This thread has gone way downhill.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546044This thread has gone way downhill.

This thread started with nothing but a dog pile whacking on the phrase "Mother-My-I" in a way that clearly showed that people had no understanding of what the phrase meant.

It couldn't have gone downhill from that starting point.

Quote from: gleichman;546046This thread started with nothing but a dog pile whacking on the phrase "Mother-My-I" in a way that clearly showed that people had no understanding of what the phrase meant.

It couldn't have gone downhill from that starting point.

Yeah....no.

Quote from: gleichman;546039Of 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.

If a move has a risk and an opportunity cost, how is that unearned or a freebie?

Comparing the possibilities of actions in an rpg to chess moves means that either you don't understand possibilities based on imagination or you have the imagination of a turnip, or both.

Quote from: gleichman;546039Hmm, 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.

So the game is nothing beyond the rules then? If so, then computer games should be more than sufficient to fill all gaming needs. There is no flawed human standing between the player and the game, just the pre-defined rules and opportunity for skilled play within them.

No thanks.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;546054If a move has a risk and an opportunity cost, how is that unearned or a freebie?

Because it's not in the rules, but made up on the spot in response to a player request.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;546054Comparing the possibilities of actions in an rpg to chess moves means that either you don't understand possibilities based on imagination or you have the imagination of a turnip, or both.

I see that you've never been a chess player.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;546054So the game is nothing beyond the rules then?

There is much more to an RPG than the rules.

I doubt you'll click on the link, but this is a overview of what makes up an RPG.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546047Yeah....no.

Pretty much this thread makes me seriously consider if Gleichman has some form of autism.  The thread itself? Beyond stupid.

Yes, YES!

I see that you guys are still grinding the organ and the monkey is still dancing!

Quote from: gleichman;546039Interesting...

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).

Both player characters and NPCs can take actions not covered by the rules that are within reason and make sense in the setting.

QuoteDo they do this as often as the players?

Depends on the NPC and the players. These things arise naturally during play and are pretty case by case.

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

If something comes up, that is perfectly reasonable to do, and it ought to have special mechanical effects, I usually allow it. But these are not gamebreaking. Just like in real life there is a reason you are not constantly throwing sand in someone's eyes during a fight. As I said if you use "what would happen in real life if he tried that" as your basis for decision making it usually makes sense and ends up being pretty balanced on the whole.

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

Like I said way back, they are double edged swords. If the PCs can do something, no reason the NPCs can't.

QuoteSo 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.

Hardly. But if a ruling comes up enough that we have to adopt it as a house rule we find we don't forget. It isn't like we have a massive tome of the things that come up outside the rules on a regular basis. It is a pretty small list.

QuoteThat'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.

Even if folks are not publishing their own games, they can still produce a document of houserules if they like. The only difference between me and any other GM using the Network system is my houserules usually make it into later supplements (though I am thrilled when folks send me their own houserules by email). I think houserules are great because games are written for a general audience but each group is different. In some groups sand in the eyes will never come up, in others it will be the kind of thing that routinely happens and they will need a rule for it that suits their group's sensibilities.

QuoteAnd 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.

No. But our needs are much more immediate. Like I said, if gleichman runs into problems using GM on the spot rulings and I don't over more than two decades of time, I see no reason to alter my gaming style. If it isn't broken don't fix it. And in this case whether it is broke or not is very much a matter of perception (unlike crop rotation).

QuoteA 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.

Seriously I think it is debatable how well you listen to others:). Of course I am open to feedback from other people, but I am only going to listen feedback that I can see makes sense in play. Gaming is a matter of finding what works for you, not what works for strangers on the internet. If I embraced techniques and approaches based soley on people making solid arguments I would probably be running a third person story game or something. At the end of the day the final measure of what is best, is does it enhance your experience in a good way at the table (not can Gleichman make a good argument for it on therpgsite).

QuoteIt'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.

I wasn't saying this at all. But if you want to interpret it that way be my guest. I am very calpable of taking in feedback of my GMing style and of my games. Just ask anyone who has given us a critical review. I make a point of listening to critiques. But I don't implement a change until I actually see it work in play. Especially something as big as we are talking about here, which is really a fundamental style choice.

