Interesting telekinesis situation.

[CBikle]

Last night in our Champions game, Zephyr (while holding an unconscious and bleeding Stormfront) performed a non-combat grab-by with telekinesis to grab Holocaust (who is unconscious) and flew off into the sunset (although the GM did allow me one final chance to ego blast Zephyr because of the no-range mod deal).

What are your thoughts on this, mechanicwise and gamewise ?

[Vanguard00]

I'm assuming that he was physically holding Stormfront and used the actual TK power to grab Holocaust.

If so, I don't see a problem with it from a mechanics point of view.

If you're asking about Zephyr holding one person, using TK to grab another and then get out of range before you can do anything about it, I'd have to know the exact situation, how the combat was run for that segment(s), and the relative speed of all involved.

If you're asking whether it's fair for the GM to get those three characters out of Dodge before you could nab 'em, it sounds like it wasn't the prettiest way to handle it, but I don't see anything wrong with a GM trying to keep his villains alive and free for future mischief as opposed to letting them be captured and/or hurt worse. Again, it might be the best way for the GM to go about it, but from a game/plot perspective it's perfectly reasonable.

So...did I come close to answering the question(s)?

[CBikle]

If you're asking about Zephyr holding one person, using TK to grab another and then get out of range before you can do anything about it, I'd have to know the exact situation, how the combat was run for that segment(s), and the relative speed of all involved.

Ah. I forgot to mention that Zephyr did all this in one phase (however she already was holding StormFront; not TK, just "Fireman's Carry" I guess).




So...did I come close to answering the question(s)?
Yep. Thanks.

[Vanguard00]

Ah. I forgot to mention that Zephyr did all this in one phase (however she already was holding StormFront; not TK, just "Fireman's Carry" I guess).
There are better ways to save your villains than just having them skedaddle out like that. Zephyr shouldn't have been able to move more than 15" under the best of circumstances, and that's assuming that grabbing Holocaust is only a half-phase action.

[Doc Democracy]

Ah. I forgot to mention that Zephyr did all this in one phase (however she already was holding StormFront; not TK, just "Fireman's Carry" I guess).

I guess that your main quibble would be whether the GM used non-combat multiples on Zephyr's flight while grabbing an unconscious teammate?

I wouldn't allow it. The phase used to grab Holocaust would be limited to half a combat move with the following phase then full movement (all non-combat).

As Vanguard said - it would depend on relative speeds and phases to know whether everything done was by the book - it could even depend on the write-up of the telekinesis.


Doc

[ghost-angel]

5ERp363 has something to say on the matter... You can still Attack (or perform an Attack Action) at Non-Combat Movement velocity. But you are at Zero OCV. Incidentally you're at 1/2DECV as well - your shot may well have hit.

Since a Grab-By is performed as a Full Move function, a Full Non-Combat Move Grab-By is legal, just very difficult.

[CBikle]

5ERp363 has something to say on the matter... You can still Attack (or perform an Attack Action) at Non-Combat Movement velocity. But you are at Zero OCV. Incidentally you're at 1/2DECV as well - your shot may well have hit.

Since a Grab-By is performed as a Full Move function, a Full Non-Combat Move Grab-By is legal, just very difficult.

I agree, but the GM decided that no attack roll was necessary. Automatic hit.

Basically, she swept in and they were gone.

[Susano]

I agree, but the GM decided that no attack roll was necessary. Automatic hit.

Basically, she swept in and they were gone.

That strikes me as unfair. If the villains were bearing down on a PC in the same situation, would the PC have to roll?

[CBikle]

That strikes me as unfair. If the villains were bearing down on a PC in the same situation, would the PC have to roll?

This is the first time in game that someone has tried a noncombat grab-by with telekinesis...

[ghost-angel]

I agree, but the GM decided that no attack roll was necessary. Automatic hit.

Basically, she swept in and they were gone.
Then the GM was being unfair and broke the rules. Even if the grabbed were at 0DCV the attacker is still 0OCV leaving a flat 11- +CSLs to the attack roll... there's room for missing in there.

