Quote from: jeff37923;545807Is the Player role-playing in character then? If no, disallow it.

This.

Quote from: gleichman;545856If one has a complete and well designed combat system, there is no need to think outside of it.


Added: except to add detail fluff

I conjecture Mr. Gleichman does not understand the meaning of the word "complete". And indeed never has thought more than 30 seconds about modelling reality to begin with. Complete. Oh boy. I shame myself in taking this guy seriously in the Naughties.

Quote from: gleichman;545856If one has a complete and well designed combat system, there is no need to think outside of it.


Added: except to add detail fluff

Complete and well designed are 2 different things.  You can never had a complete combat system in a tabletop RPG.  At least you shouldn't.  That's because in an RPG, the possibilities for scenarios are literally endless.  The best you can do is have a good set of guidelines that provide context, but you'll never have a book that has a rule for everything.  Nor should you, in my opinion.  The more rules people have to memorize or look up, the harder it is to get new people to play and it slows the game way down.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;545870Complete and well designed are 2 different things.  You can never had a complete combat system in a tabletop RPG.  At least you shouldn't.

Of course you should have a complete combat system and of course it is actually possible to cover everything in rules.

Some systems just make the matter a bit more counter-intuitive than others.

For example neither Age of Heroes nor D&D (in the versions I've read) have rules for throwing sand in your opponent's face. But yet, both games do cover that very action- it's just been abstracted out of the way.

It's that abstraction that allows you the freedom to describe things as you want, as you can fill it with detail missing from the rules. The point is: Well Designed Rules have all the possible details abstracted in the results (mostly the resulting die rolls).


Once the battle (in D&D's case, and the time lag there is a problem for people like myself) or the individual action (in Age of Heroes) is resolved- one can go back and put in the sand throwing at will.


For example, from AoH:


Player: I thrown sand in his face and lunge for his gut

GM: Make your attack roll (applies *no* modifers and alters the normal combat action resolution in *no* way).

[complete the normal mechanical steps- results are a solid strike hitting the left leg for 13 points of damage]

GM: The sand in the face cause your opponent to flail wildly backwards, and while you missed his gut- your lunge caught his leg shattering bone. He's now prone and stunned.



Easy. If he had missed or done insignificant damage- there no difference, you just describe the outcome as needed.

It harder for D&D due to the HP abstaction. Basically a man cannot swing a sword and have a physical effect on his opponent until he reduces him to zero HP or less.

That means that tossing sand (a far less forceful action) can't have a physical effect either. The HP abstraction mechanic is in the way.

But once the foe is down, the GM and/or player can then put as much sand in his eyes as they wish and claim it was a cause for his defeat.

Quote from: Marleycat;544764You caught me while I was editing. Phone posting is hard. Anyway so you're trying to say the term is trying to make a grey collaborative area, one that is the very basis of RPG'S into a black and white competitive game like a MMORG.

I have no net access from home for another week (week three).  So, you have my sincerest sympathy for having to do phone posting

That is a perfectly fine system for handling sand in the eyes, but it seems like it involves thiniing about the rules and coming up with an on-the-fly solution, since you said the book doesn't cover the situation dirctly (unless I misunderstand). I am fine with that, but it doesn't seem to be what you were talking about earlier (having a system that covers everything so you don't have to think about it or make judgment calls). Not every GM is going to handle sand in the eye in the same way unless is it specifically detained in the rules.

Quote from: jeff37923;544773You are an idiot.

You may be agreeing with me about "mother-may-I", but I took to task your paranoid assumption that if you do not know a person's playstyle (DM or Player) that you must assume that they are going to be bad.

I did not make that assumption, ever.  You made that strawman argument about what I said, and ran with it even though it was patently false and nobody saw what you saw in what I wrote.  It was, from my perspective, a rather bizarre interpretation of what I had said.

QuoteThe followup to this that you will have an awful experience if there are not rules to curtail the badness is what led to some of the mistakes of 4E.

I agree.  To a lesser extent it was a problem with 3e as well.  But yes, fear of the DM seems to have played a negative role in the "rule for everything" approach of 4e (and, to some extent, 3e).

QuoteAt least get that right while you hoist yourself up on the cross.

No martyrdom here mang.  You're still pissed that I called you a fatty.  I get it.  Had I known it would strike such a nerve I never would have done it - but I doubt an apology at this point would do any good.  For what it is worth, I am sorry for called you a fatty Jeff.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545877That is a perfectly fine system for handling sand in the eyes, but it seems like it involves thiniing about the rules and coming up with an on-the-fly solution, since you said the book doesn't cover the situation dirctly (unless I misunderstand).

I think you're close, but not quite there in catching the concept.

