Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598Ideally, yes. But when I see people bitching on ENWorld because the playtest documents include "mother-may-I" features like guidelines for assigning DCs not listed in the rulebook, I'm forced to conclude that the "degree" in question has reached idiotic proportions.

That may be the case, then.  But the "Mother May I" complaint can also be a legitimate complaint where guidelines largely replace rules or examples, which is what I was assuming people were concerned about and which plenty of rules-light and story games do actually do.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598Mary was a special flower whose ability to roleplay could be disrupted by someone breathing the wrong way at the gaming table. I always respected her ability to articulate her perspective and her needs, but her experience is way out on an extreme. Unless I'm actually playing with Mary Kuhner, I'm not going to use her experience as any kind of guideline for what needs to happen at a tabletop.

Given that I play from a perspective very similar to Mary's (thinking in character as the ideal), though perhaps not to the degree that Mary did it, her experiences and comments were often quite relevant to me.  That said, the point she was making was from a player and GM perspective and not from a thinking in character perspective and thus I think it has broader applicability to the issue of why a player might hard rules rather that GM assessments in combat.  I was not looking to provoke a specific response to Mary's role-playing style here because I don't really think it's relevant to the example.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598Furthermore, quoting Mary is an interesting choice. IIRC, she didn't use a tabletop grid or miniatures. The "objective mechanical system" she's talking about is, in fact, the exact same mechanics that Benoist and I are talking about.

There are two issues being discussed side by side here.  One is the use of hard fixed rules as opposed to GM assessments to determine how a situation is resolved and the other is the use of a grid and some sort of marker as a communications, comprehension, and consistency tool.  They are largely separable issues, though there is some correlation between the two.

But I will add that while I have not played with Mary like Elliot has, many of her games with her husband were one-on-one and the GM bandwidth situation in a one-on-one game are different than those with several more players.  Playing "20 Questions" with a GM on a one-on-one game does not mean that other players are sitting around twiddling their thumbs while waiting to ask their own "20 questions", so it's far more viable in that context.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598The idea that the only way a GM can communicate an objective mechanical model of the game world which the player can then manipulate through objective mechanics is through a battlemap is false.

So it's a good thing I wasn't claiming that.  What I was claiming is that I believe a graphical representation is, in general, a more efficient way of communicating accurate and objective spatial information than a verbal description once things get beyond a superficial level of complexity.  It is the reason why modules include dungeon maps rather than text descriptions of the rooms and hallways only.  It's why Benoist's room with a pit example eventually went to a sketch on a white board.  It's why Elliot mentioned Mary using a sketch on a chalk board.  After a fairly low level of detail, a picture often is worth a thousand words or even more and that's why people use them.The next step of precision is to add a grid or hexes behind that map.  

If you really believe there is something wrong with my reasoning here, feel free to write and publish an adventure that includes no maps -- only text descriptions of every room and encounter -- and see how it's received.  Remember, I'm only talking about communication and precision here, not player perception or psychology or how it affects play, and I think that's where a lot of things are being muddled together here.  

I'm trying to understand why what should be an effective communication tool becomes a problem, disrupts how players think about the game, and slows games down because that does not always happen.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598Because it is specifically the tool that causes the problem: It is the presentation of a map on a grid that triggers the problem in these players. In order to solve the problem, you have to take away the process of measuring distances on the tabletop.

That's one way to do it, but eliminating something entirely is generally a fairly blunt solution to any problem, and I think it skips over the questions of why players are measuring distances when given the capability to do so and what does it mean to take that capability away from them.  If I don't know how far the evil cultists are from my character and don't have some idea of how far my character can run in a turn or how well they could hit a target at that range with a thrown knife, how do I make decisions about whether to throw a knife at them, charge into battle with them, etc.?  In other words, counting squares lets the player assess the situation and determine what their characters can or can't do and get some idea of what the odds of certain options are.  That has to either be replaced by verbal GM communication without a graphical representation or the player is making decisions with less information.  If there is a fault to my argument here, please identify it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598But, for example, these players would generally confine their movement on a grid to the default mechanics for moving around the grid (by counting out spaces). When the grid wasn't present, they would interact with their environment in a much more dynamic and varied way. Present them with the map of a rope bridge and they walk across the bridge; present them with the description of a rope bridge and they'll do things like shake the bridge to knock people off or cut through the ropes.

