Quote from: The Butcher;805917No need to get your panties in a bunch.

I asked you to show me rules for two situations (how far one can jump, and how heavy an object one can throw), in three different games (3.5e, 5e, nWoD).

You gave me rules for one (jumping) in one of these games (3.5e).

Uh, what? I gave you rules for several things (jumping, dragging, lifting, carrying) for 3.5e and 5e.
I've never played NWoD, so no clue. I wouldn't be surprised if they had something similar.

Quote from: The Butcher;805917The "rule" you gave me for throwing is no rule at all, but a guideline to do what any GM with half a brain will do -- extrapolate from existing stuff -- and does nothing to answer the question you yourself posed (how much Strength does one need to throw something that weighs X).

Sure, in this one example that I pulled out of thin air, yes, 3.5e and 5e don't have a firm rule, other than some inference and extrapolation.

I'll point out, though, that that is still more than Amber does.

Quote from: The Butcher;805917Superhero games like M&M and Hero usually feature more specific rules for this because it's a genre trope to have superstrong combatants throwing implausibly heavy inanimate objects at each other.

Yes. Systems generally have details to cover what you expect to do.
Rulings-ish systems like Amber, don't.

Quote from: The Butcher;805917Which is the entirety of my point: all game systems are incomplete.

That's great, except this subthread started with you taking me to task for mentioning that a lot of games have actual numbers for a bunch of stuff.

And then claimed there were no such rules in 3.5e and 5e.

Which there are.

So... why are you arguing with me, again?

Lots of games have rules for lifting stuff and throwing stuff.
The issue generally seems to be with detailing rules for throwing a Buick that don't lead to players determining this is a Gold build for half-orc razorpaladins, due to DPS 23% above tier-B2 martial adequacy.

Yes, all rpg rules sets are incomplete unless we arbitrarily limit possibilties a la boardgames; in other words, they are  meant to be incomplete.

However, various people establish rules for various things, depending on their particular interests. One wants rules for inebriation, another for dropped oil lamps, another for mixing potions, another for foraging and basket weaving, another for running a Rat on a Stick franchise in a dungeon, another for childbearing ...

Some people would not consider the bat-shit formalism a proper rule unless it's applied every time there's bat shit - which is basically how we get handbooks that require handtrucks (or a column of porters) to haul to the table.

Quote from: The Butcher;805787

QuoteI actually consider the bullshit of a A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming to be even more damaging and corrosive to effective gaming than the "RPG systems should only try to do one thing" meme that came out of the Forge.

Why?

Making rulings is one of the most basic skills a GM needs to possess. It's like basic grammar for a writer.

The most effective way of making rulings is to do so within the consistent structure provided by a set of rules. (There's a reason why the earliest GMs very quickly developed the concept of "ability checks" in order to give themselves a universal mechanic to making rulings around.)

All rulings start from and are supported by the rules: That's why they're called rulings.

The meme of "rules, not rulings" promulgated by A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming, however, creates an artificial tension between rulings and rules. It claims that rules are anathema to rulings. This is like someone saying "grammar vs. good writing". It's not just complete nonsense, it's literally telling you to do the opposite of what you're supposed to be doing.

And then you crack open the Primer and what you discover is an endless stream of false comparisons that mash together GM fiat, player technique, and the outcome of a given action in nonsensical mish-mash.

Then you get to the weird, bullshit claim that all of this nonsense is supposedly the difference between "old school" and "new school" play. As if OD&D didn't include lots of explicit game mechanics.

It's bad coming and going.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;805989Making rulings is one of the most basic skills a GM needs to possess. It's like basic grammar for a writer.

The most effective way of making rulings is to do so within the consistent structure provided by a set of rules. (There's a reason why the earliest GMs very quickly developed the concept of "ability checks" in order to give themselves a universal mechanic to making rulings around.)

All rulings start from and are supported by the rules: That's why they're called rulings.

I don't always agree with you, but this is spot fucking on.

Quote from: Will;805923Uh, what? I gave you rules for several things (jumping, dragging, lifting, carrying) for 3.5e and 5e.

Appreciate the additioonal information, but I know that most games have rules for lifting and carrying.

The detailed parameters for jumping were a neat surprise. Maybe I'll adapt the 5e ones to my OSR games.

