Quote from: Omega;908540Isnt it better to assume that if Z exists then there must be some sort of Y and X to support it? Even if it is as simple as "A wizard did it!"?

If the object were to be reasonable and play the game, yes.  But the object of the vast majority of online discussions anywhere on any subject is to bitch.

And really, we wouldn't have it any other way would we.

Good grief, let's all gather round and sing "I Love You You Love Me."

Gronan is right that the rules cannot fix stupid or asshole but they can create a standardized consensus as to what is reasonable or, indeed possible.  In reality very few of us have the PHDs in History, Physics, and Chemistry (let alone Philosophy and Theology though I expect those would only lead to more arguments) to claim that our understanding of the world is accurate or true.  It does help if the GM describes how they see the game and setting.  I think one of the biggest places things go off the rail is unfulfilled expectations.

At times I think the best system would be a dead simple core and a complete encyclopedia.  If you ever read Roleplaying Mastery and Master of the Game, you know that Gary Gygax felt that a Dungeon Master should have a pretty broad library and familiarity with many historical and mythical topics.  I think it's nice that we live in the age of Wikipedia where it's quick and easy to settle many disputes.  But I'm old fashioned and if a game has a book on just about every topic imaginable and discussion on how to handle that in the game, it's a plus not a minus.  Because, I'm not an expert on much beyond printing tee shirts and failing to run a gaming store profitably (I expect I'd be embarrassed if I ever succeeded).  I listen to a lot of news and talk radio at work.  I'd read the World Book Encyclopedia from end to end by the time I was fifteen or so.  But there's no depth to any of it.

I expect that most of us have some depth in our fields and our interests (Traveller Cannon has never gotten me a job, what's wrong with this world?) but none of us are experts in every field.

That's niche protection if you like.  There's just more to know than anyone has the time to learn.

Quote from: Bren;908470I don't know what you are using for a bench mark, but 4 rounds a minute (in any weather) for a flintlock smooth-bore musket is, as I understand it, the prescribed speed for British Line Infantry circa 1800. That works out to 15 seconds per shot, which is 5 x 3-second rounds. A matchlock is a bit slower, unless you are willing to risk serious misfires.

Im speaking form  personal experience and what iv seen in real life.
I dont know what British military standards regulations where.
But a minuet man had to shoot 3 shots in a minute now yes faster is beater.
Now i have seen 5 shots a minute in real life and 6 is achievable.
now i am talking with all the aid you can get cartridge and safely.

Bad weather probably less.
Same with a rifled bore as it tends to slow loading down.
And with other things that might cause issues.
I once met a guy who claimed 7 but iv never seen it and i find it a bit dubious.  
As to a match lock yes its going to be less like with any weapon is more complex to load then a musket and lacking a multi shot magazine.

Quote from: Bren;908515That would depend on whom you are arguing or more to the point, on how convinced that person is of the universal applicability and supremacy of argumentum ad fireballum in every RPG discussion.

Not to mention, what is your idea of "tactics" and "fun" and "cool"?  For instance, in Peter Jackson's movie "The Two Towers," where Legolam goes skateboarding down the stairs on a shield while shooting arrows?  I thought that was pants-shittingly stupid.  One of the stupidest things I've ever seen in my life.  I literally groaned out loud.  But I'm sure there are people who thought that was oh-so-cool and want to do that in a game and that's their idea of "good tactics".

Those people and I will never have a fun game together, which is why I try to make my expectations explicit as early as possible.

Yeah, people's expectations are often based on movies and anime rather than any real research.  In a world where reason follows the rule of cool all you can do is wave your sword from the turret hatch on your ridiculous looking steam tank and shout, "Drive closer, I want to hit them with my sword!"

Incidentally the 2d20 system from Modiphus is built to model that kind of silliness.  I had a PC cut down an attack helicopter with a sword in one session.

Quote from: Omega;908536Right. Some vents are going to be intakes and others outtakes if its a large complex. I was actually hoping some player would try that as Id have plotted out which were which and oh hey the party just offed themselves.

Back on topic.

Someone upthread mentioned that skill based classless games dont have niche protection.

Sorry. Hate to burst your bubble but theres also skill protection. As noted earlier, some players can be pretty territorial about their skills and wont let anyone else overlap with them. Im not very fond of these types either.

On the other hand I have had players wanting to fill percieved holes in the group. Not because of niche protection but simple tactics and logistics as they saw it. I am ok with this as long as its their own call and they arent trying to force that on the other players. But I allways tell players to "Create a character. Not a stat block or party puzzle piece."