So would that same problem occur for those people, even with a sketch on a white board or chalk board and without a grid, because the rope bridge is depicted as a fixed and immovable object?  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598A common malady is the perception of the world in two dimensions because they're looking at a two-dimensional map. Remove the map and these players would suddenly start swinging on chandeliers.

While I don't doubt that's true, I've also seen the same miraculous transformation simply by having a player or NPC give the players an example to follow.  If the bad guys are shaking the rope bridges, swinging from chandeliers, and engaging with the environment or another PC is, the players can learn from that, as well.  I'm curious whether you've seen the reverse happen, which is players who were swinging from the chandeliers stop doing so because a two-dimensional map is being used in the game.  I can imagine that happening but I'm curious if you've seen it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598Not in my experience. For example, just a couple sessions back in my OD&D campaign I had players making decisions like "we'll wait for them to go past and then attack them from behind" (facing), "do they have any ranged weapons? no? then we'll stand on this side of the rope bridge and hit 'em with ranged attacks" (range), and "we'll spread some oil around so that when they charge us they'll be slipping and sliding" (terrain features).

The attack from behind is a one time consideration which does not require turn-by-turn management of multiple facings and waiting for them to go past implies a corridor encounter which is effectively one-dimensional.  The rope bridge is really an example of the one-dimensional encounter, which I've acknowledged are suitable for verbal-only treatment, since the only range consideration is how quickly they can close the distance to engage the PCs.  And by "terrain features", what I was really looking for is a turn-to-turn consideration of position and established terrain to impact the results of the combat.  In your oil example, assuming we were not taking about a one-dimensional corridor encounter, the question would be whether everyone kept track of where the slippery area was and tried to use it to benefit them after the charge and across many rounds of combat.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598You and Gleichman are both very, very limited in your approach to these issues. You obviously like to interact with information in one very specific way and apparently have a great deal of difficulty believing that other kinds of information and other kinds of communication can exist.

I have no difficulty believing other kinds of information and communication can exist.  I'm talking about efficiency.  

For example, a GM could hand each player a text description of each encounter and wait for them to read them and people certainly play whole campaigns via text chat so I know that's possible.  Heck, you can role-play via email if you really want.  I played a D&D game where the GM used email role-playing for between session side issues.  I hated it but it can be done. But is it more efficient than sitting around a table face-to-face and just talking?  I don't think so.  Sure, you could write an adventure module entirely in text with no maps and convey the information needed to run the adventure, but would it be more efficient than including a map with the adventure?  I don't think so.

And that's where I think two issues are being muddled together here.  That diagrams, maps, and grids produce an undesirable psychological effect in some players that degrades the quality of their play is independent of how efficiently those tools convey complex and accurate information to the players.  And what I'm questioning, in light of the old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words, is that people seem to be claiming that the words are faster and better, even though every published module I've seen includes exactly the sort of map with grid that people are complaining about precisely because it's a more efficient and accurate way to convey the rooms and layout of the setting.  So what I'm getting at is that the words may produce a more desirable style of play for some groups but I think that's despite the fact that less information is being conveyed less precisely, not because the information is identical and only presented in a different way.  

And I also find myself wondering if the players think it important to count squares or (in the Fudge Designer's Notes example) look up exact modifiers, what does it mean to take that away?  If they don't miss it, then why were they doing that in the first place?  Even if figuring it out doesn't solve anything and the conclusion is the same, I think that's an interesting question to consider and understand.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598I'm not trying to attack you with that statement. But I am trying to make you understand that you're operating under a very bizarre supposition in which a GM using graphic aids is communicating with players but a GM using words is not. The reality is that both forms of communication are valid and both forms of communication are capable of objectivity (and also capable of a lack of objectivity).