But throwing? Outside of superhero RPGs, I've never seen this sort of rule, and it's always been a quibble at my gaming table whether the fighter with a girdle of giant strength can pick up a statue and throw it at a foe (if it's the right size I usually house-rule it as a thrown boulder; if it's smaller, proportionately less damage, and bigger, it's a no), or a fallen column and use it as a bludgeon (I usually rule that it's too big to be wieldly for a human-sized combatant, even with giant strength).

Quote from: Will;805923Sure, in this one example that I pulled out of thin air, yes, 3.5e and 5e don't have a firm rule, other than some inference and extrapolation.

Which was my point all along. The book itself is telling you, "we're not writing a frickin' rule for this. Here's how you make a ruling."

Quote from: Will;805923And then claimed there were no such rules in 3.5e and 5e.

I didn't. I don't do Socratic method while arguing with strangers on the Internet. It can be construed as condescending.

Quote from: Will;805923So... why are you arguing with me, again?

I'm not. I don't do Internet shout-down matches. You seem to expect an argument, I was hoping for a conversation. Merry Christmas.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;805989The meme of "rules, not rulings" promulgated by A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming, however, creates an artificial tension between rulings and rules. It claims that rules are anathema to rulings. This is like someone saying "grammar vs. good writing". It's not just complete nonsense, it's literally telling you to do the opposite of what you're supposed to be doing.

I cannot possibly defend Matt's

Having entered the hobby in the early 1990s, I can safely say that there were a fair number of people who handled all or most situations not explicitly covered by BECMI/RC D&D and AD&D 2e (the chief D&D rulesets of that day and place) as an unlifelike, videogamey restriction.

If a paladin wanted to sneak, they wouldn't even say "your plate armor is too noisy for this", or if a magic-user tried to pick a two-handed sword, they wouldn't even come up with something as simple as "sure, but you're going to roll to hit at -5 (or whatever) and can't possibly cast a spell with a big piece of metal in your hand." They'd just go "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" like an error message.

I remember at least one player who exploited this to his advantage, using improvised weapons and doing improbable things. And when the DM went "error message" he'd just go, "why not?" to the DM's consternation and everyone's amusement.

I've always found this funny, to be honest, which is why I can't really agree with Matt Finch's wording on the Primer. But maybe a generation after unified task resolution mechanics, it is necessary to wean players and GMs who are newcomers to TSR/OSR D&D of the notion that they're "necessary" when the sorts of probability "guesstimates" that DMs are called upon to do all the time do not really depend on using always the same dice.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;805959Lots of games have rules for lifting stuff and throwing stuff.
The issue generally seems to be with detailing rules for throwing a Buick that don't lead to players determining this is a Gold build for half-orc razorpaladins, due to DPS 23% above tier-B2 martial adequacy.

You'll never stop some types of player from doing that. Ever. Can't be done.

Taking assistance away from a game just because some people may abuse it, simply makes the game worse. It robs the rookie GM of guidance and advice. It forces the GM to make rules calls, but doesn't give them the framework necessary to make these calls within, so they are more likely to be bad calls.

Ah, in future, Butcher, you might want to use some conversational framing language so people know where you coming from.

Generally when people say 'where is X listed? In what game?' in a terse reply where someone else said 'under what context would this be important?', it's often a bullshit I NEED REFERENCES kind of internet argument.

Something like 'huh, I'm not really familiar with X... does it get used a lot?' or 'there might be rules for a bunch of stuff, but throwing rules don't seem to come up much.'

Speaking of jumping, in 5e D&D did anyone notice a character with 20 strength can jump 8 feet into the air?

Quote from: The Butcher;806021Which was my point all along. The book itself is telling you, "we're not writing a frickin' rule for this. Here's how you make a ruling."

The rules for most of the games I play do say "Here's how much you can lift and carry, and how much things weigh". There's a lot to extrapolate from for the edge cases that are not included; usually it comes down to a ruling only because the GM didn't think about it in advance, and the ruling is a lot easier when there's some starting point. So, a statue of an ostrich made of solid bronze at 1-to-1 scale; a few quick searches of the internet suggest it would weigh around 3000 pounds. If you're swinging it by the legs or head, there's a ruling on how quickly it breaks off, but no ruling needed for throwing it (beyond things GMs already have to do like deciding what it's a statue of or what it's made of). It's a different story if there's no rules at all for missiles of any sort.

