Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013323Here we see the actual problem.

We all think the player asked a perfectly reasonable question.  Grover has damned the impudent player to the depths of asshathood for daring to question his mighty word.

I think the question is reasonable, in that it isn't unreasonable, but most of the people I play with wouldn't ask it. If I'm thinking in character, I don't know from any numbers, armor class or die rolls. I might think "My sword went through that mail like butter, boy I'm cool" or I might think "why did that happen? Usually I can't get through mail that easily?" and then, if the fight were over, I'd  _look at the armor_ and tell the GM that I was looking at the armor and maybe she or he would tell me something interesting. If there was nothing wrong with the armor, it would be back to "boy, I'm good." I wouldn't say "the book says x" because my character doesn't know he's in a game.  I've had rules lawyers in my game, even after I wrote my own system back in the Eighties. In fact, I have never been the foremost expert on my own rules. But even Peter Price wouldn't been bothered about something so  trivial.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1013560most of the people I play with wouldn't ask it. If I'm thinking in character, I don't know from any numbers, armor class or die rolls. I might think "My sword went through that mail like butter, boy I'm cool" or I might think "why did that happen? Usually I can't get through mail that easily?" and then, if the fight were over, I'd _look at the armor_ and tell the GM that I was looking at the armor and maybe she or he would tell me something interesting. If there was nothing wrong with the armor, it would be back to "boy, I'm good." I wouldn't say "the book says x" because my character doesn't know he's in a game. I've had rules lawyers in my game, even after I wrote my own system back in the Eighties. In fact, I have never been the foremost expert on my own rules. In fact, I have never been the foremost expert on my own rules. But even Peter Price wouldn't been bothered about something so  trivial.

Everyone has agreed since the beginning that the specific instance was trivial. It simply evidenced a broader conceptual issue. As to thinking in character, great if you do, but this is not about rules lawyers vs non-rules lawyers, it is about wanting to be able to make informed decisions which matter. We don't know that the example individual didn't hold to the ideal of not thinking out of character as well, only that he noticed that he hit when he thought he wouldn't and enquired about it. If you spend most of your thinking in character, then you should probably want what the character sees to matter, and the decisions the character makes to matter. And that can only be the case if you actually can tell the GM that you are looking at the armor, and some information come back from the GM which will inform your decision making process.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1013560I think the question is reasonable, in that it isn't unreasonable, but most of the people I play with wouldn't ask it. If I'm thinking in character, I don't know from any numbers, armor class or die rolls. I might think "My sword went through that mail like butter, boy I'm cool" or I might think "why did that happen? Usually I can't get through mail that easily?" and then, if the fight were over, I'd  _look at the armor_ and tell the GM that I was looking at the armor and maybe she or he would tell me something interesting. If there was nothing wrong with the armor, it would be back to "boy, I'm good." I wouldn't say "the book says x" because my character doesn't know he's in a game.  I've had rules lawyers in my game, even after I wrote my own system back in the Eighties. In fact, I have never been the foremost expert on my own rules. But even Peter Price wouldn't been bothered about something so  trivial.

For me, I think my reaction would depend on the nature of game and its tone. If its a extremely heroic, cinematic game unless the GM called attention to it I wouldn't worry about. The mooks shopped for armor at the Stormtrooper Surplus store. If the tone was more grounded and 'realistic' and my character had the ability or background that they'd notice especially if the GM mention mentioned they did, I've investigate to some degree or at least note it was odd.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013566Everyone has agreed since the beginning that the specific instance was trivial. It simply evidenced a broader conceptual issue. As to thinking in character, great if you do, but this is not about rules lawyers vs non-rules lawyers, it is about wanting to be able to make informed decisions which matter. We don't know that the example individual didn't hold to the ideal of not thinking out of character as well, only that he noticed that he hit when he thought he wouldn't and enquired about it. If you spend most of your thinking in character, then you should probably want what the character sees to matter, and the decisions the character makes to matter. And that can only be the case if you actually can tell the GM that you are looking at the armor, and some information come back from the GM which will inform your decision making process.

When he encounters the Ork in mail, my character is going to think "fuck, it's wearing mail." However, he wouldn't know anything about a die roll. He knows, because that's the way his world works, that using a sword against mail is not a great idea but he doesn't know that it is impossible, because it isn't. So he thinks he did great, unless he sees that the armor is beat up and rusty or something.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1012913Grove, someone linked an essay to try and help you, I don't know if you read it, but here's the key as it relates to this topic:



Yes, what you did was minor, but if you're going to adjust a small thing "just because", at what point does it stop?  Deadly trap becomes non-deadly?  Encounter with a Giant becomes encounter with an Ogre?  The player should trust that you'll only change the most minor stuff and all the other challenges are real?

The setting has to have integrity, because, to reiterate from above, without that integrity, meaningful choice becomes impossible.

So, here's what you should learn from this, if nothing else:

If you're going to put your thumb on the scale next time, and decide that this Ogre has a weak AC "just because you want it to", make the Ogre a tad lame, or something, anything the player's can see or somehow find out so it makes sense.  You know, what people have been telling you for 38 pages.

I agree with wholeheartedly, not just to placate curious players but more importantly, it adds a certain amount of color to have a lame ogre or an orc who cut the sleeves off his mail byrnie because he thinks chainmail wifebeaters are cool.

Quote from: Omega;10128691: Except thats not at all what you told the player. You told them that a suit of chainmail could change its stats possibly radically simply because you wanted the fight to be harder or easier but for some unfathomable reason dont want to actually describe the difference or have a reason why chain A and chain B are functioning so differently.