Again, that's not the assumption I'm making and I don't think Brian is making that claim, either.  The claim is that the verbal communication may be, to varying degrees of each, less precise, more complicated, more prone to misunderstanding, and can lead to players having to ask questions of the GM before making decisions.  As I've said, I've seen verbal-only misunderstandings that have resulted in character deaths.  I've played the "20 Questions" game -- in fact when that starts during an encounter is when I've normally seen someone at the table (player or GM) say, "Let's go to the map."  

As I also mentioned, based on Benoist's example, from the verbal description I would have assumed that the pit was square and the cultists were clustered around the leader rather than the edge of the pit, both points readily clarified by his drawing.  The shape of the pit would likely be a trivial misunderstanding but the locations of the cultists is fairly important.  Yes, one can convey very complex information objectively and without misunderstanding verbally but the difficulty in doing so increases with the complexity of the information and it can be very difficult for anyone to catch when there has been a misunderstanding, unless someone acts on it in a way that makes the misunderstanding clear.

Quote from: gleichman;545881The 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.

This is one of the reasons why I think it's stilly for games to include specific combat moves and modifiers for things like feints, parries, and other maneuvers that affect one's chances of hitting or being hit.  It is my assumption that all of those things are what creates a character's combat skill level and a character would naturally be doing those things as needed as part of their attack or defense.  My way of describing it is, "It's in there."  And I can see where things like sand in the eyes are pretty much the same thing.  And I also agree that once something like throwing sand in the eyes is given a positive modifier, there is little reason not to use such tactics every time the character is in combat.

Quote from: John Morrow;545946And I also agree that once something like throwing sand in the eyes is given a positive modifier, there is little reason not to use such tactics every time the character is in combat.

Well, maybe one is fighting on a stone floor without sand, but I can easily see players bringing there own when they find out how well it works.

The White Knight eyed the Ogre standing in his way and frowned, "Squire! My sword, and bucket of sand now!" he shouted.

Quote from: John Morrow;545946This is one of the reasons why I think it's stilly for games to include specific combat moves and modifiers for things like feints, parries, and other maneuvers that affect one's chances of hitting or being hit.  It is my assumption that all of those things are what creates a character's combat skill level and a character would naturally be doing those things as needed as part of their attack or defense.  My way of describing it is, "It's in there."  And I can see where things like sand in the eyes are pretty much the same thing.  And I also agree that once something like throwing sand in the eyes is given a positive modifier, there is little reason not to use such tactics every time the character is in combat.

The reason not to do it all the time, is you most likely forgo doing damage.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546009The reason not to do it all the time, is you most likely forgo doing damage.

Three things...

First
What you're implying is that the GM judgement remains balanced even through he has exceed the scope of the combat system, and that he is capable of doing this on the fly with quick judgements and rulings.

That this would be true even most of the time is highly questionable, let alone that it would be true often enough to meet any reasonable standard of fairness (between players and their ideas) and balance (of the game).


Second
This answer fails to take into account the impact of teamwork. While one character has given up the option to do damage, others on this team now have a significantly increased chance to do more damage.

In games where target focus is advantageous or are focused on tactical maneuver (i.e. position and movement like Age of Heroes) the result can be immediate and overwhelming.

RPG are all about teamwork, and I find that GMs and even designers forget about that fact all too often.


Third
Perhaps the worse result from your PoV (not mine) is that if you for some mystical reason are able to balance it nearly 100% of the time. For in that case there is no reason at all to do your special out of the box action as it has provided no benefit. The exact opposite of your stated claim upfront that you were rewarding your players for these actions.

Quote from: gleichman;546013Three things...

First
What you're implying is that the GM judgement remains balanced even through he has exceed the scope of the combat system, and that he is capable of doing this on the fly with quick judgements and rulings.

That this would be true even most of the time is highly questionable, let alone that it would be true often enough to meet any reasonable standard of fairness (between players and their ideas) and balance (of the game).

