Dum & Drag , 4th edition.


- Ed C.

Ronin: Were you listening to The Dude's story?
Koltar: I was bowling.
Ronin: So you have no frame of reference here, Koltar. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know whats going on.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;359473Ooh, that's a very good one.  Normally, I think of "getting in the way" as a forced sub-routine, like mathematical calculations or repetitive sequences of die-rolling, but you've hit on a subtle one.  Especially the notion that the structure of a game may tempt players to do something in character that their characters wouldn't.

!i!

I had a Player in a d20 Star Wars game tell me that his character was going to jump on a thrown grenade once to save the rest of the Party. I thought, "Damn! That is awesome, I'm going to give him some special stuff for his next character as a reward!"

Then the Player said, "Yeah, I have enough hit points that I'll be able to take the maximum blast damage with no problem". He had a hissy-fit when I told him his character had died. The Player would never had attempted that unless he did the math and determined that his PC would survive.

The only time I find a system "getting in the way" is if people are more concerned with the numbers than they are what's actually going on in the game.  Some decent crunchy systems can actually support the game well if the intent of the design is heeded (I'm a huge opponent of the "But it's the RAW!  What the designer says doesn't matter!" camp).

For some people, it doesn't matter if you're playing a "roll 1d6, 1-3 fails, 4-6 succeeds" system with absolutely no stats.  They will find something to debate or argue about that stalls the game or pulls people out of the experience.

Quote from: jeff37923;359635I had a Player in a d20 Star Wars game tell me that his character was going to jump on a thrown grenade once to save the rest of the Party. I thought, "Damn! That is awesome, I'm going to give him some special stuff for his next character as a reward!"

Then the Player said, "Yeah, I have enough hit points that I'll be able to take the maximum blast damage with no problem". He had a hissy-fit when I told him his character had died. The Player would never had attempted that unless he did the math and determined that his PC would survive.

No. You screwed the player.

The rules are the universe. We're dealing with games that portray universes in which dragons exist, FTL is commonplace, and/or Cthulu is sleeping somewhere in the Pacific. The rules of physics are not necessarily different (and I would argue that, unless other specified, are not), but they can be.

Characters that exist within the setting understand the universe according to the rules. Yes, I know Order of the Stick is presented as/supposed to be a parody, but guess what: take out the references to actual numbers, and that's how the world should be perceived by characters. Guys who are really good with swords can fall 60 feet and walk away relatively unharmed.

If you have grenade rules, it is not unreasonable to expect the players to know them, and it sure as hell shouldn't be unreasonable - as a player - to expect that, unless otherwise explicitly told, the rules in the books for the game being played are what hold. If not, then make it clear, and if you forget, you shouldn't punish a player for making some rules-decision on the spot or clarifying a rule you'd changed.

In the scenario you present, I'll assume that grenades have a listed damage, and a listed range, and that creatures can provide cover to others against that damage. An individual in the world being played in knows all of this, if he has any kind of familiarity with grenades. An individual - especially an adventurer - also probably has a pretty good idea of just how hardy they are, and are probably able (through experience) to make a reasonable guess as to how much a grenade will hurt them, in a relative sense (ie, they're not using the actual numbers, but some sort of qualitative measurement).

Given this information, it is entirely reasonable for a character who can withstand the max damage of a grenade to leap upon it to save other party members. They have all of the relevant information for this to be an informed decision, albeit non-numerically, in-world.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;359707No. You screwed the player.

The rules are the universe. We're dealing with games that portray universes in which dragons exist, FTL is commonplace, and/or Cthulu is sleeping somewhere in the Pacific. The rules of physics are not necessarily different (and I would argue that, unless other specified, are not), but they can be.

Characters that exist within the setting understand the universe according to the rules. Yes, I know Order of the Stick is presented as/supposed to be a parody, but guess what: take out the references to actual numbers, and that's how the world should be perceived by characters. Guys who are really good with swords can fall 60 feet and walk away relatively unharmed.

If you have grenade rules, it is not unreasonable to expect the players to know them, and it sure as hell shouldn't be unreasonable - as a player - to expect that, unless otherwise explicitly told, the rules in the books for the game being played are what hold. If not, then make it clear, and if you forget, you shouldn't punish a player for making some rules-decision on the spot or clarifying a rule you'd changed.