You also seem to be operating under the assumption that I haven't tried your approach. I have played 100% by the book. When I ran a campaign for players who prefered that approach, that is how I ran the game. It just isn't my own preference.

QuoteOf 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.

Who said anything about them being unearned? And any move like that isn't going to be ideal in every case.

QuoteRulings 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.

Okay. If that is how you feel. I am not persuaded at all by your arguments so far.

Quote from: Drohem;546078Yes, YES!

I see that you guys are still grinding the organ and the monkey is still dancing!

The premise itself is a complete fallacy given all rpg's have some degree of MMI. If not all you're playing is a card/boardgame. But it's interesting to watch the monkeys dance.

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.

Some gamers prefer chess to checkers.

When I was thinking about running a cape-and-sword campaign, I considered using AD&D - hit points are an elegant way of handling the thrust-and-parry of dueling. But part of the fun - for me, at least - of playing a swashbuckler is making those decisions for my character. It captures the feel of swordplay better than simply narrating the action the way I would with AD&D's higher-level abstraction of combat.

Quote from: John Morrow;545946. . .

• nce 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.

Throwing sand in someone's eyes is an action covered under Flashing Blades' combat rules. If you succeed, you gain a stun on an opponent, which costs them the rest of their actions in the current round and reduces them to one action in the next. Throwing sand means using one of your own actions in the current round, and it comes after other sorts of attacks, so the tradeoffs are, if you throw sand in your opponent's eyes, you're giving up a different attack or a parry, plus it may not work.

In FB it's also considered a dirty trick, and as such it can result in a social stigma outside of combat. A character who routinely resorts to dirty tricks may find himself ambushed rather than challenged, frex - sauce for the goose.

Quote from: gleichman;546013What 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).

It's playing a game. It ain't rocket surgery.

Does your mistrust of others' judgement and fairness carry over into other parts of your life? I'm not asking to be snarky - I'm genuinely curious. Does it make you uncomfortable to be in a care when someone else is driving, frex?

I wish this term would be nuked out of existence.

Now I think we should come up with some sort of award for Brendan too, because he is demonstrating the patience of a fucking saint on this one. I don't know how he does it, but I'd like a taste of that magic potion some time.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;546088Does your mistrust of others' judgement and fairness carry over into other parts of your life? I'm not asking to be snarky - I'm genuinely curious. Does it make you uncomfortable to be in a care when someone else is driving, frex?

It's not an issue of trust, for example I will sub out parts of the larger battles to my players in order to speed things up basically turning over all my power as a GM to them for that- because I trust them to stay within the rules.

And I like to ride rather than drive a car. Comes I imagine from not being able to afford a car until I was in my mid-20s.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546083Like I said way back, they are double edged swords. If the PCs can do something, no reason the NPCs can't.

I find this exceedingly difficult to believe (as in it actually happens and is accepted by the players), but I'll take you at your word.

Some people can be talked in to accepting just about anything. And getting whacked by something they had no idea was even possible in the game ranks as insignification compared to many real events.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546083Okay. If that is how you feel. I am not persuaded at all by your arguments so far.

I'm not doing this to persuade you. Not in the least.

I'm doing to to explain what "Mother-My-I" means, and why some people are willing (and correct) to use the term.

Nothing more.

Quote from: gleichman;546096I'm doing to to explain what "Mother-My-I" means, .

I know exactly what it means.  It's from a children's game where the "children" cannot move or do anything without asking permission from the "mother" first.

There is no reasonable reason why it should ever be used in RPGs unless you're trying to be a dick and use hyperbole to attack another playstyle, rather than use legitimate arguments.

Changing it to mean something else just so you have an excuse to be more hostile is weak sauce.

Quote from: gleichman;546057Because it's not in the rules, but made up on the spot in response to a player request.

So it is free and unearned because a game designer didn't think of it first?

Quote from: gleichman;546057.

I see that you've never been a chess player.

[/QUOTE]

You do? How ever do you make these leaps of logic? I have played chess, not an expert or anything, but I have played enough to know that it is a competetive game, and thus has little if anything in common with rpgs.





There is much more to an RPG than the rules.

I doubt you'll click on the link, but this is a overview of what makes up an RPG.[/QUOTE]

I skimmed over it briefly. I will give it a longer look when not at work.