A comment by Gronan on GM rulings reminded me of a strange conversation I had with a player a while back. It involved myself, as GM, altering the stats of an adversary and his response when he found out. Before I paraphrase it let me say the player is a great guy and an avid player but is somewhat of a stickler for the game/challenge/tactics/mechanics side of RPing.

GM: The orc goes down, a solid hit in the ribs yields a loud crack beneath his mail and he spits a gout of blood as he collapses.

Player: Awesome! Thats the last of them. We... wait...  Did you say mail?

GM: Huh? Oh, yeah... chainmail, he was wearing a chainmail hauberk, grieves... you know?

Player: But I rolled a 12 to hit. Chainmail is 14?

GM: Yeah, his AC was an 11.

Player: But thats not chainmal, thats like hardened leather or whatever. I should have missed.

GM: No you hit his AC of 11, fair and square. The orcs typically wear mail though, these do anyway, soldiers of the Black Duke and all. Doesnt matter how I describe it. I designed him with an AC of 11. Thats what you use when you fight him.

Player: So chainmail for me is 14 but for him is 11?  Do you make up other kinds of chaimails for other guys?

GM: No, well, yeah... they are monsters, adversaries, extras... whatever. They function differently. Yes as a character the armor should be consistent but for the monsters, who cares if his chainmail is AC11 or his broadsword only does 1d6 damage or whatever?

Player: WHA? They use different weapons too? So if I pick up an orc broadsword it only does a d6?

GM: No, it would probably do a d8 like normal, just not for him.

Player: So you have different rules for how much damage weapons do or armor stops based on who is using them?

GM: NO, I just rule it the way I see it. An orc grunt with a broadsword isnt as good as a hero. So I nerf them a little.

Player: So how the hell am I supposed to know what anything is, how good or challenging it will be? Chainmail isnt really chainmail, a broadsword really isnt a broadsword...

GM (Interrupting and a little hacked) ... yeah, thats right and a fireball may not do the same damage, a fall from the roof may do more, and they might take a saving throw differently too. So what? Its my world, those that live in it and arent under your control function as I see them, not based specifically on some freaking rulebook.

Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!


Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Player: So you have different rules for how much damage weapons do or armor stops based on who is using them?

GM: NO, I just rule it the way I see it. An orc grunt with a broadsword isnt as good as a hero. So I nerf them a little.

Player: So how the hell am I supposed to know what anything is, how good or challenging it will be? Chainmail isnt really chainmail, a broadsword really isnt a broadsword...

GM (Interrupting and a little hacked) ... yeah, thats right and a fireball may not do the same damage, a fall from the roof may do more, and they might take a saving throw differently too. So what? Its my world, those that live in it and arent under your control function as I see them, not based specifically on some freaking rulebook.

Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!


Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

Yours, undoubtedly. Your player sounds like he wants to be playing a videogame where he knows every bit of kit the opposition have and exactly what he has to do to beat them.

Your player is dead right in that he is playing in a fantasy world where everything, even physical laws are yours to change.

Haven't you ever read Aristotle's Poetics?
Both character and plot must be consistent and develop in ways that conform to the laws of probability.
What you've done is basically a deus ex machina.

I think it's a group consensus. You guys must agree on what kind of genre, tone, degree of realism, etc. the world will function. And whoever takes the role of GM has the responsability to uphold the agreed upon parameters.

Yours, but I think you could have explained it better -- the stats don't represent the weapons or armor but the wielder's skill with them.

Quote from: Altheus;1009299Yours, undoubtedly. Your player sounds like he wants to be playing a videogame where he knows every bit of kit the opposition have and exactly what he has to do to beat them.

Your player is dead right in that he is playing in a fantasy world where everything, even physical laws are yours to change.

You're missing the point.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1009300What you've done is basically a deus ex machina.

He gets the point.

There's no point to playing if today chain mail is AC:11 because Grove thinks we should have an easy fight and tomorrow it's AC:17 because he thinks we should have a tough fight.  Why not just save me the trouble of rolling a die and just tell me the story of what happens.

The DM should've stood his ground. I've put up with this crap from players before. Here's how it normally goes when I'm in charge.

Me: "And a hobgoblin teleports in."

Player: "What? A shaman can't do that! It says right here in--"

Me: *Slap!*

Player: "Ow! I--"

Me: *Slap!* "What's wrong with you!"

Player: "I just--"

Me: *Smack!* *Smack!* "You contradicted me, bitch! You contradicted the DUNGEON MASTER! I have the Viking hat! I am the master; you are the bitch! What are you?!

Player: "I--"

Me: *Slap!* "What are you?!" *Slap!*

Player: *Sobbing.* "Bitch! I'm the bitch!"

Me: "Yeah, that's right!" *Slap!* "And who am I! Say my name! Say my name, bitch!" *Smack!*

And so on, until in the player's mind it is very clear that *I'm* running the game, not three-hundred pages of recycled paper and second-rate art. I usually follow up my master-bitch sessions with a sort of symbolic mounting and rutting ritual. As I've said before, if it can work for those monkeys with the candy-colored asses, it can work for gamers.

Yeah, the DM fucked up by rearranging the game, but I'd be pretty damn pissed off if someone started citing line and verse in an attempt to contradict me in the middle of a game.

I can just see him now, holding up the book with his Cheetos-stained hands, spitting out the last syllable of "no thuch thpellth available to thhamanth" so that little flecks of saliva and popcorn land on my blazer as he engages in some twisted power-play for status as alpha geek. If that's what was going on, I'm not surprised that the DM got so pissed off he engaged in some massive screwage. The DM doesn't design games so you can slap your dick on the table trying to contradict him.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009306You're missing the point.


