RE: Re: A little self-conscious self-defense

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:52:12 -0000

> > But that having been said, Greg is still one of the very few
> people I've
> > ever heard attempt to defend the idea that at times the players
> *should* sit
> > back and watch the NPCs in admiration, without being able to
> affect the course of events.
>
> I think this is grossly unfair Jane. Who wants to play in a game
> where no one is better than the player characters?

Did I say that? No. Am I going to bother defending such an obviously stupid straw man? No.

> Do you seriously
> think that folks are saying that the GM is rolling dice for a fight
> between an NPC and a group of mooks? Come on, GM describes it in
> verbally and then move on (assuming mooks are suitably dispatched).

And then moves on to what the players do that can alter the situation - oh, nothing. To what decisions the players can make - oh, they can't. There's a fight, which they WILL take part in, but which is guaranteed to fail. Plenty of events, but no chance that the PC being present will ever make a difference to what's going on - in fact, methods given to help the GM stop the players making decisions. And the explanation as presented on the lists was that it's good for the players to realise that they're not the centre of the universe. Oh, really?

I've managed to run games where the "big fight" is between two groups of NPCs both of whom are much higher powered than the PCs, and there's no need to do it like that. Set up a balanced contest, then leave it up to the PCs to augment whichever side they choose, is the easiest so far. And, of course, let them narrate the result. But the PCs have to have an impact on *something*, or what's the point? They *are* the centre of their story, if not the universe.