The point is that 'sand in the eyes' isn't directly covered by the rules, but the game has an abstraction layer where many details are hidden.

And we know sand in the eyes can work (and is common actually in fiction).

Therefore sand in the eyes must be part of the abstraction.

All that remains is to determine the combat result as normal (i.e no thinning of the RAW)- and adding description detail reflecting the use of the sand in the eyes.


This is a very subtle concept, it took me a while to understand it. And unless I had done my own game design- I don't think I would have.


ADDED: this process is more or less difficult depending upon the game and the individual. I require detail equal to HERO and Age of Heroes to pull it off for myself. I can't do it myself in D&D although I understand it can be done.

Quote from: gleichman;545881I think you're close, but not quite there in catching the concept.

The point is that 'sand in the eyes' isn't directly covered by the rules, but the game have an abstraction layer where many details are hidden.

And we know sand in the eyes can work (and is common actually in fiction).

Therefore sand in the eyes must be part of the abstraction.

All that remains is to determine the combat result as normal (i.e no thinning of the RAW)- and add detail reflecting the use of the sand in the eyes.


This is a very subtle concept, it took me a while to understand it. And unless I had done my own game design- I don't think I would have.


ADDED: this process is more or less difficult depending upon the game and the individual. I require detail equal to HERO and Age of Heroes to pull it off for myself. I can't do it myself in D&D although I understand it can be done.

I misunderstood, i thought the prone result was added in for the sand, but re reading your post it looks like that is the standard result from a regular attack?

So this is just reskinning. Again that is fine, but if it is just adding fluff on top of the mechanic, then it didn't really matter if the player threw sand at his opponent or flung sand in his eyes, the result would be the same. Personally, i would prefer the Gm have the ability to actually factor in how the sand itself changes the outcome of the attack (for example if the game has a blinding condition, i would probably rule a succesful attack roll results in no damage but blinds the opponent for one round). Its possible I am missing something here but it looks like you are essentially saying just layer the sand fluff on top of the standard roll, but the mechanical outcome doesn't change.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;545778It's like a while ago when someone brought up, "My fighter doesn't have the highest diplomacy skill, the cleric does, so I feel left out during role-playing with NPCs because I can't contribute."  Who says you can't contribute?  Because you're scared you'll fail a roll when the cleric has the better chance?

If they are used to 4th edition skill challenges, I can totally understand why they would adopt that mind set, because failing is twice as bad as succeeding is good.

Which is one of the most broken things about that system.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545886I misunderstood, i thought the prone result was added in for the sand, but re reading your post it looks like that is the standard result from a regular attack?

So this is just reskinning.

Correct, although reskinning is a poor word choice IMO.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545886Again that is fine, but if it is just adding fluff on top of the mechanic, then it didn't really matter if the player threw sand at his opponent or flung sand in his eyes, the result would be the same.

No, the desciption would have been different.

And I would think that you of all people would understand how much description fires the imagination. and makes the game come alive.

This method fully engages the game system, and welcomes it's abstraction layer as freedom for creativity.

> Personally, i would prefer the Gm have the ability to actually factor in how
> the sand itself changes the outcome of the attack (for example if the game
> has a blinding condition, i would probably rule a succesful attack roll results
> in no damage but blinds the opponent for one round).

This has two serious negative effects IMO:

First it that causes players to all throw sand in people's faces, or to spend their effort coming up with some other detail to give themselves an edge.

Players are thus rewarded for *not* playing the game, but with coming up with wild ideas as wild ideas are more effective than the core combat system.

Some game designs run with this concept like Hong Kong Action Threatre and Feng Shu (if I'm remembering correctly). They are built upon a nearly free form system that rejoices in the concept.

Other games do not.


And to return to the thread title, as making things up that the GM agrees to is now the core activity of players- it may accurately be called "Mother May I" gaming by those who disagree with the style.



Second, in the case of D&D, it's breaking the HP abstraction layer completely- allowing tossed sand to do more impactful stuff than 6 lbs of well aimed and forcefully applied sharpened steel (as long as the HP remain positive).

That completely breaks suspension of debelief for people like myself. Why am I am in a world that lets me do stuff with sand that I can't do with a sword? Why can some things have physical effects when others that should don't? Why aren't these things consistent?

For people looking for consistent resolution, the simulation of the world is quickly broken.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545752Based on my memory of r.g.f.a I can understand why Mary might come across this way, but I think her "extremeness" (which IMO she shares with John M.) had more to do with pushing "immersion" into an extreme concept of "deep IC". Her actual games, which involved a group of players including her husband, were pretty normal procedurally.

