"Ever played a game where the GM set the odds?" Topic

I suppose this would be in the Kriegspiel / pseudo RPG style of gaming but I am curious:

Did you ever play a game where the GM/umpire was in charge of giving you the odds when you tried to do something?

"I'll shoot at that tank over there"
"OKay, it's through smoke and a moving target, so I'll give you a 45% chance".

How did it go?

I have never played one, but wanted to. IABSM from Too Fat Lardies uses basically that mechanism, with the umpire deciding if a shot is good, ok, or poor. I have Richard Clarke's original article about kriegspieling WW2 somewhere.

I would think it would require a good umpire and a degree of maturity from the players, but would be amazing as far a rules transparency goes. It would make the game very immersive.

Yes

Played it several times. Don't remember the name of the game, but it worked as well as any other. The whole point is if you trust the umpire. We did.

I've played something very close. The GM told us how we needed to roll (e.g, "11 or higher") with whatever combination of dice, but he never gave us things like odds or even how his tables worked.

I think everyone hated it except me, and I thought it was brilliant. It forced you to look at situations like a real commander and take chances based on experience and instinct rather than relying on the assurances of some mathematical tables. I think that was what was so frustrating for the other players; they would look at a decision point and know it was good choice, but without the reassurance of a quantified chance of success, they would demur. I talked with the GM while I helped him clean up (this was at a con) and he pointed out some of the many instances where the players balked on something that had a very high chance of success.

Another huge bonus was how quickly it allowed the game to progress. This was mostly because the GM knew his tables so well, but also because there weren't arguments about "stuff".

Yes. I enjoyed it. Double-blind Boot Hill.

Yes.
I ran an entire convention game this way. Random person came up to the table, and we asked them what they wanted to do. We then gave a percentage, die was rolled, and random person could move figs or whatever.

The entire game ran for a full day and was the result of all these microdecisions made by different players.

Nope, though it is an interesting concept.

If using this method though, I'd prefer sliding scales for the various tasks, so the player(s) don't really know specifically what percentage chance they have of accomplishing a task. One rarely does in real life.

Say the following (obviously, you can add in more subcategories, if desired):

Very Easy 90 – 99% chance to succeed
Easy 70 – 85% chance
Challenging 45 – 65% chance
Moderately Hard 25% – 40% chance
Very Hard 10 – 20% chance
Virtually Impossible 1 – 5% chance

You can use percentile dice too, if preferred, instead of D20s, for the above. I've rounded off most of the results into 5% increments, and didn't spend a lot of time determining if the values provided make sense – you can tweak them a little each way, to add interest, if desired.

Players should know the percentage chances for each of the categories above, but the GM rolls a die for each category in secret, in order to come up with the exact number to roll, or less, in order to succeed.

Then, the player(s) make their decisions as to whether they want to attempt it, or not.

If playing solo, roll the players' dice, and the "Pseudo-GM's" dice at the same time, to determine if the players/characters have succeeded. They shouldn't know the exact number needed before deciding to proceed, and to roll their dice.

I am toying with the idea of doing something similar. Instead of an umpire giving out what needs to be rolled on the dice to succeed, I would give a sitrep and then ask what would you do now. I would have already identified key concepts, words or actions I would listen for. As the player mentioned them, I would add up the points I have assigned for this SITREP (already next to the list by each item/issue) and provide feedback in terms of the total he/she scored by wnat they memntioned. The "winner" of the game would be the gamer with the highest point total at the end of the scenario. The object of the game is to stimulate thinking and planning processes while operating under constraints (like rules of engagement issued at the beginning, within the limitations of the forces assigned, use of the geography of the Area of Operations, etc.

A week before the game, the gamemaster could put out background info and reference materials (that can be found on the web for free, mind you) to all players. That would set the stage and provide knowledge of the issues they could face in the game. Again, to be fair, the gamemaster draws his scenario injects from the same reference materials and can provide those references at the end of the game. Such knowledge could see one (or more) of the players host a game next time, thus allowing a chance for the umpire to play.

A campaign could consist of merely highest point count at the end of X number of sessions. One could even have a preset achievement rating. (points 250+ = You are a General!, 175-249 points= Colonel etc. I would also rate negative points for doing dumb things. Example:

GM: Your force of mounted cav, ordered to gallop last impulse, crosses the crest of a ridge and finds themselves immediately under fire from a deployed arty battery a half mile away. What do you do?

GM is looking for the gamer to reverse course and/or move to seek cover until he can better size up the situation: 10 points if he does; -10 if he does nothing or something that logically would damage his command to where it could suffer devistating casualties. I would give/take points for speed of decision. GM awarding points based upon creativity, but tries to stay within +/- 10 points (a 20 point spread.) If unsure and want to keep the game going, rolls a d20. 1-10= minus the number rolled; 11-20 + the number rolled).