And I bet the GM forgot she was at 1/2DECV for that parting shot of yours too. :)

[Sean Waters]

On the face of it it is book legal.

To get out of sight range in a single phase where (moving NCM) might be a trick: I'm very hot on turn modes for NCM, if they apply to that type of movement.

There is nothing I am aware of that prevents you holding one person with TK and grabbing another, so long as you have sufficient strength.

A prone, unconscious target is DCV 0, so even moving non-combat (and assuming there are no range modifiers) you grab on 8- (-3 OCV for grab by) .

Assuming that the roll was actually made, and the PCs were allowed to do the same thing if the shoew was on the other foot, I don't see a problem.

I don't think it is very realistic, and I do think it is the sort of thing that would upset me in a game I was in, so by my own standards, I don't think it is a good rule, but as I keep on getting told: what has reality got to do with it?

If the roll was not made it is a deus ex machina and, IMO, bad GMing, unless everyone was just mistaken about the rules.

I know sometimes things go wrong and you have to pull the NPCs out, but it could have been done more skillfully than that., if it really was necessary. Hell, he could have faked the roll, come to that.

[ghost-angel]

On the other hand... the only reason a GM would skip a roll like that is because doing otherwise may have ruined his plot completely.

[CBikle]

And I bet the GM forgot she was at 1/2DECV for that parting shot of yours too.

Actually, I didn't know that DECV was halved from noncombat moves. Is that a new 5ER thing ?

[Killer Shrike]

Attacks when moving NCM are at 0 OCV, Grab By has a -3 penalty...8- minus any range mods for Grab By......

On the otherhand, I imagine your GM is running the Holocaust encounter from Champions Battlegrounds. You can capture Holocaust at the end w/o disrupting the adventures IIRC, but on the otherhand Holocaust running loose is more interesting than Holocaust captured.


The bad guys get away in the comics all the time, so that they can come back and fight another day. Reoccuring villains are important to that "comic book" feel. One of my greatest frustrations running Champions is when a group of players just doesnt get that and doggedly refuses to let the bad guys get away, despite mounting evidence that the story calls for it. Players that want to play superheroes just like a dungeon romp rather than participating in a collaborative comic book, in other words.


Also, give your GM the benefit of the doubt. Even if there isnt something you don't know about the character going on and the GM did "auto-succeed" the roll, it doesnt sound like he did it to hurt a PC or some other adversarial action. It sounds like he did it to save a running plot line. Be mature enough to understand the bigger picture and try to think of it in terms of a comic book. Take enjoyment from the storyline and don't think of everything in terms of "win" and "lose".

Use it as a roleplaying opportunity. If it bothers you so much, have your character swear a vow to track them down and bring them to justice, and start investigating along those lines. Make it a running plot point...take ownership of the opportunity to enmesh your character in the fabric of the setting.

[Killer Shrike]

As an aside I heavily rewrote Holocaust for when I used him in the Champions Battleground adventure "Under Construction" to make him capable of standing up to a group of supers mono y mono for a prolonged encounter.

I posted it in the Playtesters forum back then...for those of you with access:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=110731#post110731

[CBikle]

The bad guys get away in the comics all the time, so that they can come back and fight another day. Reoccuring villains are important to that "comic book" feel. One of my greatest frustrations running Champions is when a group of players just doesnt get that and doggedly refuses to let the bad guys get away, despite mounting evidence that the story calls for it.

In comics, the only times the heroes don't chase after the villain is if:

A. There's a greater menace to contend with.

B. The master villain slips and falls into the same volcano that he was going to use to power his "Orbital Seismic Laser" and, presumably dies as one of the heroes solemnly says: "There's no way anyone could have survived that." Of course the (heavily-bandaged) villain will show up 6 months later...

Shy of these two events (or their equivalents), the heroes in fiction or RPGs will attempt to persue the villains with their success determined by skills, persistence, luck and innovation.

You've hit on an RPG pet-peeve of mine. Nothing takes me out of the game faster, than when a GM ham-handedly intercedes in a game to achieve some story effect that will, presumably, make the game "better".

My personal preference is for GMs to be semi-invisible and to act more as a narrator than "story teller", however I understand that some players prefer otherwise.




