BadByrd Introduction Sharing Member & Introductions
Well, that is too bad but at least you and we tried. You might check back and see sometime, I'm thinking about running maybe a more action-oriented type game with a simple system, if enough people are interested. I think I'll still run most of the games I GM as individual PC posts.
Like I said, I've ran and played forum RPGs before, but I have never played in this Party Leader format before, but got elected to be the PL, and though it takes some getting used to, it isn't too bad, and I think I'm doing ok at it, and it works a little better than I expected it to, from what I'd read about it elsewhere over the years.
I agree forum games are probably the most hurt by the thing that makes them convenient - they're not live. On the good side, it lets people from different countries or with different schedules all get in near the same time to make their posts, without having to rearranging their IRL schedules, and think through their actions, etc. The bad side is the delay or "lag", of posting actions or turns, and especially if dice rolls are also needed, the GM has to post that rolls are needed, then the players have to post the rolls and actions, then the GM to respond to those, etc.
I honestly continue to be confused about how people can run PbP or e-mail games using anything CLOSE to the actual rules of a system (such as D&D), given the sheer amount of stats and figuring and fiddly bits that require making checks against this and that, dozens of attributes, things players can choose and try on-the-spot, info required for the GM to relay, then for the player to read and understand, then to be able to ask for specific info for something like a Perception check, then to announce his action, then for the GM to post required rolls, then player to post those, then the GM to respond, etc.
BadByrd, I do want to say a few parting things to you, from my own vantage and experiences in playing and running games, tabletop and forum.
First, I have to give you credit with the bag of devouring covered arrow, and the natural 20 hit roll. While I can't say I'd have made the exact same call about it totally (automatically?) destroying the creature (there are a lot of options a GM could choose from), I can see the one he chose as being "reasonable", objectively (long as the Terr. Got Saves), so, though I bristle at the idea of ANYONE (let alone a Level 3 Ranger) being able to destroy "a" Tarrasque, first off, it was the DM's fault, as he made that scenario possible and put you up against it, which, if used as a deterrent, can be an effective image to help develop the world or situation, but in your case was, as you say, just him trying to kill you - GM's that can't keep from constantly metagaming, the separation between game/character and real life/player, are a problem.
That said, I don't know the extent of your familiarity with RPGs in general, but from my own experiences, and from other friends, and reading on a number of sites, including [..] (which I highly recommend as a resource for talking about RPGs in general), in my perspective, unless you're playing a game specifically designed, usually comedically, as such, a game's GM is still the final arbiter, director and controller of a game - your average GM doesn't "give in" if he's tried all he can or you've made all the rolls, and just let something happen that, as noted, could be a "gamebreaker", or even something that would bag a character far too much experience or money or otherwise unbalance things - the dice never have the final say for most GM's - dice are a tool to be used to help mediate and distribute things, either randomly or fairly, whether it's damage or a random item table - the GM still sometimes discards or fudges any rolls or results he feels necessary, if things come up that would detract from the game or interfere with the scenario, or be either too much or too little of an advantage - especially made easier if rolling behind the GM screen.
But in any fashion, to me, the basic premise (borrowed from that forum mentioned above) of any sort of entertainment, be it RPGs or whatever, is "No gaming is better than bad gaming", so as long as people are having fun, however they're playing, then that's what's important, and I guess sometimes some peoples' styles or preferences do clash some, though I often find it a good experience to try the different new methods or styles or rules, just so I can get a broader view of different aspects of gaming, for different people - but some (such as most D&D), I'm already quite familiar with, and tend to dismiss it completely out of hand because I have verified that I have been involved in all or a large majority of the different variations or styles of play for that game, and remain displeased or even repelled, so it is a matter of knowing what is right for onself.
Message Edited...Persephone: Linking to external sites or referencing them for the sake of
"look at this" is not allowed here and is considered a form of spamming. See
Constructive Posting Policy.