In the scenario you present, I'll assume that grenades have a listed damage, and a listed range, and that creatures can provide cover to others against that damage. An individual in the world being played in knows all of this, if he has any kind of familiarity with grenades. An individual - especially an adventurer - also probably has a pretty good idea of just how hardy they are, and are probably able (through experience) to make a reasonable guess as to how much a grenade will hurt them, in a relative sense (ie, they're not using the actual numbers, but some sort of qualitative measurement).

Given this information, it is entirely reasonable for a character who can withstand the max damage of a grenade to leap upon it to save other party members. They have all of the relevant information for this to be an informed decision, albeit non-numerically, in-world.

That is a bit daft. Firstly a system in which a grenade doesn't directly kill you and you are not a superhero, robot, amorphous jelly creature or similar is broken and the GM is totally within their rights to fix it. Secondly no one is any real world type environment can have experience of the ammount of damage they would take from jumping on a grenade unless they have jumped on a grenade I gues sthere might be a corner case where a guy is someone who works in balistics or in a crash lab and has expeiences of measuring the actually damage caused by a grenade, therefore, claiming charcters in a game have this sort of knowledge is also bollocks.

Quote from: jibbajibba;359709That is a bit daft. Firstly a system in which a grenade doesn't directly kill you and you are not a superhero, robot, amorphous jelly creature or similar is broken and the GM is totally within their rights to fix it. Secondly no one is any real world type environment can have experience of the ammount of damage they would take from jumping on a grenade unless they have jumped on a grenade I gues sthere might be a corner case where a guy is someone who works in balistics or in a crash lab and has expeiences of measuring the actually damage caused by a grenade, therefore, claiming charcters in a game have this sort of knowledge is also bollocks.

I don't totally disagree with this, but the right course of action is to say "I may decide to override the rules and kill you anyway; do you still want to take that course of action?" Let the player make an informed decision.

I'm with Jeff and Jibbajibba: if the rules tell me that a normal guy can survive a grenade explosion on his belly, it's not a case of rules that get in the way of roleplaying, but it's killing my suspension of disbelief and needs to be fixed. Or I'll vote out of the game with my feet. Unless this was a high gonzo/pulpy game, but I don't play those games personally.

Quote from: boulet;359711I'm with Jeff and Jibbajibba: if the rules tell me that a normal guy can survive a grenade explosion on his belly, it's not a case of rules that get in the way of roleplaying, but it's killing my suspension of disbelief and needs to be fixed. Or I'll vote out of the game with my feet. Unless this was a high gonzo/pulpy game, but I don't play those games personally.

Which is why GMs were originally called referees. IMO is their most important responsibility not the running of the opposition for the PCs.

As for the original question, is that rules light RPGs forces the referee to make rulings thus shaping the game to how they want it. Since most gaming groups are a gathering of friends and acquaintances with like interests this often works out nicely.

However rules heavy RPGs work just as well it just they demand more of the player and referee in terms of learning the rules.

I find with complex rule system (D&D 4e, Hero System) that are not based on reality that players tend to play the game rather than roleplay their combat actions. Not to say there isn't roleplaying going on but during combat they look at their game options more than just saying something natural.

I prefer heavy rules system like Harnmaster, GURPS, BRP, that are designed with some element of realism. While you have to think in game terms about what you are doing there is often a better correspondence between the game action and what you would really do. This makes adjudicating the corner cases like throwing oneself on a grenade easy to decide.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;359707No. You screwed the player.

Bullshit. If I would have let a PC survive falling on a grenade without some kind of incredible justification, then I am not presenting a consistant universe that has consequences for actions taken in play and emulates the Star Wars franchise to the game group. Suspension of disbelief and immersion are fucked then for what is suppossed to be the Star Wars universe.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;359707In the scenario you present, I'll assume that grenades have a listed damage, and a listed range, and that creatures can provide cover to others against that damage. An individual in the world being played in knows all of this, if he has any kind of familiarity with grenades. An individual - especially an adventurer - also probably has a pretty good idea of just how hardy they are, and are probably able (through experience) to make a reasonable guess as to how much a grenade will hurt them, in a relative sense (ie, they're not using the actual numbers, but some sort of qualitative measurement).