Use it as a roleplaying opportunity. If it bothers you so much, have your character swear a vow to track them down and bring them to justice, and start investigating along those lines. Make it a running plot point...take ownership of the opportunity to enmesh your character in the fabric of the setting.

As a player, this ruins the game for me and completely destroys the role-playing mood. As such, I'd rather not do anything that might encourage the GM to continue doing Deus Ex Machina stuff like this in the future.

He just as easily, could've had them escape off-panel and everyone (me included) would've been fine with it.

Alternatively, he could've had Zephyr accidentally fly into a volcano and I would've been fine with that too because, y'know, nobody could survive that.

[Sean Waters]

Attacks when moving NCM are at 0 OCV, Grab By has a -3 penalty...8- minus any range mods for Grab By......

On the otherhand, I imagine your GM is running the Holocaust encounter from Champions Battlegrounds. You can capture Holocaust at the end w/o disrupting the adventures IIRC, but on the otherhand Holocaust running loose is more interesting than Holocaust captured.


The bad guys get away in the comics all the time, so that they can come back and fight another day. Reoccuring villains are important to that "comic book" feel. One of my greatest frustrations running Champions is when a group of players just doesnt get that and doggedly refuses to let the bad guys get away, despite mounting evidence that the story calls for it. Players that want to play superheroes just like a dungeon romp rather than participating in a collaborative comic book, in other words.


Also, give your GM the benefit of the doubt. Even if there isnt something you don't know about the character going on and the GM did "auto-succeed" the roll, it doesnt sound like he did it to hurt a PC or some other adversarial action. It sounds like he did it to save a running plot line. Be mature enough to understand the bigger picture and try to think of it in terms of a comic book. Take enjoyment from the storyline and don't think of everything in terms of "win" and "lose".

Use it as a roleplaying opportunity. If it bothers you so much, have your character swear a vow to track them down and bring them to justice, and start investigating along those lines. Make it a running plot point...take ownership of the opportunity to enmesh your character in the fabric of the setting.

Yes, sometimes the bad guys have to get away, and they do. I've never felt that it was necessary to try and persuade the players that they should let the bad guys get away to further the plot though. Let them try as hard as they like to stop the bad guys getting away, let them pull out all of the stops. The GM is in control of the whole WORLD. If the best he can come up with is a very obvious rules fudge, then shame on him.

I think GMs should be open to the possibilty that, just becasue they've plotted it out, that ain't the way it has to go. The point of gaming, for me, is to have a good time, not to ake the GM feel good becasue his beautifully plotted opus worked out just as planned. And I say that as someone who GMs at least as much as I play. Many of the best games I've 'run' have been when something has NOT gone according to plan. It adds a layer of realism, and lends the players aa real sense that their actions have an effect ont he world. When I do decide to cheat, and I do, I've failed if they notice.

I don't want to come across all harsh: that's just the way it is.

[Sean Waters]

OK, that was a bit harsh. I meant it, but perhaps it would be best to have a word, player to GM, and just say: that really jarred, and spoiled the mood for me. In future, could you be a bit less obvious about it?

[CBikle]

Yes, sometimes the bad guys have to get away, and they do. I've never felt that it was necessary to try and persuade the players that they should let the bad guys get away to further the plot though. Let them try as hard as they like to stop the bad guys getting away, let them pull out all of the stops. The GM is in control of the whole WORLD. If the best he can come up with is a very obvious rules fudge, then shame on him.

I think GMs should be open to the possibilty that, just becasue they've plotted it out, that ain't the way it has to go. The point of gaming, for me, is to have a good time, not to ake the GM feel good becasue his beautifully plotted opus worked out just as planned. And I say that as someone who GMs at least as much as I play. Many of the best games I've 'run' have been when something has NOT gone according to plan. It adds a layer of realism, and lends the players aa real sense that their actions have an effect ont he world. When I do decide to cheat, and I do, I've failed if they notice.

I don't want to come across all harsh: that's just the way it is.

