I hope i'm using proper terminology.
What is everyone's opinion on requiring GMs to use "Meta-Points" (as i'm calling them) to alter the outcome of a roll? I'm not sure if i'd want to see it used in a manner to limit the GM by saying they have a limit number of points to meddle determined at the start of a game. But what if Meta-Point usage was tracked and recorded according to whether they provided a Bonus or Penalty to the Players? And if at the end of the game, the difference between Bonus and Penalty Meta-Points were used in some fashion? So, if in the end, the GM used more Meta-Points as Penalty the players would gain something, maybe XP.
Or maybe any time a GM used Meta-Points against a Player that Player gained some Meta-Points for their own use. Heh, that could end up showing GM-bias, with a Player having a lot of Meta-Points at the end of session possibly being on a GM's shitlist ;)
This might all allow a GM to influence a game to their liking (wants Antagonist#1 to defeat the Group), and reward the Players when the GM 'interferes'.
Any thoughts?
Hiya thoth,
It's kind of hard to comment on your idea since you don't have it nailed down too specifically, but I shall try.
I like the idea you have of more tracking the GM's use of their fudging power than to try to limit said power, whihc in my mind is a pointless undertaking. GMs fudge results outside of the written rules. Give them rules for fudging, what would stop them from fudging outside of those rules?
I like the bonus/penaty idea based on this. You just need to hash out exactly what to do with it. You could make it a form of currency. By saving up these points, the player can buy certain things, like higher stats, free rerolls and whatnot. I wouldn't give the player's fudging power. That's a bit much, but then it depends on the game you're putting this into.
So good luck with this.
Deadlands employs a similar mechanic with their fate chips. The GM has a limited number of chip of which he can use to alter rolls in his favor. When a player spends a red chip, then the GM gets to take an additional chip for later use. Of course this doesn't really work in reverse. No matter how many times the GM spends his chips the players don't get anything in return.
I like your idea of balancing out the mechanic.