Quote from: Seanchai;359739Or, 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.

I simply inform players that a feeling of reality will always trump rules artifacts in cases where "reality" is obviously being violated by the rules for no strong genre/setting related reason. This covers all sorts of situations. Some examples: You can't trip a Gelatinous Cube by sticking your leg/sword out no matter what the rules say. If you are a fairly normal human in fairly normal armor, you can't fall on a modern era grenade and expect to survive the explosion no matter how many hit points you have. Your normal human can't jump off a 15 story cliff and hit the rocks below and expect to survive (at least not without being extremely lucky and only ending up permanent debilitating injuries) no matter how many hit points they have. Etc.

If you want every possible situation where this type of rule might be applied and override the RAW explained to you in advance, then you don't need to play in my games because I will not even try to accommodate you. At least, I'm up front about it.

Quote from: RandallS;359743I simply inform players that a feeling of reality will always trump rules artifacts
...

You mean, your feeling of reality, right?

Because, for example, falling on a grenade isn't necessarily instantly fatal. In fact, it may not be fatal at all. And, apparently, the proper technique for doing so is to put your helmet on the grenade and then lay on top of the helmet. That's right, there's actually a technique for it.

The problem with GMs who decide to save the group from the horrors of an unrealistic situation in a game is that a) they usually don't have a clue about what's actually realistic and b) they're usually doing it as a means of removing player input from the game...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;359755You mean, your feeling of reality, right?

Because, for example, falling on a grenade isn't necessarily instantly fatal. In fact, it may not be fatal at all. And, apparently, the proper technique for doing so is to put your helmet on the grenade and then lay on top of the helmet. That's right, there's actually a technique for it.

The problem with GMs who decide to save the group from the horrors of an unrealistic situation in a game is that a) they usually don't have a clue about what's actually realistic and b) they're usually doing it as a means of removing player input from the game...

Seanchai

Show us on this doll where the bad GM touched you, Seanchai.

And please bother to read the fucking articles you link to.

Now, see?  This is where I came to appreciate the binary nature of the old AD&D "Save" rolls.  Save vs. Poison or die.  In this case, Save vs. Hand Grenade or die.  There might be a slim chance that you'd survive, but there are so many situational factors involved, and most of them imperceptible, that I'd just chalk it up to a "luck roll".  I would not, however, allow a player's calculation of HPs to allow him to shrug off smothering an explosive with his belly.

All this said, I think this discussion underscores Jeff's assertion that unintended rules gaps like this take a player's head out of the game by tempting him to manufacture an unrealistic scenario that his character would not consider.  Self-sacrifice is a reasonable, in-game character option; expecting to walk away from what would surely be a crippling encounter is a cynical meta-game calculation.

Now, interestingly, when I'd mused on game options that tempt players to do things their characters wouldn't, I was thinking of this in a more positive light.  An example I can think of was when I was once discussing an amusing character build for an axe-throwing halfling.  I was in it for the cool factor, but I then had someone criticise the build for not taking full advantage of a variety of power options.  I was interested in concept; the other fellow was interested in optimisation.  And that, ladies and gentlemen, was a serious pitfall of 3.x Prestige Classes.

!i!

!i!

If you actively flaunt the rules in order to fit your conception of the game world, that's fine, because you're the GM. However, killing a player because you didn't agree with him without telling him that you were going to change the rules breaks the gentleman's agreements that RPGs run on.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;359760...expecting to walk away from what would surely be a crippling encounter is a cynical meta-game calculation.

Why would a character not have such an expectation if that's the world he or she lives in? The character lives in a world of starships, Force powers, and super science. Moreover, I would imagine said character has been through a battle or two - that is, he or she has has some idea of how tough he or she is, how damaging weapons are, and how well medical science works. If the world works via the rules and the rules say the character could walk away, why would he or she not have an expectation of at least possibly walking away from such an event?

Quote from: Ian Absentia;359760And that, ladies and gentlemen, was a serious pitfall of 3.x Prestige Classes.

And the differences in weapons in AD&D and character builds in 4e. People making optimal choices based on mechanics isn't endemic to any one edition or game.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;359767Why would a character not have such an expectation if that's the world he or she lives in?

That's a pretty big "If" you have going on there, and it doesn't seem to be the one that Jeff was describing.  Would Annakin from Ep.II smother a grenade because he expected to survive it?  Maybe.  Would Luke from Ep.VI? Probably not.  Would Han Solo from any of Ep.IV-VI?  Not a chance.  It was a cynical calculation and you know it.

QuoteAnd the differences in weapons in AD&D and character builds in 4e. People making optimal choices based on mechanics isn't endemic to any one edition or game.

Oh, for heaven's sake.  I mentioned 3e because that was the particular game in which it occurred.  Fine, let's talk about taking a 1e Awl Pike into a dungeon because it has fantastic mods, but ignoring that it's 15 feet long.  What was it this thread was about?  Systems that "get in the way" of roleplaying?  Great, there you go.  A fine example.

!i!

Quote from: Seanchai;359755You mean, your feeling of reality, right?

Damn right, Seanchi. I'm the GM, deciding such things for my campaigns is my job. Players know it up front and those who have problems with it are not required to play.  Those who are going to whiner about it don't get invited back.

QuoteBecause, for example, falling on a grenade isn't necessarily instantly fatal.

Perhaps not instantly fatal, but the person was dead in 30 minutes and was not taking any meaningful action in that time. From the POV of the game, it isn't going to matter.

QuoteIn fact, it may not be fatal at all.

In game terms someone had a hero point, used it to live and would have had months or years of down game-time to recover.

QuoteAnd, apparently, the proper technique for doing so is to put your helmet on the grenade and then lay on top of the helmet. That's right, there's actually a technique for it.

