[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(TFT) Re: TFT Digest V1 #269
>From: Michael Taylor <MichaelTaylor1@compuserve.com>
>The only other time when a Game Master has a chance
>to be obviously fair and impartial is when two player character's
>try to kill each other and the Game Master lets them. He checks their
>character sheets to make sure that the weapons they are using are
>actually written down, and they aren't trying to cheat.
>David Michael Grouchy II
>I'm curious about handling this situation, however. The problem with this
>situation is that rarely are the characters evenly matched. The toughest
>one is probably going to win. PCs get tough pretty fast, and its rare that
>they all get tough at the same time and then decide to go face-to-face
>with each other. Usually it's a middle-of-the-night backstab or an obvious
>The GM can hardly be said to be being fair in this case - he KNOWS how it's
>going to come out, just as if he created a bruiser NPC to throw against
>Also, one of the players (the one most likely to get killed) is probably
>not having very much fun. So an "impartial" GM is this case, would be a
>lousy GM. The first job of a GM is to make sure that everyone is having
>>From: "grabowski" <email@example.com>
>>Personally, I would say that one of the players isn't roleplaying and
>>talk to him as a player. The underlying assumption of a "party" is that no
>>matter how much they disagree or hate each other - they don't kill each
>>other. The adventure-based literature and movies these games emulate simply
>>don't have members of the same 'party' killing each other.
>> What do the rest think?
Actually, in a long-running campaign, a mismatch (I was on the likely to
lose end) did occur with a character of mine and another players character.
It involved the way the party would react to some tureasure, after another
character had lost a fight to an NPC. I forget all the details, but at one
point I broke character and asked the other player, a friend of mine if he
was o.k. with the situation. His reply was something to the effect that we
were cool, but one of us was going to role up a new character.
Although we managed to reach a compromise (the party permantly split,
with some characters vowing that if they met again it would be for the last
time), but it was fun, and the combat would have been fun, as each character
was well developed, and had hidden talents/weapons/tricks to use in the
fight. If it had gone to a final fight, the action would have been glorious.
And I would probably have had to roll up a new character.
So when actions occur in character, a good GM, IMO, should allow them.
If two players act out of character, or based on personal rather than
character knowledge, a GM should feel free to disallow the action, or rule it
fails. This often occurs when one player passes a note to the GM. Someone
will state that they are watching that player's character very intently.
Since this is based on Out of Character knowledge (the passed note) a good GM
says o.k., and ignores the statement. Players who don't remain at least
close to in character lose all right to complain if the GM also cheats.
Of course, characters who commit murder have a different lok in their
eye, that will affect them later in the campaign. Justice may be slow, but
in my campaigns, it is usually sure.
Post to the entire list by writing to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Unsubscribe by mailing to email@example.com with the message body