A good GM can handle these kinds of judgments effectively. I it perfect? No, of course not. There is a certain subjectivi in such judgments. But IMO that is no reason to dissallow actions not covered by the rules (which is end result if you are folding sand-in-the-eyes into regular attack as a reskinning). I see no reason to forever be afraid of human fallibility here.

QuoteSecond
This answer fails to take into account the impact of teamwork. While one character has given up the option to do damage, others on this team now have a significantly increased chance to do more damage.

In games where target focus is advantageous or are focused on tactical maneuver (i.e. position and movement like Age of Heroes) the result can be immediate and overwhelming.

Sure, but in real life if you blind someone in a group attack, they will be overwhelmed. Heck in real life if you team up on one person they are toast. Throwing sand in a person's eye will be a good tactical choice in such situationa. When the group is split between more foes or in a 1 on 1 it is less optimal. The trick is to place realistic limitations on it. Obviously. You need to be close to the opponent to throw the sand, and grabbing the sand in the first place might (in 3e for example) cost a move action. Usually what I do in such cases when a player asks do something unusual is say what I think is a fair procedure (i.e. If you want to throw sand it will take a move action to grab the sand and you will make an attack roll at -1 to blind the opponent for one round). Of everyone agrees we go with it. If it is something that comes up regularly, then I establish a houserule for it. But lots of things come up very rarely, so you are unlikely to have a mechanic before hand. I dont think this means you should prohibit them provided they are reasonable actions.

QuoteThird
Perhaps the worse result from your PoV (not mine) is that if you for some mystical reason are able to balance it nearly 100% of the time. For in that case there is no reason at all to do your special out of the box action as it has provided no benefit. The exact opposite of your stated claim upfront that you were rewarding your players for these actions.

Not at all. Such actions should result in the same kind of trade off they would in real life. That is why simulation rather than ure mechanical balance is usually my guide when making these decisions. In some situatoins they should be effective, in others less so. In two decades of play, I haven't really found the problem you describe here (except in cases where my ruling is a bad one). I am not saying there is anything wrong with your approach (there isn't). But if your group wants their creative tacical choices to matter, it helps if you can apply the existing rules in new ways.

Quote from: gleichman;546013In games where target focus is advantageous or are focused on tactical maneuver (i.e. position and movement like Age of Heroes) the result can be immediate and overwhelming.
.

I have take a look at your Age of Heroes page and despite our debate it does interest me. I recently made a game that took a similar approach to hit points and defenses with very good results (though i dont know if it will be shelved or released at this stage). While I prefer no grid, if the game is pretty much meant for one (like 3E for example), am happy to use one (playing 3E without the grid never worked very well in my opinion).

Between here..

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546016A good GM can handle these kinds of judgments effectively. I it perfect? No, of course not.

And here..

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546016Sure, but in real life if you blind someone in a group attack, they will be overwhelmed.

... you went from basically saying
"Special stuff is easily balanced so there's no reason to do special stuff all the time"

to saying
"Special Stuff is supposed to be overwhelming thus meaning that smart players will all do it"

In the same post. Amazing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546016Usually what I do in such cases when a player asks do something unusual is say what I think is a fair procedure (i.e. If you want to throw sand it will take a move action to grab the sand and you will make an attack roll at -1 to blind the opponent for one round). Of everyone agrees we go with it. If it is something that comes up regularly, then I establish a houserule for it.

Are your players so blind or uncaring to the advantages gained that they won't take advantage of the windfalls you're providing them by making them standard actions? If so, you're a musician playing to a deaf audience.

Or are you inducing dozens and dozens of house rules on the fly into the game design? At what point to you feel house rules makes the game a different game than the published one? Do the players have a list of these house rules in front of them to consider before every combat action or must they depend upon solely your memory of (or secret written list) of the additions?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546016In two decades of play, I haven't really found the problem you describe here (except in cases where my ruling is a bad one).

