Slayer mechanics question

[Mike Holmes]

Perhaps I misspoke.

Not at all. I think I got the picture. I also think that you think that I'm asking about something else.

What the question entails is figuring out what you should replace the rules with. The way in which you determined the results arbitrarily as GM, and also when you as GM determined the results says a lot about how your replacement system should operate. Basically it should do those things for you.

Want to rip the mook's spine out and wear it as a hat? You do. Want to punch your hand through the door and yank the mook back through? You do. Why go through all the trouble of rolling initiative and calculating bonuses when there is no reason the player doesn't succeed at pulling off his crazy stunt?

See, this is very telling stuff. Here's a follow up question. When don't you do this? What's the difference about the times you just say, "Cool, it happens!" and when you call for dice rolls?

For example, I could guess from the description of action that you provided that a suitable mook rule for you might be someting as simple as "When fighting mooks, the player describes beating them all up as colorfully as possible. If the GM is satisfied with it, the description stands as described. If not, he describes more mooks popping up and requires the player to narrate again."

Just an example. Do you find that combat with mooks is when you just go over to allowing success?

What I have always loved about Slayer is that every time I have run it, the players have surprised me with increasingly crazy ideas. Players have used beds as weapons. Players have used other players as weapons. Players have done the nuttiest things I've ever seen in many long years of roleplaying, and that is what I love.

OK, so whatever system you use should not penalize such actions, and if possible, even reward them. That's simple. Give bonuses for such descriptions.

See what I'm getting at? Get your system to support your priorities in different cases.

Mike

[ThreeGee]

Hey Mike,

I got ya, now. Good advice, though I am not sure why you felt the need to point it out. I may not have been clear that this has been my line of thinking from the beginning of the thread. I was asking about a specific mechanic and the thread has blossomed into something bigger. That is fine, but give me a chance to write up the whole deal before picking apart the details. I promise your advice will be useful once you have a context to hang it on.

Later,
Grant

[Mike Holmes]

Gotcha. My point was merely that when you're writing to remember your play, and get yourself a system that drives the same decision making processes.

I have no doubt you'll do it right.

Mike

[ThreeGee]

Hey Mike,

No problem. Your advice has generally been spot-on. I just was not seeing what you were getting at, in this case.

Later,
Grant

[ThreeGee]

Hey all,

I am not done yet, but for the impatient among you, I will be periodically posting the latest draft here.

When it is finished and ready for playtest and criticism, I will form a new thread.

Later,
Grant