Quote from: KenHR;651778What happens when you're trying to throw soup in a dude's face and he's not inclined to let that happen?

If you are talking D&D and I am running the session, one or both participants has lethal intentions. I would run it one of two ways
1) The one having the bowl thrown at him would get a save, failure would give the thrower a surprise round or more if it was a really bad roll.
2) The one having the bowl thrown at him would auto fail.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651810Lucky for you, I don't think I will be gaming with him any time soon.

Lucky for me, I've never had to deal with people like him before at the table, believe it or not.

Bullshit.

You know what, despite all this Old Skool Cool going around, there's a reason D&D/Pathfinder has evolved into the game it is. Perhaps asshat GMs ARE actually far more common than you people would like to admit. Perhaps the most popular playstyle IS represented in those games despite what you people would like to admit. I mean, I don't like it any more than you do, but the truth is not a preference.

Quote from: Benoist;650548They can, as long as they can relate to the game world as though it were real, with relevant information, gaps in the shared world, and questions being discussed between players and GM as the game unfolds. That's what a role playing game *is*.

And what is the basis for those points of relation, relevant bits of information, gaps in the shared world, and questions being discussed?

On the other hand, this means I can finally get rid of those pesky character sheets

Quote from: Piestrio;650549Player - "I jump the pit, what do I roll?"
DM - "a d20, and add your dex mod"

it CANNOT happen, as the player didn't know the specific rule for jumping he is incapable of making the decision to jump the pit.

Actually, you just TOLD them the rule. And after telling them this rule, they might also change their mind about taking that action.

Quote from: estar;650620Oh please, as the player is playing a character in a setting with some semblance to real world physics knows that his character can make a jump. That there is a random element that may cause him to slip and fall. That people who have higher dexterity are less prone to misfortune when jumping. That longer distances means a greater chance of failure. And so on.

I like using Jumping as a Real World example, because it's incredibly consistent, even with random elements, dexterity playing little part in its success, with max distance being all but guaranteed and longer distances all but impossible. Dead lifting is an even better example for this kind of thing.

But what does the Real World have to do with anything? Don't quite know, but it sure seems important to some of you here.

Quote from: estar;650622It happens every time a group or player transition from one system to a another somewhat similar situation. Represents the same sort of problem when a person trained to deal with X environment now is dealing with Y environment.

I believe this is the most common reason for why players don't like to switch systems.

Quote from: estar;650622It also illustrate that for novices the more your game is an emulation of reality the easier it is for them to follow as the assumptions built up by their real life experiences remain valid.

In a perfect world these will overlap, but often it's not even close, and one of the purposes of a game system should be to help bridge this gap.

Quote from: RandallS;650623If I were running this game, I'd just mod the stupid rule on the spot.

Then the player would really have NO IDEA how well they could hit before attempting it, regardless of their character's PoV or skill level.

Quote from: Benoist;650632It's about communication between GM and players.

And what is the basis for this communication, because I can tell you plain English is NOT the best tool for the job when it comes to communicating certain details and invoking certain fundamental emotional responses.

Quote from: Benoist;650632The players will catch up in no time.

Exactly how long is 'no time' here? Because I agree the rules will become more apparent the longer you play, but how long will players be willing to tune before they just get frustrated and leave?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;650636The rules-first oriented crowd often has a hard time with anything that doesn't deal in absolutes.

Which is why they have such problems with Marvel Heroic Roleplaying being so abstract.

...oh wait.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650737The problem with lacking a basic sense of the rules is that in an RPG, anything and everything is a possibility.

Indeed.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650737Another thing that you tend to see from new players is trying to do too many things.

Example - I leap to grab the chandelier swinging over to the bard that insulted my mother.  I draw my weapon as I swing, holding on with only a single hand.  I drop down and as the chandelier swings away I slash at the rope, sending it carreening into the crowd behind me and preventing the ugly crowd from following me.  I put my sword against the bard's neck and ask him, "What did you call my mother?"

If new players are doing this kind of thing, then perhaps game systems should be designed in a way that accommodates it.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650737By the time you break the action down into manageable chunks, the likelihood of wanting to continue the initially stated action as the situation develops is pretty small.

And the specific kind of chunks very much defines the kind of game being played. Divide it into different chunks, and you have a different game.

Quote from: Bill;650754However, I do not relate at all to the issue some players I know have with needing to know the exact percentage chance of all possible actions in the universe to make a simple decision.

The chance is already a probability, and the actuality is anything but exact. But for some reason you want an additional layer of uncertainty over it. Why? Also, a lot of players keep saying how much the clear probabilities in BRP make it more immersive, even though they would never know the probabilities IRL. Why?

Quote from: Bill;650754As a player or a gm, I just have my character or an npc attempt to do what makes sense at the time.

Bold mine, and it makes all the difference.

Quote from: Bill;650754My barbarian can swing his axe just fine without knowing the ac of an enemy.

Says who?

Quote from: gleichman;650756A point of failure when the player doesn't know the rules is that they are unaware of small details that could matter.

Or worse, matter in ways they didn't want.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764my post was to illustrate how something like those scenarios in a game does not devolve into paralysis by analysis.  They were all easily and quickly resolved.

It doesn't matter what you intended to illustrate with your post, only what it actually illustrated

Quote from: talysman;650852Remember, the primer is saying that players don't need to know the rules, not that they aren't allowed to know or guess at the rules.

That's why I said 'for effective action' or somesuch obvious nonesense

On the other hand, if the player is playing a world class anything, learning by experience is NOT going to fit the character concept.

Heeey, maybe that's why Old School is still so hooked on players starting out as 1st level schleps.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650969I've never had players go over option after option delaying the game.

Which obviously means it doesn't exist

Quote from: Benoist;650981What happens is that your character stands there using reason instead of guts and instincts to do something.

When I'm making a jump, I don't consider the odds, or even the specific distance. I make an immediate gut reaction and a leap of faith. But I can't DO that in an RPG. I either have to listen to the GM described the details, or look at the numbers on my character sheet, both of which kill immersion and emotional flow.

It's that dastardly higher brain at work which kicks in when given linguistic input, always taking you out of the moment, forcing you to consider things outside the now. And while I don't think the problem can be entirely eliminated, it can be minimized far more than it is.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996But from the new player's perspective, it's not as much fun to go through the whole session just being told 'Just attack him' or 'Just charge'.  Taken to an extreme, the 'new player' is really just an auxillary of an experienced player - and I've seen that happen.  I've even seen experienced players get angry with a new player for doing something 'stupid' - which if they knew the rules they might not have wanted to do.

And certain game systems encourage this sort of dysfunction.  

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996But certainly for the game to work, players need to have general ideas of how actions will work.  There are things that I would do in real life that I won't do in a game - the way they work out in the game just don't reflect reality very well.

Indeed 2.0.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015Completely failing at things like basic physics or common sense doesn't help either.

Could it be that... *GASP* Sacrosanct is trying to apply the RULES of basic physics and common sense? And could it be that the players not knowing these rules is causing a problem?

Quote from: Benoist;651021At an actual game table, you'd be the idiot because you would be a dick to everybody else stopping the game to a crawl engaging in arguments with the DM.

Luckily they're arguing on a forum to prove a point. You can spot the difference if you squint hard enough.

Quote from: Phillip;651033That's a problem due to a disconnect between the model and the phenomenon being modelled. If you know how to drive a car, then a good car simulation should pose no such problem. It's when you must deal with a poor simulation that you need to know about the peculiarities of the model rather than about real driving!

This is still a HUGE problem in videogames (it's why Felicia Day doesn't play electronic Pool), and they're even better at 'simulations' than RPGs. No matter how accurate they are, RPGs are still all about the peculiarities of the model.

Quote from: TristramEvans;651041"The problem with 'gaming geeks' - is that they see the game as being the alpha and omega of the gaming experience. It is the system that matters, the stats of the character and so on rather than the experience of the game itself...I don't know how to create a meaningful dialogue with these kinds of people. There is a mental block as they can only understand roleplaying to be the tangible - books, rules , dice, (grids) - and I understand roleplaying to be the intangible "

Especially ironic here, as this is precisely the basis for Ron's Brain Damage Premise

Quote from: deadDMwalking;651334Unless/until we're familiar with the types of things the GM will allow or how they will create a possibility, it can make it harder for a player to immerse himself in the game world.

Nobody here cares about immersion.

Quote from: The Traveller;651367Or just kick the side of the table edge on, hard. If it doesn't collapse outright as tables aren't meant to take pressure from that angle it will certainly spill the brutes who have resorted to fisticuffs into the dregs of their own ale.

An excellent point. A GM should always try and replace an answer of 'no' with 'instead'.

So maybe the table doesn't tip and knock the three fighters over. Maybe the legs break and the three fighters fall. But maybe it does tip and the three fighters are quick enough that they're now fighting on the edge of the table. Maybe the kick pushes you back into another brawler. Maybe you do slip, under the table, giving you unintended cover.

Seriously, all sorts of things would work far better than a 'NO'.

Quote from: Haffrung;651402You have to remember that a lot of people active on RPG design forums don't actually play anymore.

Nice try, but this ol' chestnut got roasted awhile back.

You need more nuts

Quote from: Haffrung;651402I'm always amazed that the most obvious question never comes up among these complaints. If you don't like how your DM runs the game, then why don't you run your own game?

Because some people prefer to play?

Shocking, I know

Quote from: Rincewind1;651558GMs don't kill people, Systems kill people.

Though some systems have higher kill potential than others

Quote from: Bill;651646A GM must know everything in the universe!

No, but they must be willing to concede their ignorance.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651663That group was wrong IMHO for applying the principles of an rpg to a competetive card game.

Only insofar as they were not having fun.

...oh wait.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764Tell you what hot shot, you put 3 full grown men standing on a typical inn table (usually pretty thick and heavy itself) and try to flip it.

What's a 'typical' inn table?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015It's safe to assume that players don't have a lot of practice leaping up in the middle of combat to swing on chandeliers towards an opponent.

Do you?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015I'll bet you $100 you can't do it.

Doesn't matter if they can do it, only that their character can.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651762Pardon me, I didn't realize you were an expert on chandelier swinging, with a lot of practical experience.

Does anyone see the pattern yet?

Despite the membership of this forum consisting primarily of rectal tissue, this is actually the first red flag which would make me avoid a game. The accuracy of your 'facts' is not what gives you authority in the game you run, but because you're so deep in the simulationist mindset it HAS to. And yet the only 'facts' you actually have to back it up are that the player's physical capability doesn't match their character's.

As the good Emperor has already pointed out, your interpretation is not the only reasonable one. So that being the case, why take yours over one that would make the game more fun and immersive for the player? Apparently you are unwilling or unable to adapt your mental model of the situation in the fictional reality. And please, let's not waste everyone's time with a middle excluding "let players just get what they want" argument. That middle ground is exactly where the game is played, and you don't seem to have any.

Finally, it's one thing to start challenging the character, or even the player through the character, but directly challenging the player like this, even on a forum, just makes you even more of an ass.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651872Bullshit.

Actually I'm serious.  In 30+ years, I have never gamed with players so entitled and argumentative as you.  That's a fact.  There have been players who argued, but long before they ever got to the point you've gotten to, they either accepted what was happening (most often the entire group was telling them how they were completely off) or they were asked to leave (again, with the entire group telling them how they were wrong).

And by the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how you can believe that a tavern brawl is not combat, yet at the same time making a person take an initiative penalty to cut a rope.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;651878What's a 'typical' inn table?

Fantasy game, so approx medieval.  Large enough for three adults to be engaging in combat on top of it.  Doesn't take a genius to get a good idea of what such a table would look like.  I imagine something like this:



Now, if the player made a compelling argument why it should work, I might make a strength check required or something.  But as described, the tavern also has floors as slick as an ice rink apparently, so how would the player get footing to flip it?

QuoteDoes anyone see the pattern yet?
.

Yes.  If people like you or Sommerjon don't get their way as players to do whatever they want in a game and succeed automatically, even if it directly makes no sense whatsoever (like sliding a dozen or more feet across a tavern floor), they throw an absolute shit fit.


*Edit*  Oh, and no I've never swung from a chandelier at someone, but I've also never tightroped walked either, and it's not a reach to think that something that requires coordination that the person who has no real practice at doing would require something like a Dex check.

It's cute your "copy one-liners out of context and reinterpret them to mean what you want them to mean," Anon, but based on this from the other thread:

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;651884WOW, 50 PAGES ALREADY?!? You people must really love this game

I'd love to troll it but I'm pressed for time. Can anyone sum things up?

I've no intention to waste my time answering your trolling attempt here. Thanks.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;651878Then the player would really have NO IDEA how well they could hit before attempting it, regardless of their character's PoV or skill level.

1) You seem to be assuming that the player could not change his mind after hearing how  was going to resolve the action. I'm not running my games with the equivalent of a chess tournament's "touch it and you have to move it" rule. Not that increasing his chance of successfully hitting the target (which was what I was talking about in my quoted statement) is likely to cause the player to want to change his mind.

2) Most of my players don't bother to learn the rules to start with. Some of them don't even open the rulebook, even when I give them a copy of it. They aren't much interested in the "game" aspect of a roleplaying game. They just want to tell me what their character does in standard (non-gamespeak) English and have me either: 1) tell them the result; 2) tell them what to roll if I decide a roll is needed; or 3) warn them that they don't have much chance of success if they do not and if the consequences of failure are likely to be more harmful to the character than just "not succeeding with the action".

Quote from: RandallS;6519191) You seem to be assuming that the player could not change his mind after hearing how  was going to resolve the action. I'm not running my games with the equivalent of a chess tournament's "touch it and you have to move it" rule. Not that increasing his chance of successfully hitting the target (which was what I was talking about in my quoted statement) is likely to cause the player to want to change his mind.

2) Most of my players don't bother to learn the rules to start with. Some of them don't even open the rulebook, even when I give them a copy of it. They aren't much interested in the "game" aspect of a roleplaying game. They just want to tell me what their character does in standard (non-gamespeak) English and have me either: 1) tell them the result; 2) tell them what to roll if I decide a roll is needed; or 3) warn them that they don't have much chance of success if they do not and if the consequences of failure are likely to be more harmful to the character than just "not succeeding with the action".

This sounds quite similar to my experience with DnD (non 3E that is). 3E/Pathfinder/4E seems to bring out alot more of the CharOp crowd in my experience.

The moment the merit of an argument boils down to the problematics of a concept whether a medieval table with 3 men on it can be thrown, you know it's material for Mythbusters, rather than legitimate discussion.

The most bizarre assumption is, that if a player starts acting like mechanics - obsessed a - hole, you don't throw him out. It's not like he has a gun to his head forcing him to play. Concede some on the part of the group, or goodbye and thanks for all the fish.

Quote from: RandallS;6519191) You seem to be assuming that the player could not change his mind after hearing how  was going to resolve the action. I'm not running my games with the equivalent of a chess tournament's "touch it and you have to move it" rule. Not that increasing his chance of successfully hitting the target (which was what I was talking about in my quoted statement) is likely to cause the player to want to change his mind.

2) Most of my players don't bother to learn the rules to start with. Some of them don't even open the rulebook, even when I give them a copy of it. They aren't much interested in the "game" aspect of a roleplaying game. They just want to tell me what their character does in standard (non-gamespeak) English and have me either: 1) tell them the result; 2) tell them what to roll if I decide a roll is needed; or 3) warn them that they don't have much chance of success if they do not and if the consequences of failure are likely to be more harmful to the character than just "not succeeding with the action".

I completely agree completely on issue 1, not so much on issue 2 as most of my players care for mechanics. But let's not spoil good argument with common sense.

Quote from: RandallS;651919Most of my players don't bother to learn the rules to start with. Some of them don't even open the rulebook, even when I give them a copy of it. They aren't much interested in the "game" aspect of a roleplaying game. They just want to tell me what their character does in standard (non-gamespeak) English and have me either: 1) tell them the result; 2) tell them what to roll if I decide a roll is needed; or 3) warn them that they don't have much chance of success if they do not and if the consequences of failure are likely to be more harmful to the character than just "not succeeding with the action".

Same here. What's best for people depends on the people involved.

I'm pretty sure, though, that what's best for people who have been playing with others who don't want to play their way, is NOT to turn around and be assholes trying to keep other people from playing the way they want to play.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651912Actually I'm serious.  In 30+ years, I have never gamed with players so entitled and argumentative as you.  That's a fact.  There have been players who argued, but long before they ever got to the point you've gotten to, they either accepted what was happening (most often the entire group was telling them how they were completely off) or they were asked to leave (again, with the entire group telling them how they were wrong).

Entitled; I have a different opinion on the matter that is breaking my immersion on what is going on.  Am I not allowed to express that?  Am I always supposed to bow my head and suck it up for the greater good of the group?  Is it really about the greater good of the group or....Argumentative;  What I see is "How fucking dare you question MY AUTHORITY!"  That is what I have come to see where the issue is more than greater group good.  If you are unwilling to listen why should I accept your decree?  Why are you able to reject the imaginations of the players and substitute yours in their place?

You all keep going on about how this is a group social activity, but it rings hollow when only one person at the table is able to do anything without direct approval

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651912And by the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how you can believe that a tavern brawl is not combat, yet at the same time making a person take an initiative penalty to cut a rope.

Because I find tavern brawls to be inanely infantile.  I rate the action just below players who like to fuck everything.  If the players need  a tavern brawl, sure we can do that, no dice needed and it will be all Keystone Cops-like.

As for the other part.  Glance down there at your ice rink remark.  Do I need to continue drawing the picture for you?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651912Fantasy game, so approx medieval.  Large enough for three adults to be engaging in combat on top of it.  Doesn't take a genius to get a good idea of what such a table would look like.  I imagine something like this:

Spoiler

Now, if the player made a compelling argument why it should work, I might make a strength check required or something.  But as described, the tavern also has floors as slick as an ice rink apparently, so how would the player get footing to flip it?

Do realize that table you found is only 20 inches wide?

Quote14 FT. LONG, MEDIEVAL STYLE TRESTLE TABLE. Handmade, entirely from one single ancient oak beam (even the pegs!). Measuring 20 inches x 20 inches x 18 foot long, the beam was originally part of an apple press, believed to have come from Normandy in France (see below). We deliberately avoided using a mechanical re-saw to cut the beam because, although much quicker and easier, it would have resulted in the planks being too straight and too uniform in thickness.

Personally I'm trying to figure out if it is 14 or 18 feet long(the table is based upon another table double the size of their reproduction),   So you can understand what 20 inches is.  Take your shoes off stick your heels together with your toes facing the opposite directions, if you have the average sized male foot, that is almost exactly 20 inches.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651912Yes.  If people like you or Sommerjon don't get their way as players to do whatever they want in a game and succeed automatically, even if it directly makes no sense whatsoever (like sliding a dozen or more feet across a tavern floor), they throw an absolute shit fit.

See I don't want this, sure I get the hyperbole, but I don't need for you to misrepresent me either.  I want a Dm who is willing to at least entertain the idea he may be misguided or misunderstood, or is not seeing(in his mind's eye) what I am trying to do. When I question a 'rulings' I am not shitting on his 'authority'.  I'm not feeling entitled, I'm not trying to succeed automatically I want a Dm willing to share the gaming experience with everyone.  If I am always waiting for a 'ruling' on the action I get up and walk out.  No I'm not talking about seizing the narrative.  I'm talking about when the game says X so when X situation comes up I already know what to roll. Always having to wait for a 'ruling' is where the concept of Mother May I came from.

Quote from: Sommerjon;652003Entitled; I have a different opinion on the matter that is breaking my immersion on what is going on.  Am I not allowed to express that?  Am I always supposed to bow my head and suck it up for the greater good of the group?  Is it really about the greater good of the group or....Argumentative;  What I see is "How fucking dare you question MY AUTHORITY!"  That is what I have come to see where the issue is more than greater group good.  If you are unwilling to listen why should I accept your decree?  Why are you able to reject the imaginations of the players and substitute yours in their place?

You all keep going on about how this is a group social activity, but it rings hollow when only one person at the table is able to do anything without direct approval

Funny.  See, what happened is I posted a response that showed that all of these off the cuff things didn't result in paralysis by analysis and were easily handled on the fly.  The actual rulings wasn't as important and was the point that it didn't paralyze the game.  What you did was get your panties in a wad and totally miss the point, throwing a fit because in my examples, the players weren't able to do whatever they wanted, or pull off any stunt they wanted, automatically.

QuoteBecause I find tavern brawls to be inanely infantile.  I rate the action just below players who like to fuck everything.  If the players need  a tavern brawl, sure we can do that, no dice needed and it will be all Keystone Cops-like.

If that's the case, then why are you OK with the -2 initiative modifier (a combat only metric).  You didn't answer the question.  Again.

QuoteAs for the other part.  Glance down there at your ice rink remark.  Do I need to continue drawing the picture for you?

Because you seem to constantly fail to grasp the obvious, I'll have to spell it out for you.

Have you ever seen a person "take 2 steps" and slide a significant distance (10' or more)?  The only examples I can think of are on surfaces as slippery as an ice rink.  Nevermind the fact that a tavern floor will never be that slippery from a few spilled beers (which is why I think sliding across the floor a significant distance is not possible).  Let's assume it is.  Based on that, how do you expect to get your footing to be able to flip the table in the first place?  Again, this is physics and leverage, concepts that you don't seem to have a fundamental grasp of.  You also have no idea what hydroplaning is.  Sliding is not hydroplaning.

QuoteSee I don't want this, sure I get the hyperbole, but I don't need for you to misrepresent me either.  I want a Dm who is willing to at least entertain the idea he may be misguided or misunderstood, or is not seeing(in his mind's eye) what I am trying to do. When I question a 'rulings' I am not shitting on his 'authority'.  I'm not feeling entitled, I'm not trying to succeed automatically I want a Dm willing to share the gaming experience with everyone.  If I am always waiting for a 'ruling' on the action I get up and walk out.  No I'm not talking about seizing the narrative.  I'm talking about when the game says X so when X situation comes up I already know what to roll. Always having to wait for a 'ruling' is where the concept of Mother May I came from.

This isn't how you responded though.  You decided to respond and throw a fit about how each of my rulings was unreasonable and shit.  You completely ignored the context and point of my post to pixelbitch (and incorrectly at that).   Your response was a clear example of an entitled player who wants everything his way or he throws a fit.  The weird thing is that in all of your examples, most everything should be automatic except taking a swing at a stationary rope.  That part, you were Ok with a -2 initiative roll.

:huhsign:


*Edit* and if we're really going to be pedantic,  let's look at just how much the table weighs.  Just the top mind you, and not the weight of the entire table.  According to this, the table top above weighs 468 pounds.  This is not a picnic table.  With 3 full grown men fighting on top of it, it's over 1000 pounds.  Even with center of gravity, it would not be something easy to do, especially on a floor that is so slippery that you think a person could just slide across it easily.

However, as you alluded to, the table in that pic is only 20 inches wide.  If you use the rules for how much room is needed for 3 combatants to be able to fight, it would be 5' wide by 15' long and 3" thick, and just the top alone would be over 1300 pounds.  So 2000 pounds.  That's a small car.  Even if you put a Mazda Miata three feet off the ground on those table legs, have fun flipping it over with no footing.


Oh, and just so everyone knows, I would never be that pedantic in a gaming session.  No unreasonable request should be unreasonable denied.  Make your case, and if it's doable, we'll figure something out.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651912Actually I'm serious.  In 30+ years, I have never gamed with players so entitled and argumentative as you.  That's a fact.  There have been players who argued, but long before they ever got to the point you've gotten to, they either accepted what was happening (most often the entire group was telling them how they were completely off) or they were asked to leave (again, with the entire group telling them how they were wrong).

In a healthy group, the DM doesn't even have to bring down the hammer on a rules lawyer - the rest of the players will do it. Players know when someone at the table is trying to get their own kicks at everyone else's expense. And unless those people are a bunch of socially stunted dweebs, they'll just up and tell the asshole to shut the hell up.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008Funny.  See, what happened is I posted a response that showed that all of these off the cuff things didn't result in paralysis by analysis and were easily handled on the fly.  The actual rulings wasn't as important and was the point that it didn't paralyze the game.  What you did was get your panties in a wad and totally miss the point, throwing a fit because in my examples, the players weren't able to do whatever they wanted, or pull off any stunt they wanted, automatically.

No, I found your rulings to be absurd, you got your panties in a wad that I dared 'challenge' your rulings.<--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008If that's the case, then why are you OK with the -2 initiative modifier (a combat only metric).  You didn't answer the question.  Again.

I see I need to continue to draw this picture for you.  It's called sarcasm.  Here let me redo this for you.
7) Draw a weapon and attack someone.
* take a -2 penalty to initiative
** Sure whatever. :rolleyes: <--notice the sarcasm smilies I added it here so you can better understand.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008Because you seem to constantly fail to grasp the obvious, I'll have to spell it out for you.

Have you ever seen a person "take 2 steps" and slide a significant distance (10' or more)?  The only examples I can think of are on surfaces as slippery as an ice rink.  Nevermind the fact that a tavern floor will never be that slippery from a few spilled beers (which is why I think sliding across the floor a significant distance is not possible).

I have practical experience and 7 stitches that says your wrong. If you really need the proof I can take a picture and show you.  My brother and I were sliding across(I would say hydroplaning, but that makes you all prunefaced, however it sure did get the point across) the plywood deck of a cabin[my father is a carpenter we worked for him during our school years]  we hadn't raised the walls or rafters before it rained us out.  We were supposed to be sweeping the water off, but being 14 and 17, horseplay was more fun, so here we were sliding across the plywood, no not furniture grade plywood, construction plywood.  I slide, my lead foot hits a nail that wasn't countersunk all the way, it spins me 180 around I lose balance and faceplant. Smashing my teeth through my lip.
So how was I able to slide on wood with nothing but water?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008Let's assume it is.  Based on that, how do you expect to get your footing to be able to flip the table in the first place?  Again, this is physics and leverage, concepts that you don't seem to have a fundamental grasp of.

See this is fun I picked up on the sarcasm btw,  lets take your 'point' here and add to the others, to make a 'point' of my own.  How is anyone moving? How is he jumping to grab the chandelier? How is the farmer moving towards me? How is anyone engaging in combat <--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008You also have no idea what hydroplaning is.  Sliding is not hydroplaning.

My apologies Dr.Sacrosanct :rolleyes: I didn't realize we had to be 100% scientifically accurate with our terms. <--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you Sure did get the point across though.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008This isn't how you responded though.  You decided to respond and throw a fit about how each of my rulings was unreasonable and shit.  You completely ignored the context and point of my post to pixelbitch (and incorrectly at that).   Your response was a clear example of an entitled player who wants everything his way or he throws a fit.

This isn't how you responded though.  You decided to respond and throw a fit about how each of my questions to your rulings was unreasonable and shit.  You completely ignored the context and point of my post to pixelbitch (and incorrectly at that).   Your response was a clear example of an powermad Dm who wants everything his way or he throws a fit. <--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008The weird thing is that in all of your examples, most everything should be automatic

No
3, 4 and 6 I think should be automatic.  Not even half of them, actually only two more than you<--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008except taking a swing at a stationary rope.  That part, you were Ok with a -2 initiative roll.

:huhsign:

7) Draw a weapon and attack someone.
* take a -2 penalty to initiative
** Sure whatever. :rolleyes: <--notice the sarcasm smilies I added it here so you can better understand.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008*Edit* and if we're really going to be pedantic,  let's look at just how much the table weighs.  Just the top mind you, and not the weight of the entire table.  According to this, the table top above weighs 468 pounds.  This is not a picnic table.  With 3 full grown men fighting on top of it, it's over 1000 pounds.  Even with center of gravity, it would not be something easy to do, especially on a floor that is so slippery that you think a person could just slide across it easily.

However, as you alluded to, the table in that pic is only 20 inches wide.  If you use the rules for how much room is needed for 3 combatants to be able to fight, it would be 5' wide by 15' long and 3" thick, and just the top alone would be over 1300 pounds.  So 2000 pounds.  That's a small car.  Even if you put a Mazda Miata three feet off the ground on those table legs, have fun flipping it over with no footing.

You really trying to use combat rules to prove your how large the table has to be?  You're kidding me here,  Aren't you?
That is greenlumber weight, dried lumber would be around 320lbs.  That is also 18 fucking feet long.  The notion that you need at least 75 square feet for 3 humans to fight in is absurd.  And you bitch about rules lawyers and the cult of RaW?<--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008Oh, and just so everyone knows, I would never be that pedantic in a gaming session.  No unreasonable request should be unreasonable denied.  Make your case, and if it's doable, we'll figure something out.

:rotfl:<--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you

Quote from: Benoist;651806Nobody would enjoy having to sit down through an argument like this.

Thus the important words every GM eventually has to utter.


Thus: "rulings more than rules."

Regarding the tavern scenario, since I originally offered it up as an example of many possible actions that required asking the GM how they would be resolved in the absence of clear rules requiring an excessive amount of game time to evaluate them all (which I stand by - even if each individual ruling is quick, evaluating even several of them means asking and discussion - if everyone knows the rules there's no back-and-forth required).  But for the purposes of the tangent regarding the paradoxically slippery and stable floor - I had envisioned an aisle between tables that was littered with spilled beers making a slippery aisle - but not necessarily that the entire floor of the tavern was covered with ale.  

But that's not really important.  What does matter is what happens when a player feels that something outside the rules should have one effect (with reason) and the GM feels differently (also with reason).

Let's take a look at the thrown stew for a moment.  If it is a 'normal attack', that doesn't really reflect the relative ease of 'hitting' - it's not like it needs to penetrate any armor...  So a touch attack?  Called shot to the head?  And let's say that the GM rules that it is a normal touch attack and success indicates it hits the target in the face.  Now they have a hot, viscous stew in their face.  Does it cause blindness? Damage?  Does the target get a save?

Even if the player knows how to resolve the action, knowing what might happen is important, too.  If stew to the face hits (with a roll or automatically) but has no effect and no possible effect, it's still pretty much a wasted action.  

That's about the worst thing that can happen to a player - so if they consider several actions that the GM will rule  as doing nothing even if successful, that's where you really get into issues with either considering numerous possibilities (wasting game time) or simply resolving to do boring repetitive actions (ie, "I attack again").