It took longer and factors beyond many farmer's immediate control to realize that not rotating crops is a bad idea. The "I haven't noticed" is a weak defense, because all it proves is that "you haven't noticed".

A stronger statement is "I and others have specifically look for these effects and not found them", but even that is rather weak as the sample size is so small.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546016I am not saying there is anything wrong with your approach (there isn't). But if your group wants their creative tacical choices to matter, it helps if you can apply the existing rules in new ways.

You make two horrible errors here.

1 - Not all rewards for choices are reflected in the game mechanics. Indeed I'd claim most rewards in the RPG world are not.

2- It is indeed very possible to very creative while staying within fixed and limited rules. Just look at Chess, backgammon, Go and other games, and the vast differences in skill (i.e. creative approaches) between people playing those games.

Quote from: gleichman;546021... which is basically saying
"Special stuff is easily balanced so there's no reason to do special stuff all the time"

to saying
"Special Stuff is supposed to be overwhelming thus meaning that smart players will all do it"

In the same post. Amazing.

Do you understand the difference between a group of PCs all ganging up on one opponent vs each PC having to fight one or more opponents?

Not everyone can understand context. Its ok.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;546023Do you understand the difference between a group of PCs all ganging up on one opponent vs each PC having to fight one or more opponents?

Not everyone can understand context. Its ok.

You've just told me that teamwork doesn't exist in your games, or is not allowed to exist.

Very nice, I hope that works out for you. But for me, teamwork is the reason table RPGs are a group activity.

Quote from: gleichman;546025You've just told me that teamwork doesn't exist in your games, or is not allowed to exist.

Very nice, I hope that works out for you. But for me, teamwork is the reason table RPGs are a group activity.

Do you have Aperger's Syndrome? I ask, because you regularly appear to be a high-functioning autistic in these discussions.

Quote from: gleichman;546025You've just told me that teamwork doesn't exist in your games, or is not allowed to exist.

Very nice, I hope that works out for you. But for me, teamwork is the reason table RPGs are a group activity.

WTF?

All I was saying is that teamwork can be used bythe PCs but that it can also be used against them by their opponents.

I suppose it needs to be spelled out for the reading impaired: having numbers on your side is a good thing.

Thus, if the PCs were fighting one tough dude, then one team member forgoing damage to help the team by blinding the enemy is good teamwork.

If a group of 4 PCs were fighting 12 dudes then having one PC on blinding duty is less useful. In fact the enemies might use the tactic against the PCs because they have the numbers to do so.

How you got teamwork not existing from that is a complete mystery.

Quote from: gleichman;546021Between here..



And here..



... you went from basically saying
"Special stuff is easily balanced so there's no reason to do special stuff all the time"

to saying
"Special Stuff is supposed to be overwhelming thus meaning that smart players will all do it"

In the same post. Amazing.

There you go again.....

Quote]Are your players so blind or uncaring to the advantages gained that they won't take advantage of the windfalls you're providing them by making them standard actions? If so, you're a musician playing to a deaf audience.

Any ruling like this is a doule edged sword and can be used against the pcs as well a a later point (since I ruled x happened when you threw sand in the guard's eyes, when the gladiator throws sand in your eyes...).

QuoteOr are you inducing dozens and dozens of house rules on the fly into the game design? At what point to you feel house rules makes the game a different game than the published one? Do the players have a list of these house rules in front of them to consider before every combat action or must they depend upon solely your memory of (or secret written list) of the additions?

In my own group house rules are agreed upon collectively and retained by memory. If something keeps coming up for example, the rulings morph into a basis for houserules and people don't forget them.

For my own games, which I run most of the time, i take notes and keep them in a document. Any houserule like this I go over with the players verbally but am happy to send them the text as well (my experience is most players dont want additional reading though), since these usually form the basis of new optional rules in later books (a lot of the agency guide for terror network was developed this way for example, when it became clear I needed an abstract and consistent mechanic for sending in strike teams....before this was literally played out at the table which took too much time and often the player characters werent even on the scene).

