Re: [DL] Dealing With Wind

[Ross Coburn <coburn@sympatico.ca>]

jeffmill@amazon.com wrote:
 
> Funny, I find that when I let players run rampant over the game's story
> and excitement because of a few lucky die rolls the game loses its edge..
> oh well, YMMV and all that.

Yeah, I disagree with that statement about as strongly as is possible, but
your style must differ fairly heavily from mine.

 
> ...but what I think you're missing is the point that you don't fudge
> things to save the characters - you fudge them to protect the story.

I'm not sure I can agree here; you're implying that the story is set in
stone, and that the characters are merely wandering through it, wondering at
it's perfection.

I prefer to think of a story as a work in progress, one in which the
characters are an integral part of, not merely spectators, or expected to
fill particular roles so that my masterpiece unfolds as I desire.

Sometimes the most interesting or memorable plot twists come about as the
result of an unexpected roll.  IMHO, a good Marshal can react quickly and
appropriately to these surprises, and integrate them into a seamless whole,
preferably without the players ever suspecting that they nearly caused
Marshal heart failure.

To me, that's part of the joy of running a game.

 
> I guess... but Deadlands uses so many dice rolls to begin with, that
> you're essentially always going to be "letting 'em fall where they may"  I
> would think that a skilled GM could handle both without resorting to
> saving the players bacon /and/ giving them a good story.

My take on it is that a skilled Marshal should be able to arrange things
such that few outcomes absolutely depend on a single successful/unsuccessful
die roll.

In eighteen years, I've never had a single complaint on that score.


Ross Coburn
coburn@sympatico.ca