I agree 100 % with everything in this post

[Killer Shrike]

In comics, the only times the heroes don't chase after the villain is if:

A. There's a greater menace to contend with.

B. The master villain slips and falls into the same volcano that he was going to use to power his "Orbital Seismic Laser" and, presumably dies as one of the heroes solemnly says: "There's no way anyone could have survived that." Of course the (heavily-bandaged) villain will show up 6 months later...

Shy of these two events (or their equivalents), the heroes in fiction or RPGs will attempt to persue the villains with their success determined by skills, persistence, luck and innovation.

You've hit on an RPG pet-peeve of mine. Nothing takes me out of the game faster, than when a GM ham-handedly intercedes in a game to achieve some story effect that will, presumably, make the game "better".

My personal preference is for GMs to be semi-invisible and to act more as a narrator than "story teller", however I understand that some players prefer otherwise.



As a player, this ruins the game for me and completely destroys the role-playing mood. As such, I'd rather not do anything that might encourage the GM to continue doing Deus Ex Machina stuff like this in the future.

He just as easily, could've had them escape off-panel and everyone (me included) would've been fine with it.

Alternatively, he could've had Zephyr accidentally fly into a volcano and I would've been fine with that too because, y'know, nobody could survive that.


Im not saying you shouldnt chase after them, Im saying that you should be willing to accept that not everything will be resolved strictly by random dice rolls if the GM decides that something is dramatically appropriate or necessary.

The GM might have been "ham-fisted" on this occasion, but a) you don't and shouldn't know everything about how the character is designed, b) you're not the GM and don't know what was actually going on in his head at the time, and c) considering he is providing the venue for the game to even occur in the first place you could provide him some slack.


If the game itself isn't fun then get another GM.

If the game is generally fun and this is just a pet peeve of yours than either get over it or put your money where your mouth is and GM your own game.

[Killer Shrike]

Yes, sometimes the bad guys have to get away, and they do. I've never felt that it was necessary to try and persuade the players that they should let the bad guys get away to further the plot though. Let them try as hard as they like to stop the bad guys getting away, let them pull out all of the stops. The GM is in control of the whole WORLD. If the best he can come up with is a very obvious rules fudge, then shame on him.


A) At no point did I say that the heroes should "let the bad guys get away". I'm saying that after they've made an attempt to stop them from getting away and the GM has them continue to get away, its a clear message that the heroes have done their part in game, but the overarching plot line requires the villains to escape.

Unless the game is a one shot, there will be another day.

B) True, if events occured exactly as one disgruntled player described them, and they left nothing out and did not slant things in the slightest according to their personal bias, then yeah it sounds like the GM was a little clumsy or painted himself into a corner and couldnt get out of it gracefully.

But, you have to take the account of the single player with a grain of salt and realize that neither you nor he has all of the information available on which to base a judgement.

Further, even if indeed the GM screwed it up in objective terms, you have to allow some degree of latitude for the GM's experience level and ability to think on his feet. GM's are human, and they too make mistakes. In the scheme of things this sort of mistake is negligible and hardly worth commenting on. Nobody was hurt, life goes on, the game continues to roll forward.

Becoming unduly agitated over this is akin to cursing an author or director that wrote an enjoyable novel or directed an entertaining movie but didnt quite stick the ending just right.

Comment on it by all means and let the GM know that even if he does plan to have the villains get away he should come up with a more graceful exit plan next time, but let it go before it poisons the whole campaign.


For the rest of us not directly involved, it's all well and good to consider the scenario as a botch and deprecate the GM, but that's not very constructive either. Encouraging a disgruntled player in their griping is basically sabotaging a fellow GM's game. You're just fueling a mountain out of a mole hill style greivance to no beneficial effect.



I think GMs should be open to the possibilty that, just becasue they've plotted it out, that ain't the way it has to go. The point of gaming, for me, is to have a good time, not to ake the GM feel good becasue his beautifully plotted opus worked out just as planned. And I say that as someone who GMs at least as much as I play. Many of the best games I've 'run' have been when something has NOT gone according to plan. It adds a layer of realism, and lends the players aa real sense that their actions have an effect ont he world. When I do decide to cheat, and I do, I've failed if they notice.