I'm going to take this opportunity to emphasize that, although I may have come across as sardonic or sarcastic in my original post, when I said that I respect Mary Kuhner I really do mean that I respect her. Her ability to clearly articulate what she enjoys and how she can accomplish that was excellent. And, for me personally, it was an object lesson in the positive effect that theory can have when it's properly understood and applied.

And her games always sounded fantastic. I envy you the opportunity to play with her.

Quote from: B.T.;545768In general, I like knowing what my character can and cannot do.  It helps me decide how to act in character.

What seems to be getting discussed here are two different but related problems:

(1) If one character has the Swing Sword special ability which allows him to swing his sword, it implies that other characters are not allowed to swing swords. Add on additional abilities in the system like Sword Chop, Sword Slice, and Sword Block and you suddenly have a situation where nobody can do anything with a sword unless they have a special ability.

(2) The effect also happens in the opposite direction: If I have five or six specific abilities on my character sheet, there is an implication that those five or six specific things are the only specific things that I can do.

The solution, IME, is to:

(a) Define character capabilities in broad terms instead of specific terms. (Be suspicious of any character ability which spells out a single, specific action that can only be mechanically resolved in a single way and with a single, limited effect. This is not a hard-and-fast maxim, but a point of caution.)

(b) Never require a character to have a special ability in order to perform an action which any character should logically be able to attempt. (Special abilities may make you better at those tasks, but should not be required for the attempt. This is a hard-and-fast maxim.)

Quote from: gleichman;545873GM: Make your attack roll (applies *no* modifers and alters the normal combat action resolution in *no* way).

[complete the normal mechanical steps- results are a solid strike hitting the left leg for 13 points of damage]

GM: The sand in the face cause your opponent to flail wildly backwards, and while you missed his gut- your lunge caught his leg shattering bone. He's now prone and stunned.

Note that we have now gone completely down the rabbit hole: For Gleichman to be satisfied, your system not only requires a gridded battlemap but it also cannot have special rules for a character being prone. Because, if it did, the players would suddenly be reduced to asking "mother-may-I" to have their sand-based attacks render opponents prone (or, alternatively, the GM's sudden decision to allow such a thing would render it impossible for players to make truly relevant tactical decisions).

"Prone", of course, is only pertinent to this particular example. What Gleichman is claiming is that any potential mechanical variance in the outcome of an attack -- for example, if the GM is free to determine whether "thrown sand" should be resolved as nothing more than a basic attack or if that attack should have additional consequences (a blinded condition or prone status, for example) -- results in a game of "mother-may-I".

It's all complete nonsense, of course.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545931(1) If one character has the Swing Sword special ability which allows him to swing his sword, it implies that other characters are not allowed to swing swords. Add on additional abilities in the system like Sword Chop, Sword Slice, and Sword Block and you suddenly have a situation where nobody can do anything with a sword unless they have a special ability.

(2) The effect also happens in the opposite direction: If I have five or six specific abilities on my character sheet, there is an implication that those five or six specific things are the only specific things that I can do.

The solution, IME, is to:

(a) Define character capabilities in broad terms instead of specific terms. (Be suspicious of any character ability which spells out a single, specific action that can only be mechanically resolved in a single way and with a single, limited effect. This is not a hard-and-fast maxim, but a point of caution.)

(b) Never require a character to have a special ability in order to perform an action which any character should logically be able to attempt. (Special abilities may make you better at those tasks, but should not be required for the attempt. This is a hard-and-fast maxim.)

Apropos of nothing, this is exactly my problem with (and suggested solution for) effects-based point buy systems.

To briefly put on my new school hat, the whole "we can't let fighters have powers because we want combat to be creative" feels very much like pointless grognardery to me.  The wizard has a selection of predefined spells to use in combat and no one bats an eye at that, but suggesting the fighter should have an attack that does additional damage once per encounter results in rage.  Rather hypocritical, and I feel that it results in effectively punishing players who aren't creative (or who game with DMs who aren't that lenient).  The wizard can throw out a fireball for 10d6 whenever he wants, but the fighter needs to beg and plead for a little extra damage each round, at which point the DM is forced to make up rules on the fly and hope that everything works out well.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545931Note that we have now gone completely down the rabbit hole: For Gleichman to be satisfied, your system not only requires a gridded battlemap but it also cannot have special rules for a character being prone.

You misread my post, and failed to see the correction I already made to such a misreading in a later post. In fact you so misread it and jumped to a such a insane conculsion that I really think you're just making stuff up.


To be clear- a prone condition does indeed exist in Age of Heroes. It is the natural result of a number of actions covered in the rules- including getting one's leg shattered by taking 13 points of damage.

In concept I have no problem with rules that didn't have that condition in included (such as some versions of D&D, although my memory is fuzzy on that). Personally however, I need a ruleset with enough detail to account for a prone condition.