I know that. It is still likely to hurt the hero bad AND the situation described in this thread was falling on the grenade, not putting your helmet on it and then falling on it.

QuoteThe problem with GMs who decide to save the group from the horrors of an unrealistic situation in a game is that a) they usually don't have a clue about what's actually realistic

Often they know more about their game world than the designers of the game do.  And more about reality at times, too.  In general, game designers aren't a bit better than good GMs at this.  Some rules designers even admit they don't care if the rules don't feel real.

Quoteand b) they're usually doing it as a means of removing player input from the game...

Yes, preventing players from doing the impossible and near impossible simply because the player wants to and has managed to find a way to read the rules to allow it is part of the GM's job, IMHO.  Again, if you don't like my GM job description, you don't have to play in my games.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;359770It was a cynical calculation and you know it.

It was a cynical calculation that could have easily been based on character knowledge.

Seanchai

IMHO the player who threw his character on the grenade was being disingenuous. It seems clear he was playing the system against the GM's assumption. A more honest way to present his intention would have been "If my character is covering the grenade, could he survive while protecting other characters?" Then a conversation about hard numbers and system could happen. Instead he thought he could do a smart ass last moment reveal about the rules hole. Seems to me the confrontational interactions at the table are a bigger problem than the system "getting in the way of roleplaying" here. For instance one would wonder why Jeff didn't ask sth like "you realize you character is going to die, right?"

I hope the thread doesn't get stuck on this anecdote though.

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.

You have completely missed the point.

If you're going to make this argument, I expect that you play no game in which a character can survive being hit with a sword, or being shot, more than once or twice. I also expect that, in your games, they die from infection or what-not rather quickly if they don't receive medical attention.

And I mean medical attention. None of that "magic" bullshit. 'cause that's not, y'know, realistic.

As an aside, whether or not it's broken is entirely system-dependent.

Quote from: jeff37923Bullshit. 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.

Guess what, then: you're using the wrong fucking system. If you want grenades to kill characters when they land on them, then don't use a system that grants ridiculous amounts of hit points. The system you are using is apparently a poor mechanical representation of the Star Wars universe.

QuoteHave 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.

Yes and yes.

I agree, my scenario would make absolutely no sense in the universe. But you're using rules to represent that universe, and the rules are what's important.

Quote from: DrohemThe player was gaming the system and not playing the game.

No, the player took what the character knew, and made an informed decision based on that. The rules are the physics of the universe the character inhabits. That's not "gaming the system," that's making intelligent, informed decisions.

Quote from: boulet;359777IMHO the player who threw his character on the grenade was being disingenuous. It seems clear he was playing the system against the GM's assumption. A more honest way to present his intention would have been "If my character is covering the grenade, could he survive while protecting other characters?" Then a conversation about hard numbers and system could happen. Instead he thought he could do a smart ass last moment reveal about the rules hole. Seems to me the confrontational interactions at the table are a bigger problem than the system "getting in the way of roleplaying" here. For instance one would wonder why Jeff didn't ask sth like "you realize you character is going to die, right?"

I hope the thread doesn't get stuck on this anecdote though.

Too late, the thread has already stuck on it.

I did ask the Player if he was sure he wanted to do that. He just smiled at me and said, "Yes!"

Quote from: GnomeWorks;359778Guess what, then: you're using the wrong fucking system. If you want grenades to kill characters when they land on them, then don't use a system that grants ridiculous amounts of hit points. The system you are using is apparently a poor mechanical representation of the Star Wars universe.

Yes and yes.

I agree, my scenario would make absolutely no sense in the universe. But you're using rules to represent that universe, and the rules are what's important.

Sorry, but your head is up your ass on this one.

 

Quote from: GnomeWorks;359778That's not "gaming the system," that's making intelligent, informed decisions.

Yes Virginia, it was indeed gaming the system.

Quote from: RandallS;359772Perhaps not instantly fatal, but the person was dead in 30 minutes and was not taking any meaningful action in that time. From the POV of the game, it isn't going to matter.

What? From the point of view of the game, which takes place in a setting where people can move things with their minds and jet about the galaxy, it isn't going to matter?

Check out the Vital Transfer Force power, the Treat Injury skill (especially the Revivify section), and all the Medical Gear, which details the "small" Surgery Kit.

If a Star Wars character lives through combat, there's every chance it's going to stay alive. We might not have been able to save that heroic soldier in this day and age, but that means nothing to folks in the Star Wars universe.

Quote from: RandallS;359772In game terms someone had a hero point, used it to live and would have had months or years of down game-time to recover.

Why are you arguing with game terms? Why would having a Hero Point matter? Isn't bringing up Hero Points as a reason for surviving basically saying that the player in question was justified in his decision and the reasoning behind it?

Quote from: RandallS;359772Often they know more about their game world than the designers of the game do.  

Apparently, the game world doesn't mean shit.

Quote from: RandallS;359772In general, game designers aren't a bit better than good GMs at this.

All we need is a good GM.

But neither group is good at translating reality into game mechanics. Reality isn't easily quantifiable and you can only bring so many mechanics to the table.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;359775It was a cynical calculation that could have easily been based on character knowledge.

Dude.  Would Han-Fucking-Solo have had that character knowledge?  Would a character without some hairy-ass Force power have had that knowledge?  You're swimming in a pool of "if"s, "could"s, and "maybe"s.  Give the guy one of three choices: A) Spend a Hero Point, B) Roll to Save vs. Hand Grenades, or C) Wash and detail my car; do that and I'll let a character get dragged away gasping on a stretcher.  But do not tell me that you've compared your HP total vs. the maximum damage of a hand grenade and call it an in-character "roleplaying" response.

!i!