Given this information, it is entirely reasonable for a character who can withstand the max damage of a grenade to leap upon it to save other party members. They have all of the relevant information for this to be an informed decision, albeit non-numerically, in-world.

Have you ever read or used the d20 Star Wars rules? Because based on the above, I do not think you have. I also do not think your scenario would make sense in the Star Wars universe.

What should happen in a decent combat system is that I should be able to roleplay what I do and the rules should be able to cope with that in a reasonably friendly and elegant manner. If I can only select what I can do from a list of options then the game has already intruded on the roleplaying.
 
This of course takes down the dangerous road of talking about how in 2e D&D and earlier a PC could try to do anything in combat and the DM applied a modifier and they rolled a dice but once combat got codified through 3e and into 4e what you can do is limited to your training but tha tis a discussion already done to death ...

The Game system should support roleplaying once the system becomes the point of the exercise in and of itself roleplaying is put to one side and you have something which might well have all its own benefits.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;359707No. You screwed the player.

The rules are the universe. We're dealing with games that portray universes in which dragons exist, FTL is commonplace, and/or Cthulu is sleeping somewhere in the Pacific. The rules of physics are not necessarily different (and I would argue that, unless other specified, are not), but they can be.

Characters that exist within the setting understand the universe according to the rules. Yes, I know Order of the Stick is presented as/supposed to be a parody, but guess what: take out the references to actual numbers, and that's how the world should be perceived by characters. Guys who are really good with swords can fall 60 feet and walk away relatively unharmed.

If you have grenade rules, it is not unreasonable to expect the players to know them, and it sure as hell shouldn't be unreasonable - as a player - to expect that, unless otherwise explicitly told, the rules in the books for the game being played are what hold. If not, then make it clear, and if you forget, you shouldn't punish a player for making some rules-decision on the spot or clarifying a rule you'd changed.

In the scenario you present, I'll assume that grenades have a listed damage, and a listed range, and that creatures can provide cover to others against that damage. An individual in the world being played in knows all of this, if he has any kind of familiarity with grenades. An individual - especially an adventurer - also probably has a pretty good idea of just how hardy they are, and are probably able (through experience) to make a reasonable guess as to how much a grenade will hurt them, in a relative sense (ie, they're not using the actual numbers, but some sort of qualitative measurement).

Given this information, it is entirely reasonable for a character who can withstand the max damage of a grenade to leap upon it to save other party members. They have all of the relevant information for this to be an informed decision, albeit non-numerically, in-world.

I disagree with this assessment.  The player was gaming the system and not playing the game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;359709Firstly a system in which a grenade doesn't directly kill you and you are not a superhero...

Except they are, basically, superheroes. It's Star Wars.

Personally, I think it's dumb to expect roleplaying games and rules to be reality simulators. They're not. They break down in areas. You can try to fix them, but that just leads to other weirdness. For example, now grenades are more deadly than they ought to be.

I'm with Thanlis - if you're going to change the rules on the fly, let the player know that you're changing it and then see if he still wants to use the rules in that way.

Or, better yet, if you have a problem with games not being "realistic," go through the rules beforehand and change the ones that aren't. And let the players know, so you're not taking a dump all over their trust.

Seanchai

Quote from: Thanlis;359710I don't totally disagree with this, but the right course of action is to say "I may decide to override the rules and kill you anyway; do you still want to take that course of action?" Let the player make an informed decision.

This. Especially in D20 star wars (Or were vp/wp only in the revised edition? Can't remember), it wouldn't be hard to say "You're making no effort to defend yourself against the blast if you're actively jumping on the grenade... therefore this'll go straight to wounds. Still want to give it a shot?"

That said, the survivability of stupid situations has always been kind of a sticking point for me in many if not most systems.

Quote from: Thanlis;359710I don't totally disagree with this, but the right course of action is to say "I may decide to override the rules and kill you anyway; do you still want to take that course of action?" Let the player make an informed decision.

That is exactly the way I'd do it too.