ext_183045 ([identity profile] codrus.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] stevekenson 2008-03-05 03:12 am (UTC)

Something I noticed when I was running and playtesting a lot of GURPS books was that most GURPS gamemasters don't actually run it as written. They say "roll Acrobatics and tell me how much you make it by", not "roll against Acrobatics-3". There's a strong desire on the part of the gamemaster to have opportunities to fudge the results.

For games with a DC system, I'd say about half the rolls I asked for as a GM had an explictly known DC. For my next campaign, whatever it is, I'm planning on being far more up front on rolls.

As a player, knowing the DC matters for two reasons:
1. I may want to choose a different action if the odds suck.
2. The system may offer me a mechanism to improve my die rolls (e.g. SOTC fate points).

Both of these are important for me to assess my odds of 'winning' the roll, but I think the second one practically demands knowing at least the DC to avoid failure. Especially if failure in a situation has a known bad result. That is, I'm willing to spend however many fate points necessary to avoid falling into the deep chasm.


When I wrote up a mini-review of Esoterrorists, I really didn't like the game's suggestion that players should never be told the DC they are shooting for. It sparked a large discussion on the transparency issue.

http://codrus.livejournal.com/237177.html

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting