Quote from: gleichman;650766It could very well be one.

If the campaign's genre and rules say that being in the open against missile fire is a dangerous move, leaping up and hanging from the chandelier when there's a foe nearby with a ready missile weapon is, well dumb no matter the height advantage the player gained on his melee foe.

A GM that failed to take the shot (and thus cause player failure) has broken the rules *and* the genre. He has also reduced the risk of the game.

It's that reduced risk that is a common feature of free-wheeling GM who ignore or override the rules. He will almost always do this in ways to favor the players (as you note, saying 'not doing so is being an asshat').

Often risk is reduced to the point where it's no longer a game, but instead just a more formal make-believe session.

Meanwhile one who takes the shot teaches the player the danger of the genre and rules and this allows them to learn and improve their play in that campaign.

I was suggesting allowing interesting activities that the rules may not explicitly cover. I was not suggesting a free lunch.

Reminds me of a player that while underwater, said he was throwing a coil of rope to an ally 100' away. Underwater.

I told him that the rope would not go more than a few feet (Not sure exactly how far it would go, but I assume less than five feet)

The player thought I was being strict.

Now, if a player wants to leap up and throw a sack over an ogres head to confuse  the brute, I would happily find a way to let them try.

I would also happily have the Ogre bodyslam the character to jelly if it failed.

Quote from: gleichman;650767I find that feeding players solutions to their problems can be counter-productive, too often we learn best from our mistakes. Besides helping other players make good tactical choices is the role of the players, not the GM.

That said, I do actually provide such advice in practice and only withhold it from players who have played long enough to know better. In short I give them a chance to learn by teaching, and then I let experience teach.

For very new players, I actually show some of the effects on NPCs first. That works nearly as well.

I like that; show them how it works.

Quote from: Bill;650768I was suggesting allowing interesting activities that the rules may not explicitly cover. I was not suggesting a free lunch.

They often are. For example:

Quote from: Bill;650768Now, if a player wants to leap up and throw a sack over an ogres head to confuse  the brute, I would happily find a way to let them try.

Unless the sack was something the orge wanted, why in the world would you think it would be possible to confuse it by what seems to be an attempt to throw an improvised weapon at it and missing? Are orges known to be confused by attacks? Are people in general? If yes, then the rules should have already noted that fact.

Assuming the rules don't have a 'feint' or a 'confuse foe' option (in which case this a lame but acceptable attempt to describe how they're being used), this is an example of a freebie, a way of reducing risk by gaining advantage by GM whim even if as part of that advantage you require a roll (assuming that roll has a significant chance of success).

Quote from: gleichman;650771They often are. For example:



Unless the sack was something the orge wanted, why in the world would you think it would be possible to confuse it by what seems to be an attempt to throw an improvised weapon at it and missing? Are orges known to be confused by attacks? Are people in general? If yes, then the rules should have already noted that fact.

Assuming the rules don't have a 'feint' or a 'confuse foe' option (in which case this a lame but acceptable attempt to describe how they're being used), this is an example of a freebie, a way of reducing risk by gaining advantage by GM whim even if as part of that advantage you require a roll (assuming that roll has a significant chance of success).

Its not a freebie if it backfires and the Ogre kills you.

It is also not gm whim if the action is plausable, and the rules do not cover the situation well.

The example of an Ogre and a sack was covering its eyes so it would possibly get confused or be blinded for a short time, and assumes ogres are stupid as a box of rocks. Perhaps a nible warrior might jump on its back and get the sack over its head. Might get murdered by the ogre in the attempt.

Its about the extra risk, not a freebie.

Quote from: Bill;650775Its not a freebie if it backfires and the Ogre kills you.

Is the orge *more* likely to kill the character taking this action? If not, and if you're being supportive of odd actions as you claim- than it's a freebie.

It may be a freebie even so, if the possible gain is significant enough. I'd gambled immediate death for a shot at success over certain slow death for example.

Quote from: Bill;650775It is also not gm whim if the action is plausable, and the rules do not cover the situation well.

It's very much GM whim, if you want PCs blinding their foes (with sacks, dirt in the eyes, whatever) than there should be rules covering it. Not made up resolutions each time its attempted.

If on the other hand you don't want that (and I for one wouldn't), then don't allow it at all.

Quote from: gleichman;650777Is the orge *more* likely to kill the character taking this action? If not, and if you're being supportive of odd actions as you claim- than it's a freebie.

It may be a freebie even so, if the possible gain is significant enough. I'd gambled immediate death for a shot at success over certain slow death for example.




It's very much GM whim, if you want PCs blinding their foes (with sacks, dirt in the eyes, whatever) than there should be rules covering it. Not made up resolutions each time its attempted.

If on the other hand you don't want that (and I for one wouldn't), then don't allow it at all.

In my experience, fancy maneuvers usually get you killed.

If only because the fancy manuever usually fails, while the enemy is killing you.

I would rather adjudicate something the rules can't handle instead of getting mired in rules adjustments.

 

GM whim is desireable.

GM's use whim all the time.

95+ percent of everything a GM does is whim.

Quote from: gleichman;650777It's very much GM whim, if you want PCs blinding their foes (with sacks, dirt in the eyes, whatever) than there should be rules covering it. Not made up resolutions each time its attempted.

I'm quite capable of creating a rule to cover it. And using the same ruling every time the situation arises. Because re-inventing the wheel, every time I need one, wouldn't be very bright.

You're constantly assuming a lack of consistency.

And insulting everyone who runs an "old school" style game, by stating we act by "whim."

Is this some kind of moral crusade, on your part? It looks that way.

Quote from: Bill;650778In my experience, fancy maneuvers usually get you killed.

If only because the fancy manuever usually fails, while the enemy is killing you.

That is not what you said here. Indeed, you said completely the opposite.

Are you know saying that nearly every time a player attempts something not covered by the rules you kill them?

I think that's harsher than not allowing the attempt at all. I'm a kinder GM it seems.

Quote from: Bill;650778GM whim is desireable.

GM's use whim all the time.

95+ percent of everything a GM does is whim.

A GM does many things, I'd say that 95% don't involve rules at all. it's that 5% covered by the rules that also you're taking over leaving basically nothing.

Quote from: jasmith;650779I'm quite capable of creating a rule to cover it. And using the same ruling every time the situation arises. Because re-inventing the wheel, every time I need one, wouldn't be very bright.

Do you write it down for future reference for the players? Was this done before play? If yes, than it's a formal house rule and thus acceptable. I've said so many times.

If not, you're just saying something that has no proof. Put it in writing or it doesn't exist.

Quote from: gleichman;650780That is not what you said here. Indeed, you said completely the opposite.

Are you know saying that nearly every time a player attempts something not covered by the rules you kill them?

I think that's harsher than not allowing the attempt at all. I'm a kinder GM it seems.





A GM does many things, I'd say that 95% don't involve rules at all. it's that 5% covered by the rules that also you're taking over leaving basically nothing.

The post you reference is not the opposite at all.

I did not say every time a player attempts anything outside the rules I kill them all.

Fancy manuevers, in the context of sacks on ogres heads, are dangerous.

All GMs functions nearly entirely on whim. That fact remains.

I personally allow players to do reasonable actions with their characters that the rules can't handle. That is very far from 'Taking over'

Quote from: Bill;650783I personally allow players to do reasonable actions with their characters that the rules can't handle. That is very far from 'Taking over'

Your rules likely handle far more than you know, it just hides them in their abstraction.

Any time you ignore or change them in the middle of play, you're 'taking over'. The rules are broken, the abstraction layer is broken, the risk designed into the game is broken, the law of unintended consequences becomes unchecked.

It's bad GMing, pure and simple. Enjoyable by you and your group, sure. People cheat at the golf scores and have fun too.

Quote from: gleichman;650782Do you write it down for future reference for the players? If yes, than it's a formal house rule land thus acceptable. I've said so many times.

If not, you're just saying something that has no proof. Put it in writing or it doesn't exist.

Many of my house rules are in writing and in the possession of my players. Some aren't, because it's not necessary. I'll remember it, because I know what I'm about and if it's something the players attempt on a regular basis, they'll remember it as well. I won't change the way I've been doing something, without running it by the players. As referee, I reserve the right to do so, but wouldn't, unless something was just horribly broken.

That said, there's a handful of game mechanics I use to cover such things. Ability checks, Saving Throws, To Hit rolls, d6 checks & Percentile. For combat maneuvers and the like, I might use a combination of the above. It doesn't take long for players to grok how and why I make the rulings I do, because I'm consistent and there really is a method behind the madness. Not whim.

Quote from: gleichman;650786Your rules likely handle far more than you know, it just hides them in their abstraction.

Any time you ignore or change them in the middle of play, you're 'taking over'. The rules are broken, the abstraction layer is broken, the risk designed into the game is broken, the law of unintended consequences becomes unchecked.

It's bad GMing, pure and simple. Enjoyable by you and your group, sure. People cheat at the golf scores and have fun too.

You are correct that it is enjoyable by me and my groups.

You are correct that it is 'cheating' based on a literal definition of the word.

You are incorrect that it is bad GMing, as evidenced by the enjoyability.

Bad is subjective, of course.




I have plenty of risk in my games despite the occasional on the fly rules adjudication. So I can't agree with you that risk is broken. Fixed would be more accurate.

Quote from: jasmith;650793Many of my house rules are in writing and in the possession of my players. Some aren't, because it's not necessary.

Sloppy.

It will work for players who aren't directly interested in the rules, assuming you do actually remember to use your changes correctly- after all there's nothing to compare them to for verification now is there?

I wouldn't play in such a game. I like knowing the rules.

Quote from: Bill;650795Bad is subjective, of course.

Not as much as one might think, but then this site loves it some moral relativism. Just check out the Law and Chaos thread.

Quote from: Bill;650795I have plenty of risk in my games despite the occasional on the fly rules adjudication. So I can't agree with you that risk is broken. Fixed would be more accurate.

The risk is changed from the original design, and in undefined ways.

Thus you're not playing the original game at all, and further you don't really know what has and has not changed as you don't have a RAW baseline to compare to. Thus you can't claim to have fixed anything.

As far as being enjoyable, I imagine that with a GM and group as undemanding of standards as yours seems to be- *anything* would likely be seen as enjoyable. That IMO is part of the natural result of your style. It breeds that mindset.