Forums of the Megaverse®

Why would a GM say how

You got my vote.

In the case of critical success or failure (rolling a natural 20 or 1 respectively), the GM should state the how to follow your example.

Player: Rolls a 1 for his attack.
GM: While swinging your great axe, your foot slips and your swing misses wildly.

We don't often get to chose how we screw up

Depends, but that is still technically the what not the how. I think so anyway.

The times I GM the players are always more creative than me anyway. So I let them describe the fumbles. I would make them do it anyway because I am so lazy.

Me, "your sword misses wildly almost slicing off Grolsch's ear."

Player, "my sword misses wildly almost slicing off Grolsch's ear and instead knocking over the candelabrum on the altar setting the draperies on fire."

Me, "Darn it why couldn't I have thought of that "

sithguy wrote:My friend and I were having an argument yesterday over the GM and player narrative responsibilities. I was saying the player should say how (I slash downward with my greatsword, etc.) and the GM should say what happens (Your downward slash makes a crack in his armor). My friend was saying that the GM should do both the how and what happens. Who is right or what are we doing wrong?

After playing Exalted, where the players can get bonuses depending on how accuratly they describe their actions, I'm very much in favor of the players describing what they are doing (attempting) and the GM only describing how they fail (if they actually fail that is). I also run a very cinimatic game, where the players are able to do get away with some actions that would be virtually impossible in the real world (like jumping onto a moving vehicle from an over pass).

in the group i am with it depends on the situation but i frequently describe what i am doing to the gm and he comes up with any appropriate negitives (i can sometime come up with some pretty of the wall stuff) i roll and if it works the gm describes the results or how the npc's respond. it should be interactive between gm and player otherwise your more storytelling than roleplaying if the gm does it all IMO

i always try to get my players to describe what they are doing. like JTwig i run a pretty cinematic game where i encourage my players to try to think of what they could do in the situation, not what the rules allow. if they come up with a good plan i figure out the odds/dice for it and let them roll.

in some situations ill describe what a player did to set up my next action, but after describing it ill ask the player if thats ok with them. sometimes they say "no i think it was more like this.." sometimes they just go with it.

my group right now is mostly seasoned players so when a critical comes up (success or failure) they usually jump right in and describe what happened, even if its really bad. in our last campaign my girlfriend was trying to show off and rolled a one to perform a special dance move she made up, while smoking her pipe on the roof of our carriage. i was about to say that she fell off the carriage and took some damage but she jumped in and said "i roll a one and fall from the carriage. i land face first on my pipe on the road and it stabs through the roof on my mouth, pops out a tooth and pokes out of my cheek." then she gave herself -1 PB...a beautiful elven woman with hillbilly teeth....

t0m wrote:a beautiful elven woman with hillbilly teeth....

She still has a purdy mouth.

sithguy wrote:My friend and I were having an argument yesterday over the GM and player narrative responsibilities. I was saying the player should say how (I slash downward with my greatsword, etc.) and the GM should say what happens (Your downward slash makes a crack in his armor). My friend was saying that the GM should do both the how and what happens. Who is right or what are we doing wrong?

It is a question of style...


My vote would be that as soon as the player says their action, the GM knows which side of the fence they're on, and then simply adjusts accordingly.

I ran a Rifts game once. In four 4-hour sessions there were 2 fights.

All the other time was spent adventuring.

lather wrote:

t0m wrote:a beautiful elven woman with hillbilly teeth....

She still has a purdy mouth.

<---this guy needs to be missing a tooth for these situations...

as for "i shoot the bastard in the head" and "i attack" over and over....

we also had a guy in that campaign who would always "attack the nearest guy with my best weapon". once in a blue moon he would do something amazing (2 goblins+handcuffs=wolven nunchaku) but the rest of the time it was like he wasnt even there.

Players should be descriptive in what they do, other wise the GM can take liberties and mess with you.

sithguy wrote:My friend and I were having an argument yesterday over the GM and player narrative responsibilities. I was saying the player should say how (I slash downward with my greatsword, etc.) and the GM should say what happens (Your downward slash makes a crack in his armor). My friend was saying that the GM should do both the how and what happens. Who is right or what are we doing wrong?

We usually just say, "I attack him" or something; I've never really seen much point in semi-dramatic gore/action.

And when we have done it where the player describes what he's doing, and the GM describes the effects, they don't always match, which is annoying.
For example, I remember saying once, "I try to gut his head off", and rolling well, and the GM saying, "Your sword hits him in the midsection, cutting him in half!"

So having one person do all the flavor text might be best, unless you guys can coordinate.

But in the end, I don't think it's anybody's responsibility.

sithguy wrote:My friend and I were having an argument yesterday over the GM and player narrative responsibilities. I was saying the player should say how (I slash downward with my greatsword, etc.) and the GM should say what happens (Your downward slash makes a crack in his armor). My friend was saying that the GM should do both the how and what happens. Who is right or what are we doing wrong?

Umm, do you both barrack for the same football teams (or whatever sport)?

Do you argue that one of you has to start barracking for the others team? That THAT is the RIGHT team?

Your describing two techniques here - their just like football teams - neither is RIGHT. Describe it this way to your GM.

However, the issue is that you both have to be using the same technique in game - one of you has to let go of the technqiue he barracks for and use the others method. Doesn't have to be all the time - each session you could take turns at which way to do it.