Very true, but rather than landing at the other extreme, which is that all outcomes are completely out of the GM's hands and are solely a product of randomized resolution is no better.

There is a middle ground, wherein most events resolve naturally, but things that are crucial to the plot are nudged as necessary. Mature players are able to take the long view.



I don't want to come across all harsh: that's just the way it is.
Rather, that's the way you see it. It's not a fact, it's a preference. And that's totally fine; just allow for the fact that not everyone will share your preference, and for the possibility that your preference may not be the most ideal solution in all circumstances.

[Gary]

Then the GM was being unfair and broke the rules. Even if the grabbed were at 0DCV the attacker is still 0OCV leaving a flat 11- +CSLs to the attack roll... there's room for missing in there.

And I bet the GM forgot she was at 1/2DECV for that parting shot of yours too. :)


Zephyr probably has enough pts in TK that she can Spread for enough OCV to virtually auto-succeed and still have enough Str to grab Holocaust.

[Killer Shrike]

Zephyr probably has enough pts in TK that she can Spread for enough OCV to virtually auto-succeed and still have enough Str to grab Holocaust.
Assuming the GM is using the optional STR Spread, that's a very good point and is the sort of thing I mean when I say the player is not necessarily aware of everything that was going on behind the GM screen.

[Gary]

Assuming the GM is using the optional STR Spread, that's a very good point and is the sort of thing I mean when I say the player is not necessarily aware of everything that was going on behind the GM screen.


With a Ranged attack such as TK, I don't think it's an optional rule. I think any Ranged Attack can Spread as a default unless stated otherwise.

[radioKAOS]

Zephyr should have created a diversion first.

Put some innocents in danger and let the Heroes sort it out.

It was a poor decision on the part of the GM.

[Killer Shrike]

With a Ranged attack such as TK, I don't think it's an optional rule. I think any Ranged Attack can Spread as a default unless stated otherwise.
Any ranged attack based on Damage Classes; TK is STR based.


Personally I like and allow STR to be spread, so its all good for me either way.

[Manic Typist]

Then the GM was being unfair and broke the rules.

GMs can't break the rules. The rules are whatever the GMs decide, whenever they decide.

Consistency they can violate, but whatever they say IS the rule.

I don't see a huge issue. This looks like it was done for the benefit of the players. To give them a more enjoyable experience later. After all, the players WON the fight. The villains had their tails between their legs! It wasn't like the GM handwaved a sudden defeat onto the players, or even just a nasty attack! While an off panel vanishing act would have been best, or at least a hidden roll, I can certainly buy this before I buy something as ex machina as a volcano, or even the building starting to collapse.

As long as these tools are used for the BENEFIT of the PCs, I am typically ok with it. Sure, it wasn't as stylish as it could have been, but you know, what kind of superhero shoots someone in the back while they are running away carrying an injured comrade? That's not very stylish either...

So, in small doses, GM ex machina is a good thing.

[CBikle]

what kind of superhero shoots someone in the back while they are running away carrying an injured comrade? That's not very stylish either...


Stylish ? perhaps not, but very much in character for this character and appropriate for this particular game.

We almost certainly would've let Zephyr and Stormfront go, but the dealbreaker was her grabbing Holocaust as well:

In this scenario, Holocaust had been portrayed as a super-terrorist who had achieved something of a body count in his backstory. Basically, we're talking
General Osama Bin Zod. After meeting and fighting him, we have no reason to believe otherwise.

It was a fairly tough battle (power level-wise, Holocaust alone is waaaay past what our group can handle; to his credit, the GM didn't run him as nasty as he probably could have, but he was almost impossible to take down after two sessions of combat) and keeping the guy down became a priority.

Not sure if you really wanted an answer to your question, but there it is.

[Manic Typist]

Stylish ? perhaps not, but very much in character for this character and appropriate for this particular game.

We almost certainly would've let Zephyr and Stormfront go, but the dealbreaker was her grabbing Holocaust as well:

In this scenario, Holocaust had been portrayed as a super-terrorist who had achieved something of a body count in his backstory. Basically, we're talking
General Osama Bin Zod. After meeting and fighting him, we have no reason to believe otherwise.