QuoteIt took longer and factors beyond many farmer's immediate control to realize that not rotating crops is a bad idea. The "I haven't noticed" is a weak defense, because all it proves is that "you haven't noticed".

A stronger statement is "I and others have specifically look for these effects and not found them", but even that is rather weak as the sample size is so small.

Games are not farms. GMs not farmers. Ultimately groups need to use what works for them, not what works for gleichman or bedrockbrendan. If i dont encounter a problem running games a certain way over twenty years, I am not going to change my style because gleichman has issues with it.

QuoteYou make two horrible errors here.

1 - Not all rewards for choices are reflected in the game mechanics. Indeed I'd claim most rewards in the RPG world are not.

2- It is indeed very possible to very creative while staying within fixed and limited rules. Just look at Chess, backgammon, Go and other games, and the vast differences in skill (i.e. creative approaches) between people playing those games.

1- most players in my groups want choices like throwing sand in a person's eye to yield mechanical results.

2- i am not very interested in creative metagaming (if that is what you are suggesting) much more interested in creative stuff arising within the game setting.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;546029WTF?

All I was saying is that teamwork can be used bythe PCs but that it can also be used against them by their opponents.

From your post of course, go back read it and the post of mine you replied to.

If you can't figure it from that, I'm not going to draw you map. So you're going to have just go through life confused.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546030There you go again.....?

Or as I would say, "There you went again".

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546030Any ruling like this is a doule edged sword and can be used against the pcs as well a a later point (since I ruled x happened when you threw sand in the guard's eyes, when the gladiator throws sand in your eyes...).

Interesting...

So your NPCs are also allowed to go outside the rules and gain special benefits that advantage them (sometime greatly enough to crush the players).

Do they do this as often as the players?

Do they too have the ability to access completely new and never before seen special actions?

Or are the players special snow flakes allowed to do this more often, and/or to create new special actions?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546030In my own group house rules are agreed upon collectively and retained by memory. If something keeps coming up for example, the rulings morph into a basis for houserules and people don't forget them.

So you have a group of players with infallible memory.

I envy you such a gift. I must make do with lesser players who are unable to recall every detail of the even the written rules at times.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546030For my own games, which I run most of the time, i take notes and keep them in a document. Any houserule like this I go over with the players verbally but am happy to send them the text as well (my experience is most players dont want additional reading though), since these usually form the basis of new optional rules in later books

That's rather cool and is a huge advantage for someone like you (and me) during a game. On the spot ruling can become 100% official and part of the actual game text.

But you should note that all the points I'm making here are not done from that view point. But rather from the end user- be it GM or player. This is a disadvantage unavailble to such people.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546030Games are not farms. GMs not farmers.

And human nature does not apply to them as a result? Please, being a gamer does not make one immuned to the flaws mankind displays in all his works.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546030Ultimately groups need to use what works for them, not what works for gleichman or bedrockbrendan. If i dont encounter a problem running games a certain way over twenty years, I am not going to change my style because gleichman has issues with it.

A pity.

I on the other hand actually listen to people and have learned new things upon realizing they have pointed out something that I've missed or overlooked. I'm able to step back and look at things with a bit prompting and sound arguement and realize they were right.

It's the reason for some of the rule changes in Age of Heroes 5.0, and has help me become a better GM and players over the years.

But by all means, if you were born perfect- don't change.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;5460301- most players in my groups want choices like throwing sand in a person's eye to yield mechanical results.

Of course, everyone likes unearned advantages and freebies. We are flawed creatures that way.

I'm sure people make illegal moves in chess for much the same reason.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;5460302- i am not very interested in creative metagaming (if that is what you are suggesting) much more interested in creative stuff arising within the game setting.

Hmm, techanically you're the one metagaming (i.e. using stuff not in the rules to mechanically affect those rules). I'm talking about rewards like those felt by skilled play within the rules, the joy of colorful description, and immersion in a consistent world.

Simply put...

Rulings Not Rules means one thing to me: The players play the GM instead of the Game and enjoy it.

I rather the players played the game, and enjoy it.