that? just because he thinks it would be "fun"?Brian (brian_cooper at hotmail d o t com)https://www.blogger.com/profile/02805168206752602148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-5677917615660238262010-06-18T14:20:19.920-04:002010-06-18T14:20:19.920-04:00I'm in favor of The_Myth's suggestion, but...I'm in favor of The_Myth's suggestion, but I'd also add a chance of "Oh crap, what did I just create?!?"David The Archmagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649391406526258069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-51111769192898877162010-06-18T14:06:32.428-04:002010-06-18T14:06:32.428-04:00I am actually very comfortable with fudging rules ...I am actually very comfortable with fudging rules in order to make the game more fun because I like to get surprised. Like kelvingreen, if the players surprise me, entertain me, or other wise come up with a great idea, I'll overlook the dice; however, it must follow some kind of in-game logic. For example, in the case of making a gnome in Dwimmermount, I'd insist on a die roll. Since gnomes are very rare, I am guessing that to try and create them would have a much greater chance of a negative outcome or dwarves would be making gnomes all the time. Thus, a player could try, but would need to face the negative consequences of such an endeavor. This allows a player to be free and do what they want while also following the in-game logic of the Dwimmermount campaign.FrDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00459281821319914530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-39578475565825396512010-06-18T13:48:13.237-04:002010-06-18T13:48:13.237-04:00My general rule of thumb is that the dice trump my...My general rule of thumb is that the dice trump my story ideas, and if the players come up with an even better story idea, that trumps the dice.thekelvingreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928260185408072124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-17715447369762396872010-06-18T13:41:51.702-04:002010-06-18T13:41:51.702-04:00Wayne, you also have to consider, does the charact...Wayne, you also have to consider, does the character want to create a gnome, or does the player want to explore how the character will react to trying to create a son and getting a gnome instead.<br /><br />In the first case, sure, the character should have to do research, and probably go adventuring to find something to influence the probability, or find someone who has some critical knowledge.<br /><br />In the second case, if everyone agrees that would be something fun to explore, just let the situation happen. Pretend the critical failure occurred and the 1 in 6 probability happened.<br /><br />FrankFrankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15855679156477779666noreply@blogger.com