QuoteHaving entered the hobby in the early 1990s, I can safely say that there were a fair number of people who handled all or most situations not explicitly covered by BECMI/RC D&D and AD&D 2e (the chief D&D rulesets of that day and place) as an unlifelike, videogamey restriction.

If a paladin wanted to sneak, they wouldn't even say "your plate armor is too noisy for this", or if a magic-user tried to pick a two-handed sword, they wouldn't even come up with something as simple as "sure, but you're going to roll to hit at -5 (or whatever) and can't possibly cast a spell with a big piece of metal in your hand." They'd just go "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" like an error message.

I remember at least one player who exploited this to his advantage, using improvised weapons and doing improbable things. And when the DM went "error message" he'd just go, "why not?" to the DM's consternation and everyone's amusement.

Bad DMs and bad players exist. Encourage the ones who want to improve. Boot any player who exploits anything to his advantage from your game.

Unless you're playing Advanced Dungeons and Discourse, "why can't my mage wear armor?" in a game that doesn't allow that is about like asking "why can't my knight move to an adjacent square?" in chess. But unlike chess, the DM should have some answer to "why is that rule in this simulation?" - the gods decree it under the Celestial Treaty of the Second Age, non-precious metal in quantity and close proximity prevents spell casting, using armor requires skill that a mage necessarily neglected to learn or practice, whatever.

Quote from: Ladybird;806027You'll never stop some types of player from doing that. Ever. Can't be done.

Taking assistance away from a game just because some people may abuse it, simply makes the game worse. It robs the rookie GM of guidance and advice. It forces the GM to make rules calls, but doesn't give them the framework necessary to make these calls within, so they are more likely to be bad calls.

As advised above, boot that kind of player if they won't stop. This is a much better response than mine, but I've typed too much to just discard my post so you're all stuck with it.  Merry Christmas to all.

Quote from: Will;805843'Can I throw this rock? This boulder? This anvil? The Buick?'

Yes. Yes, but not as far. Yes, but even less far. No.

Quote'Can I jump over this ravine? Can I jump on top of this house?'

Yes. Yes if it is a Ranch. No if it is an urban apartment house. Otherwise you can jump up high enough to catch the edge of the roof and pull yourself up.

These examples still seem kind of pointless in a game of Amber since most things (so far as I understand the game based on the books) are either vs. more or less normals - in which case true blood Amberites are far superior - or vs. other Amberite types and other supernormals in which case you already know who is stronger than whom based on the stat auction or GM creature creation and you can just compare those stats with any adjustments for clever ideas or situation.

That presumes play never addresses the actual world itself, or that it's highly narrative and you basically can do anything until someone else is involved.

And if that seems an outlandish interpretation, if I remember correctly (on AmberMUSH and in a few Amber games I took part in), this kind of stuff got argued a lot. People were often frustrated (particularly in a MUSH, where there isn't essentially a body of extra rules/rulings the GM/players came up with).

I mean, sure, Amber Strength is better than Chaos Strength. But you have some descriptive failures when the Chaos player decides he can throw a giant boulder and the Amber player has interpreted strength differently, and is forced to either over-rule Chaos guy or have shifting rules that apply when different folks are active.

(Which may, admittedly, work for a game involving Amberites and shadows, but, again, is basically changing the game to address a lack)

Quote from: Will;806241That presumes play never addresses the actual world itself, or that it's highly narrative and you basically can do anything until someone else is involved.

I presume there is some point to these  actions beyond a schoolboy theoretical argument like who is stronger, Superman or the Hulk. You didn't provide any additional context, but the answers I gave seem to adequately address the world itself. Is there some particular interpretation that seems unclear or that you want to take issue with?

QuoteI mean, sure, Amber Strength is better than Chaos Strength. But you have some descriptive failures when the Chaos player decides he can throw a giant boulder and the Amber player has interpreted strength differently, and is forced to either over-rule Chaos guy or have shifting rules that apply when different folks are active.

Does not Amber (like virtually all table top RPGs) use a GM whose role includes providing consistency of interpretation when players disagree?

If you want to change the situation to a GM-less game or to a non-table top GM-less MUD/MUSH you've strayed well beyond a discussion of OSR-style games altogether.

You seem unwilling or unable to engage my point, so I'll stop.