It was a fairly tough battle (power level-wise, Holocaust alone is waaaay past what our group can handle; to his credit, the GM didn't run him as nasty as he probably could have, but he was almost impossible to take down after two sessions of combat) and keeping the guy down became a priority.

Not sure if you really wanted an answer to your question, but there it is.

See, character attitudes are important here. Under those conditions, it seems reasonable. But also under those conditions, considering that the GM seems to have UNDER played an NPC to the benefit of the PCs, it seems fair that the GM can save the most likely story critical NPC with a little OVER play later.

It balances to me, and it seems to be best for all involved.

[Sean Waters]

:)

Two issues:

1. Was it played right?

2. Are the rules right?

1. My take is this. The GM can do what they like and make up any rules they like, but they won't have the trust of the players, or the players at all if they are seen to be doing this kind of monkey business. They might as well just sit the players down and read them the plot in narrative form - after all the players are given the imp[ression that if it is not in the script, then it ain't going to happen. Even if that is trues, they shouldn't be left thinking that - nothing NOTHING spoils a game more than the players starting to think that the game would run just fine if they were not there - they won't be.

Yes, I'm commenting on one player's perspective. That's what I've been asked to comment on. I could make up all sorts of excuses for why the GM did what he did, from plot to inexperience to trying out a new rule in gameplay, but it is making it up. If the GM wants to post his side I'll give that due consideration, but at present I'm just working with what I've got.

2. The rules are not good ones, to my mind. I'm particularly concerned about the spreading suggestion. A grab by gets a strength bonus from velocity of v/5 - which means, at NC velocities, the bonus is likely to be large. 20" at NC velocity equals +40 STR, so even with a modest 40STR TK you can afford to devote 20 STR to +4 spreading and still have 60 STR for grabbing, and that is an example of quite low NC velocity.

That would mean you could grab with 60 STR an unsuspecting target on 12-. You could then guide the into the side of a building at NC velocity. Ouch. Not a lot of use IN the average combat but it could be a way to take out

The point is tha TK combined with a grab by works very differently from an EB, and you should be well aware of the potential consequences if you allow this: it is powerful offence not just defence.

Moreover, the OCV you can generate is NOT linked to your velocity - potentially you could be moving at thousands of miles an hour and still be able to hit as accurately as a normal running at 24" a turn.

Personally I allow NC velocity to be used for movement only: no attacks, not even any cunning manouvres - basically fast, straight, movement, and nothing else really - it is a getting there (or getting away) power, that allows for little else.

Worth thinking about.

[Killer Shrike]

Its late and I have to get up early so Im not going to bother responding to that in its entirety partly because I dont feel like it but mostly because the bulk of it is just a regurgitation or your previous post. You don't like it, and we totally get that. Thanks for emoting it so clearly.

If you ever get a chance to meet the GM face to face perhaps you'll pause to get his side of the story before you start pelting him with stones fueled by your reighteous indignation.




As far as the v/5 extra STR granted from Grab By, it specifically only adds for purposes of succeeding with the Grab, a STR vs STR opposed roll. Thus, it would not be usable to fuel a spread even if the GM allows STR to be spread. It's ok; you can breathe now.


Although, now that Ive got the book in front of me a literal reading indicates that Grab By is not usable via TK. Only Grab and Strike are available to use with TK by default. Personally, I would extend that to Grab By since it is just Grab + Move By, but by the book its not legal by default. An extra rock for you to hurl at the GM someday.

[Sean Waters]

Its late and I have to get up early so Im not going to bother responding to that in its entirety partly because I dont feel like it but mostly because the bulk of it is just a regurgitation or your previous post. You don't like it, and we totally get that. Thanks for emoting it so clearly.

If you ever get a chance to meet the GM face to face perhaps you'll pause to get his side of the story before you start pelting him with stones fueled by your reighteous indignation.

If you want to ignore it, ignore it, if you are going to comment on it have the decency to do so from an informed position, and read it first, and see what I actually have top say.