2: uh... Just about no one has said that you must adhere to the rules slavishly. In fact I and many others have again and again and again pointed out that tweaking things is pretty much the norm. AGAIN. The difference is that we give reason for these tweaks. The Orc in Chain is worse AC than it should have not "Because!" but rather has some explanation. Its poorly made chain, its a clumsy orc, its cursed chain or even "Its not chain at all. Its some sort of string netting shirt painted silver???" etc.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013323Here we see the actual problem.

We all think the player asked a perfectly reasonable question.  Grover has damned the impudent player to the depths of asshathood for daring to question his mighty word.

Except the player insisted on answers without his character bothering to look. That's the part where I think Grover wasn't totally out of line.

Quote from: Elfdart;1013849Except the player insisted on answers without his character bothering to look. That's the part where I think Grover wasn't totally out of line.

Well, he certainly could have old the player, "you don't know the answer at this point" and made the player go looking/inspecting/perhaps even researching. However, he did not. He explained the exact reason, and it was that the AC was dependent upon the challenge he wanted to give to the player at the time, and not for any specific in-gameworld reason. And that's why the gamer got upset (I believe).

If Rgrove had insisted that the player inspect the situation and discover a cause for the discrepancy (from expectation), he could then have used that knowledge/method in the future to help gauge whether an opponent (or group thereof) was an easy/medium/hard challenge in a current situation. And therefore his decisions would again be meaningful. In which case there would be no problem.

Quote from: Elfdart;1013849Except the player insisted on answers without his character bothering to look. That's the part where I think Grover wasn't totally out of line.

That might have been because the GM described the orc exactly like every other orc. The player had no reason to think the orc was different untill they noticed a mechanical change that differed from what they were told. And the player may have been just been expecting to be told the armour was rusty or whatever. And was caught off guard by the truth. And there was no point in asking if the armour was different because rgrove flat out said it wasnt. It was bog standard chain and only performed less because he wanted it to.

QuoteGM: 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.

And follows up that equipment is consistent for the PCs. But not for the NPCs.

Hence the disconnect.

QuoteOriginally Posted by rgrove0172  View Post
"There are all kinds of humans...huge strong ones, small lithe ones, fat slow ones, smart skinny ones.. same with elves, dwarves, gnomes....there are similarities,amid species sure but plenty of variety. Why should goblins be clones? You get an idea what your facing when you see it. It might and probably is a bit different than any norm. It's supposed to represent a real fantasy world after all. The orc with chainmail looked pretty average but his tribe were an inferior breed. Nuff said."

But this is not what you told your player or us.

"
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!"

Right here, you are once again telling us that the rules do not matter, descriptions do not matter, nothing we see matters.

"
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."

You are giving the lie to your own statements right here. The player does NOT get an idea of what they are facing when they see it because "doesn't matter how I describe it."

You admitted to the player in this example that Chainmail is AC14, but this orc, who was wearing chainmail, was AC11, and gave no other reason than "I designed him with AC11."

You keep getting into trouble with your players over the same types of issues. You keep coming to us asking what we think. You keep sounding surrised when we give the smae responses. You claim to "get it" but obviously you do not. If you did you would no longer express surprise at our answers. That you refuse to change your methodology in the face of consistently presented experience that it does not work, and consistent examples and explanations of why it does not work is your own choice. But don't expect us to change our tune any time soon, and expect us to grow increasingly frustrated at the farce.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1013906Player: 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!"

Right here, you are once again telling us that the rules do not matter, descriptions do not matter, nothing we see matters.

"
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."

This reminds me of a lot of action adventure fiction, especially weekly TV series fiction, where how tough or weak an opponent or hero appears to be is not governed by any internal week-to-week fictional consistency, but is instead governed almost solely by narrative constraints, often with little attempt to rationalize why the heroes win or lose in any given situation throughout episode or film. The heroes lose in the initial encounter to establish the scariness of the bad guys of the plot and then the heroes somehow escape the bad guys or the bad guys ignore the puny heroes to continue on about their important bad guy plan. Why? Because that's what the plot needs to keep the heroes alive and to justify them spending the rest of the movie or episode running around gathering whoever and whatever they needed (planning or training montage optional) to defeat the bad guys in the climax of the film or episode. I find that frustrating in passive entertainment. I expect better (i.e. greater consistency) in a more active entertainment like tabletop RPGs.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1013906You keep getting into trouble with your players over the same types of issues. You keep coming to us asking what we think. You keep sounding surrised when we give the smae responses. You claim to "get it" but obviously you do not. If you did you would no longer express surprise at our answers. That you refuse to change your methodology in the face of consistently presented experience that it does not work, and consistent examples and explanations of why it does not work is your own choice. But don't expect us to change our tune any time soon, and expect us to grow increasingly frustrated at the farce.

This.

Quote from: Dumarest;1012192Are we still piling on Grover because we don't like his GM style?

Not piling. Explaining exactly where his GM style caused players to feel unsatisfied.

Player. As I understand it was one guy but the rest are fine with how he handles things. Did I understand you correctly, rgrovej0172?

Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1012752Okay, late to the party (which seems to be winding down)

Ha! Your post was #341 and the current last post is now #478 - plenty of legs left in this one.

Quote from: joriandrake;1012753I myself only posted on this first at page 30 and the OP commented since then so it's not a dead thread yet.

I've set my posts per page to the max, so it is currently on Page 10, havign 30 pages would drive me crazy.

Quote from: soltakss;1014329I've set my posts per page to the max, so it is currently on Page 10, havign 30 pages would drive me crazy.

I don't know how to do that, btw currently this is the 48th page for me

Quote from: joriandrake;1014334I don't know how to do that, btw currently this is the 48th page for me

On the top menu strip, click on Settings. Under General Settings, there is an option "Number of Posts to Show Per Page", the maximum is 50.