Each player gets 5 (or more or less- GM should try to gauge how many based upon time available for play), per "game". GM must provide desired objectives at the end and references he used, and why.

Like I said, just kicking around ideas here, for pitting creativity from players and most of all, motivation to go and do some research out some tried and true options that proved successful in the past to some real world situations.

Could provide for some intense experiences with the right kind of GM? …Thougts?

Tom

I used to run Behind Enemy Lines….WW2 RPG.

Did you like behind Enemy Lines? How did it play? Does the GM provide what the gamer must roll? What did you like/dislike about the rules system? Would you recommend it to us or were there problems?

Thanks, JSchutt, for the answers to the above.

v/r
Tom

Yeah, the suggestion about having some guidelines are probably a good idea.

Even if it's something as simple as "pretty easy", "okay" "long shot" "miracle" and percentages assigned to each.

Heh, that's the kind of game I put on!…

I run games using Chris Engles "Politics By Another Means". It is very straight forward rules set that allows players to debate the chances of success of attempting to accomplish something. Whatever a player may attempt to do, that is outside the scope to the very basic rules, must be supported by 3 reasons as to why it should succeed. The GM/umpire judges the action attempted as to how easy or difficult it may be. Good reasons supporting the action can improve the chance of success. Some don't like the rules as they want a absolute structure to the game and others get into the swing of things and have a great time.

Played several times and run that type a few times at family retreats. Worked well with experienced players/GM. And it didn't require reading a bunch of stuff. Played smoothly and we had a good time.

In theory, when a GM writes a scenario, they are doing the same thing. Selecting the threats to give certain odds for different player choices. In a module, they just do all the selection beforehand and write it down.

Chris Engle's rules were his Matrix Game from back in the 1980s (what goes around comes around, eh?) with the same sort of idea. You told the GM some thing you wanted to do, gave three reasons why it should work, and the GM considered your "logic" and gave you a d6 number to meet or beat.

Then the opponent gave a thing to do, reasons, and the GM gave a number. This new thing could be built off a previous thing.

Some things were indeed impossible (like shoot a musket 800 yards to nail an opposing commander), and some things relatively easy (I see cavalry in the distance so I form square -- 2+). It depended on the cleverness of the players and the mental agility of the umpire.

yes

Yes, loads of times – nothing necessarily to do with Matrix Games – the idea is from Kriegsspiel as Weasel said and it works very well. Introducing arguments (like Matrix games) to my mind turns the game into something else (and I prefer Paddy Griffith's Muggergame if it is to be an adjudged conversation).

A good umpire can make things flow much faster than referring to tables and voluminous rules that try to cover all eventualities. The argument that it depends how good the umpire is, is true, but then a lot of rule sets leave a lot to be desired.

The big issue with this, I always thought, was avoiding breaking immersion in the game by creating "inconsistencies". (I would skip over the issue of having "good" players and a "good" GM – I would just assume if you weren't up to this type of play, you wouldn't do it. Could be a horrible assumption on my part.)

It is interesting that percieved inconsistencies is one of the benefits of this style of play.

As noted above, in a free-form type of game, the players do not have a set of memorized rules and "allowed" units with fixed stats to establish a baseline for how likely things are to happen. But a player could consider something to be inconsistent because its consitency relies on something the player hadn't considered.

This is a tough thing to manage and still keep the players engaged in the game. Where in a fixed-rules/stats game, they players pretty much always know what class of things to expect and how those things are defined.

One of the key insights to make a game like this work is to consider the game as a storytelling game rather than a competitive-one-side-will-win game.

Yeah, I was wondering about doing something like this, as a "GM runs the enemy" kind of game.

Isn't this, broadly speaking, the basis behind Charlie Company?

It is a Vietnam wargame where the "player" takes the US forces and the GM runs the NVA/VC. The player tries to survive a tour of duty, the GM tries to present the player with challenges. It's not entirely a wargame or an rpg, but a blend between the two.

It could very easily fall into that sort of grey area between RPG and wargame.

Weasel – go and talk to Wargames Developments people – they do this kind of thing ALL the time (and have been doing since the 1980s) and are very happy to discuss it. There is a discussion group link
and a web page link
or Bob the Temple Builder on TMP is the coordinator. TMP link

@Dyeforminis

Last I played Behind Enemy lines was 30 odd years ago. Now I can't remember where I parked my car so I don't really remember much but the rules. They are still available as PDFS online at the Vault. I do remember it was old school so it was pretty dry from the personal development/character trait side focusing mainly on the weapon stats, sneeking, shooting and killing side of things. I was pretty picky in the day so I must have liked it (a big fan of percent systems). The only problem I had was when a player missed at pretty close range with his BAR trying to take out a German in a watch tower. We played mostly the types of scenarios found in "Combat" with Vic Morrow and "The Rat Patrol."

Appreciate the suggestion Gwydion!