The Dresden Files > DFRPG
Funny/Epic/Legendary moments
Mr. Death:
--- Quote from: Addicted2aa on November 07, 2012, 07:23:07 PM ---a)I suppose, but that seems...cheap and forced. I don't see why it's a big deal to let the narrative play out.
--- End quote ---
How exactly is a central part of the gameplay system "cheap and forced"? A compel is letting the narrative play out. You seem to be under some weird misunderstanding that compels are somehow not part of the narrative, when reinforcing the narrative is exactly what compels and fate points are for.
It's as if you said that dice are cheap and forced, and instead of using dice you should just let the mechanics play out.
--- Quote ---b)The player? If they want to keep someone alive in that situation.
--- End quote ---
If the player wants to keep something alive, then the character dying is interesting and a consequence that they should be compensated for.
--- Quote ---You keep not addressing the point the player has already decided the action. This is not, I roll guns at him. It's I choose to summon up a gout of fire underneath his feet. The point is he's established a narrative action, succeeded at it, and no longer wants to follow the logical result.
--- End quote ---
Because it's irrelevant and erroneous. If the player succeeds in his roll, then by the RAW, the result is whatever the hell he wants it to be, barring a compel.
This is negotiable, yes, and has to be within reason, but the result of a good roll by no means whatsoever has to mean, "You hit him full on with the full force of the attack." It doesn't even have to mean you hit him with any part of the attack.
A mechanical hit is not, and never has to be, a hit in the narrative. Your position revolves entirely around insisting that this isn't the case, when it is explicitly the case by the RAW.
--- Quote ---That's all I'm talking about. That specific situation. In that situation I don't feel I'm complicating there life, if they want the NPC alive.
--- End quote ---
Then, quite frankly? You're wrong. If they want the NPC alive and you're saying the NPC is dead, that is a direct complication. I honestly do not understand how you think it couldn't be.
Addicted2aa:
--- Quote from: Mr. Death on November 07, 2012, 07:44:39 PM ---If the player wants to keep something alive, then the character dying is interesting and a consequence that they should be compensated for.
Because it's irrelevant and erroneous. If the player succeeds in his roll, then by the RAW, the result is whatever the hell he wants it to be, barring a compel.
This is negotiable, yes, and has to be within reason, but the result of a good roll by no means whatsoever has to mean, "You hit him full on with the full force of the attack." It doesn't even have to mean you hit him with any part of the attack.
A mechanical hit is not, and never has to be, a hit in the narrative. Your position revolves entirely around insisting that this isn't the case, when it is explicitly the case by the RAW.
Then, quite frankly? You're wrong. If they want the NPC alive and you're saying the NPC is dead, that is a direct complication. I honestly do not understand how you think it couldn't be.
--- End quote ---
I'm not saying the npc is dead. I'm asking them to tell me how he's alive. If you think saying I attempt to hit some one, succeed on the dice roll, means they can reskin what they were attempting to be something else as part of the success, they read the metaphor alot differently. Now maybe I'm missing a section as you keep saying that's RAW. Could you point to the passage that says, after deciding a course of action you can decide an outcome that is not the most likely result of succeeding on that attempt?
Lavecki121:
I kind of think you are both on opposite sides of the same coin. Death, you are saying that a character who hasnt decided to do a specific action shouldnt be punished for it, while Addicted is saying that if you decide to do something you are rolling to see that you did it.
Additionally Death is talking about trying to compel the character into getting the death, while Addicted is trying to get the character to self compel. They both have the same effect and the player is still rewarded if they have the character die.
However in Addicted's games (and I only know this because I have played them) he asks upfront "are you sure you want to do this thing even though it can kill him" then the player decides. I have had that come up multiple times and decided to go a different route.
The issue here is deciding what you do before or after the attack, narativly.
Let me try it with an example:
Mr.Death's Player: I want to shoot him...blah blah blah he is taken out, I got him in the leg and he is now taken out, busted knee, whatever
Addicted's Player: I want to shoot him in the head, that may kill him, dont care blah blah blah he is taken out, you cant really change that to say it didnt kill him. Reasonably
Mr. Death:
--- Quote from: Addicted2aa on November 07, 2012, 07:55:40 PM ---I'm not saying the npc is dead. I'm asking them to tell me how he's alive. If you think saying I attempt to hit some one, succeed on the dice roll, means they can reskin what they were attempting to be something else as part of the success, they read the metaphor alot differently. Now maybe I'm missing a section as you keep saying that's RAW. Could you point to the passage that says, after deciding a course of action you can decide an outcome that is not the most likely result of succeeding on that attempt?
--- End quote ---
The RAW says that on a Taken Out, the player decides what happens. The player decides if the target lives or dies.
Rolling to shoot someone and taking them out doesn't at all have to mean you actually shot them. All it means is that they're no longer fighting. It could mean the player missed by a mile, but in his haste to dodge the target fell and knocked himself out. It does not matter what the player said his intent was before he rolled the dice. If the player succeeds, and the target is Taken Out, the player decides how it plays out. It's an abstract. The only thing set in stone is the outcome after the player and GM decide it.
What you seem to want to do is lock the player's initial action in stone, which really isn't what the game is setting out to do. You're only setting in stone whether the action is a Block, Maneuver, Sprint, or Attack. All of the other details are decided in the outcome of the attack.
--- Quote from: Lavecki121 on November 07, 2012, 08:07:12 PM ---I kind of think you are both on opposite sides of the same coin. Death, you are saying that a character who hasnt decided to do a specific action shouldnt be punished for it, while Addicted is saying that if you decide to do something you are rolling to see that you did it.
--- End quote ---
Kind of. What I'm saying is that the player's action isn't set in stone until the outcome is decided.
--- Quote ---Mr.Death's Player: I want to shoot him...blah blah blah he is taken out, I got him in the leg and he is now taken out, busted knee, whatever
Addicted's Player: I want to shoot him in the head, that may kill him, dont care blah blah blah he is taken out, you cant really change that to say it didnt kill him. Reasonably
--- End quote ---
Pretty much. What I'm saying is "I want to shoot him in the head" is narrating the outcome of a Taken Out.
And even then, the player's only saying, "I want to shoot at his head." There's still nothing in the rules that ever states that he has to actually hit him in the head. You could very easily narrate a non-lethal headshot taken out as, "I shoot at his head, and miss by inches, demonstrating that I can put a bullet in his eye at any time, which leads him to surrender."
Mr. Death:
--- Quote from: Taran on November 07, 2012, 08:09:25 PM ---D&D Stuff
--- End quote ---
Funny story, one of my players is also used to D&D, and I had to remind him of this proviso (that the player decides the outcome) when he finished off a guy with a Guns roll that he wanted to keep for questioning.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version