As far as the v/5 extra STR granted from Grab By, it specifically only adds for purposes of succeeding with the Grab, a STR vs STR opposed roll. Thus, it would not be usable to fuel a spread even if the GM allows STR to be spread. It's ok; you can breathe now.


Although, now that Ive got the book in front of me a literal reading indicates that Grab By is not usable via TK. Only Grab and Strike are available to use with TK by default. Personally, I would extend that to Grab By since it is just Grab + Move By, but by the book its not legal by default. An extra rock for you to hurl at the GM someday.


Any ranged attack based on Damage Classes; TK is STR based.


Personally I like and allow STR to be spread, so its all good for me either way.

I'm sorry for misinterpretting your previous post: you seemed to be suggesting that it would be appropriate.


A) At no point did I say that the heroes should "let the bad guys get away". I'm saying that after they've made an attempt to stop them from getting away and the GM has them continue to get away, its a clear message that the heroes have done their part in game, but the overarching plot line requires the villains to escape.

I'm sorry for upsetting you on this one too, only I had read this:


One of my greatest frustrations running Champions is when a group of players just doesnt get that and doggedly refuses to let the bad guys get away, despite mounting evidence that the story calls for it.

Now I appreciate you don't like me knocking the GM on the basis of the evidence of only one player. I'm really not sure how I feel about you knocking the player, because, my friend, that is what you come across as doing in denigrating his position, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

....but I'm just reacting now, aren't I? I don't think I should post on this topic again: things are getting a little heated. See you elsewhere on the boards. I'll buy the beers, and we can laugh about all of this.

Sean

[Killer Shrike]

If you want to ignore it, ignore it, if you are going to comment on it have the decency to do so from an informed position, and read it first, and see what I actually have top say.

You do like to jump to extremes, it seems. I didnt say I was ignoring it, I said I wasnt RESPONDING to it. It is basically just your previous opinion restated, and thus there is no point in continuing to respond to it with a counter opinion; you obviously arent going to be swayed.




I'm sorry for misinterpretting your previous post: you seemed to be suggesting that it would be appropriate.

More polarized thinking on your part. There is still the character's base STR involved with the Grab other than the v/5 portion that is not limited to only succeeding at the Grab.



I'm sorry for upsetting you on this one too, only I had read this:

Um, bro, hate to disillusion you but Im not upset.





Now I appreciate you don't like me knocking the GM on the basis of the evidence of only one player. I'm really not sure how I feel about you knocking the player, because, my friend, that is what you come across as doing in denigrating his position, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

....but I'm just reacting now, aren't I? I don't think I should post on this topic again: things are getting a little heated. See you elsewhere on the boards. I'll buy the beers, and we can laugh about all of this.

Sean

What part of MOUNTING do you not understand? In other words, the villains are getting away, the PC's valiantly try to stop them, but the GM extracts the villains further away and makes it clear that they are not interested in continuing the encounter. The GM falls out of combat time and narrates it. PC's doggedly continue, GM continues to have the villains get away.

At this point its increasingly obvious that COMBAT is over and the villains are going to get away, period. By hardheadedly refusing to pick up on that the players that wont let go are ignoring MOUNTING evidence that the story calls for the villains to get away. The PC's did their job, their initial effort suffices.

Also, Im not denegrating the player, Im suggesting that the player mature a little, put their greivance aside, and consider the bigger picture.

[CBikle]

What part of MOUNTING do you not understand? In other words, the villains are getting away, the PC's valiantly try to stop them, but the GM extracts the villains further away and makes it clear that they are not interested in continuing the encounter. The GM falls out of combat time and narrates it. PC's doggedly continue, GM continues to have the villains get away.

At this point its increasingly obvious that COMBAT is over and the villains are going to get away, period. By hardheadedly refusing to pick up on that the players that wont let go are ignoring MOUNTING evidence that the story calls for the villains to get away. The PC's did their job, their initial effort suffices.


I guess some players would be ok with this, but most that I know wouldn't.

I'd argue that that style of GMing will probably lead to the gradual disintegration of the game. Kind of a "winning the battle but losing the war" kind of thing.