He gets the point.

There's no point to playing if today chain mail is AC:11 because Grove thinks we should have an easy fight and tomorrow it's AC:17 because he thinks we should have a tough fight.  Why not just save me the trouble of rolling a die and just tell me the story of what happens.

Oh please, here we go with this ridiculous bullshoy again. The two example are not even remotely the same. This orc with the lowered AC is maybe an older, slower veteran, or maybe his armor is tattered, maybe he is slow from a recent injury or disease, maybe he is just unmotivated by cruelty from a higher up. What the F.. ever it doesnt really matter, as GM I can drop his frigging AC if I want for any reason I feel appropriate. He will still be affected by and mesh with the rules of the game, have a chance of success and failure, be affected by the conditions at hand etc. . There is no F..ing STORY to tell. Please drop that overused and baseless accusation and stick to the topic at hand.

You have some great insight beneath all your prejudice Kreuger, stow the fingerpointing and you have my ear and respect.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

The GM's, always the GM's, unless I am playing ...

In this case, while I see the player's point, some things will be open to interpretation and slightly different. Players who know the rules might be thrown when a GM uses different AC or damage for armour or a weapon, but that's the nature of the game. Not all chainmail is the same, the GM should use whatever figures required for the scenario.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1009305Yours, but I think you could have explained it better -- the stats don't represent the weapons or armor but the wielder's skill with them.

Pretty much this. Or at least made it clear to all of the players that "I'm using mook rules. Your opponents could be gimped based on my own whim."

The conversation/argument could probably have been avoided if the DM had been clear to the players ahead of time. Set expectations, and all that. Obviously, if you don't, it's not a surprise that some players might feel cheated or disappointed.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009309Oh please, here we go with this ridiculous bullshoy again. The two example are not even remotely the same. This orc with the lowered AC is maybe an older, slower veteran, or maybe his armor is tattered, maybe he is slow from a recent injury or disease, maybe he is just unmotivated by cruelty from a higher up. What the F.. ever it doesnt really matter, as GM I can drop his frigging AC if I want for any reason I feel appropriate. He will still be affected by and mesh with the rules of the game, have a chance of success and failure, be affected by the conditions at hand etc. . There is no F..ing STORY to tell. Please drop that overused and baseless accusation and stick to the topic at hand.

You have some great insight beneath all your prejudice Kreuger, stow the fingerpointing and you have my ear and respect.

What you should do when explaining it is say you're not basing the AC and attack and damage on the armor/weapon, it doesn't represent the armor itself, per se, but the AC represents the ability of the orc to prevent you damaging it. And that's affected by the orc's skill itself.

I think you messed up. Just say it was chainmail yeah, but you made a mistake, so you'll let the melee results stand. Moving on...

OR, if you really need to save Face:

Say it was chainmail, but that Orc had a really shitty dex. No wonder he was easier to hit!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1009323What you should do when explaining it is say you're not basing the AC and attack and damage on the armor/weapon, it doesn't represent the armor itself, per se, but the AC represents the ability of the orc to prevent you damaging it. And that's affected by the orc's skill itself.

I always thought that was sort of assumed? But point taken.

I'd say the ref ought to learn the rules and apply them consistently, but I'd also say the player shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth and be so focused on minutiae. Another reason it's great when the players don't have copies of the rulebook and just focus on playing their characters.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296A comment by Gronan on GM rulings reminded me of a strange conversation I had with a player a while back. It involved myself, as GM, altering the stats of an adversary and his response when he found out. Before I paraphrase it let me say the player is a great guy and an avid player but is somewhat of a stickler for the game/challenge/tactics/mechanics side of RPing.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296GM: The orc goes down, a solid hit in the ribs yields a loud crack beneath his mail and he spits a gout of blood as he collapses.

Player: Awesome! Thats the last of them. We... wait...  Did you say mail?

GM: Huh? Oh, yeah... chainmail, he was wearing a chainmail hauberk, grieves... you know?

Player: But I rolled a 12 to hit. Chainmail is 14?

GM: Yeah, his AC was an 11.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Player: But thats not chainmal, thats like hardened leather or whatever. I should have missed.

GM: No you hit his AC of 11, fair and square. The orcs typically wear mail though, these do anyway, soldiers of the Black Duke and all. Doesnt matter how I describe it. I designed him with an AC of 11. Thats what you use when you fight him.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Player: So chainmail for me is 14 but for him is 11?  Do you make up other kinds of chaimails for other guys?

GM: No, well, yeah... they are monsters, adversaries, extras... whatever. They function differently. Yes as a character the armor should be consistent but for the monsters, who cares if his chainmail is AC11 or his broadsword only does 1d6 damage or whatever?

Player: WHA? They use different weapons too? So if I pick up an orc broadsword it only does a d6?

GM: No, it would probably do a d8 like normal, just not for him.

Player: So you have different rules for how much damage weapons do or armor stops based on who is using them?

GM: NO, I just rule it the way I see it. An orc grunt with a broadsword isnt as good as a hero. So I nerf them a little.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Player: So how the hell am I supposed to know what anything is, how good or challenging it will be? Chainmail isnt really chainmail, a broadsword really isnt a broadsword...

GM (Interrupting and a little hacked) ... yeah, thats right and a fireball may not do the same damage, a fall from the roof may do more

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296and they might take a saving throw differently too. So what? Its my world, those that live in it and arent under your control function as I see them, not based specifically on some freaking rulebook.

Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!