Out of curiosity, why does "the story" have to be written in stone ? Using your example, why couldn't the rest of the "story" be resolved by other villains who attempt to carry out the plans of the original villains or attempt to break them out ?


Also, Im not denegrating the player, Im suggesting that the player mature a little, put their greivance aside, and consider the bigger picture.

Mature a little ? Dude, we're grown men pretending to be superheroes...

In all seriousness, thanks for the reply (although I couldn't disagree more).

[Killer Shrike]

I guess some players would be ok with this, but most that I know wouldn't.

I'd argue that that style of GMing will probably lead to the gradual disintegration of the game. Kind of a "winning the battle but losing the war" kind of thing.

It's a roleplaying game. There is no "winning" and "losing". Its an exercise in collaborative storytelling. Who or what do you think you are winning over? Your make believe character beat up some other make believe character via many rolls of mechanical probability ranodmizers. What constitutes victory in that scenario?

The real "victory" in roleplaying is being able to string multiple sessions together into a coherent chronicle, shared amongst all the participants.

Further, try not to think in absolutes. Just because the GM tweaked things for purposes of persisting a plot line when they didnt see any other way out doesn't mean that they ALWAYS will.



Out of curiosity, why does "the story" have to be written in stone ? Using your example, why couldn't the rest of the "story" be resolved by other villains who attempt to carry out the plans of the original villains or attempt to break them out ?
Are you so desperate for validation that you need everything to be a tidy little success?

The GM's plot line is the GM's plot line. The GM is looking beyond the now, their vision must extend beyond the resolution of a single encounter. No one can answer that question other than your GM.





Mature a little ? Dude, we're grown men pretending to be superheroes...



Hmm...Im tempted to psychoanalyze that one, but it would just amount to a personal attack so Ill just let it slide.





In all seriousness, thanks for the reply (although I couldn't disagree more).

Well, ultimately, if you dont agree with your GM's approach badly enough, you can either leave the game or quit yer *****in and run the game yourself. Your GM is providing you with a service. If you don't appreciate it, then stop wasting their time and move on.

[CBikle]

It's a roleplaying game. There is no "winning" and "losing". Its an exercise in collaborative storytelling. Who or what do you think you are winning over? Your make believe character beat up some other make believe character via many rolls of mechanical probability ranodmizers. What constitutes victory in that scenario?

The real "victory" in roleplaying is being able to string multiple sessions together into a coherent chronicle, shared amongst all the participants.


I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about you.

Specifically the example you (rather rudely to Sean, I might add)posted:


What part of MOUNTING do you not understand? In other words, the villains are getting away, the PC's valiantly try to stop them, but the GM extracts the villains further away and makes it clear that they are not interested in continuing the encounter. The GM falls out of combat time and narrates it. PC's doggedly continue, GM continues to have the villains get away.

At this point its increasingly obvious that COMBAT is over and the villains are going to get away, period. By hardheadedly refusing to pick up on that the players that wont let go are ignoring MOUNTING evidence that the story calls for the villains to get away.

Now with this:

The GM's plot line is the GM's plot line. The GM is looking beyond the now, their vision must extend beyond the resolution of a single encounter. No one can answer that question other than your GM.

What happened to this being an effort in collaborative storytelling between GMs and PCs ?


Well, ultimately, if you dont agree with your GM's approach badly enough, you can either leave the game or quit yer *****in and run the game yourself.
Dude...the. only. one. *****ing. is. you.

[Killer Shrike]

I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about you.

Specifically the example you (rather rudely to Sean, I might add)posted:

"I'd argue that that style of GMing will probably lead to the gradual disintegration of the game. Kind of a "winning the battle but losing the war" kind of thing." -- CBikle




What happened to this being an effort in collaborative storytelling between GMs and PCs ?

The GM is still responsible for the general direction and plot line; setting the stage as it were. A fact that you surely must be aware of.



Dude...the. only. one. *****ing. is. you.

How could I be *****ing about your complaint against your GM in a game I wasnt involved with? In a thread started by you for the express purpose of whining about an action taken by your GM that you didnt agree with, no less.

Whatever.

Good luck with your game, and give my condolences to your GM.