Which pretty much enforces my belief that 'Classes' exist in just about every game, intentionally or not.  Most of the time, players make it themselves, if there's no obvious set of archetypes to build from.

It's the result of specialization in the face of the pressures to exploit a repeatedly encountered niche. If your "adventures" make the adventurous everyday (every session), then life adapts to its new normal, even if it is just a niche of the greater whole. Diversity of pressures, often greater than one's cooperative capacity, encourages generalists.

Thus no system can ever truly be spared of the rise of hyper-specialization — and its subsequent demands for niche protection — if you habitually fall into a narrow channel of play.

Quote from: Omega;908536On the other hand I have had players wanting to fill percieved holes in the group. Not because of niche protection but simple tactics and logistics as they saw it. I am ok with this as long as its their own call and they arent trying to force that on the other players. But I allways tell players to "Create a character. Not a stat block or party puzzle piece."

The thing is, that's not metagaming.  If you have a project team or a mission team - and a dungeon crawl party certainly falls into that sphere - then a bunch of individual experts each cross-trained in another team member's specialization is orders of magnitude better than a team full of generalists.  This is why the special forces do it this way, why all the systems engineering teams I've been part of do it this way, why Toyota did it this way, why Danny Ocean did it this way.

Quote from: daniel_ream;908579- and a dungeon crawl party certainly falls into that sphere -

Possibly.  Not certainly.

We do a lot of dungeon crawls, but we do a lot that is NOT dungeon crawls.  And not everybody plays every session.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;908541As for sharks - don't mistake them for ostriches. Some simply eat whatever they find, including things like nails or electronics, not because it supplements their digestive process, or makes a good "ballast", but simply because it's within their reach and they are too stupid to tell the difference between "food" and "not food".

I dont see anyone here saying every animal is smart. What we noted was that through experience animals can and will learn if said experience diesnt kill them.

Apparently you missed the part about false sensory input.

Crayfish I rate up there as abysmally stupid. But there was one at a fishing spot that had figured out that if it anchored itself and grabbed a hook it could get the worm. And the SOB did this fairly consistently. Rats, and Rabbits, will electrocute themselves because they were gnawing through insulation on cables.

Quote from: daniel_ream;908579The thing is, that's not metagaming.  If you have a project team or a mission team - and a dungeon crawl party certainly falls into that sphere - then a bunch of individual experts each cross-trained in another team member's specialization is orders of magnitude better than a team full of generalists.

Gaps in group loadout can usually be worked around one way or another. Items, tactics, hiring henchmen and retainers, finding NPCs willing to tag along, etc.

The players in my groups know that if theres a gap then I as the DM will provide some workarounds if no one want to play XYZ class.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;908566For instance, in Peter Jackson's movie "The Two Towers," where Legolam goes skateboarding down the stairs on a shield while shooting arrows?  I thought that was pants-shittingly stupid.  One of the stupidest things I've ever seen in my life.  I literally groaned out loud.  But I'm sure there are people who thought that was oh-so-cool and want to do that in a game and that's their idea of "good tactics".

You forgot the charge of the Rohirrim at the siege of Gondor. The one where Jackson had them ride their horses straight into and through the prepared polearms of the orcs. Tolkien didn't write it that stupid. And then we have Legolas and the Mumak.  :eek: :rolleyes: :mad:

Quote from: Omega;908582I dont see anyone here saying every animal is smart.

Neither do I and I'm not claiming someone said that.

However what I see is this:

Spoiler

And while I'm acknowledging that...

Spoiler

...I don't agree with "EVERY" part. Hell, no. When it comes down to food, truckloads of animals are dumb as a box of rusty nails. Which is "very".

Feel free to take links provided in my early commentaries at face value, or simply follow them and gain additional insight into the matter. :cool:

Quote from: Omega;908540Isnt it better to assume that if Z exists then there must be some sort of Y and X to support it? Even if it is as simple as "A wizard did it!"?

I disagree, actually.

A staple of geek culture discussions (it sure as hell isn't limited to RPGdom) is to come up with some explanation, ANY explanation -- no matter how bizarre, implausible or unrealistic -- to avoid having to admit that a certain element just doesn't make any sense.  

I once gaped with amazement at a multi-hundred post thread on the Serenity RPG board in which people hotly and avidly debated how the astrographics of the 'Verse were possible.  It didn't occur to the debaters to listen to the genuine astrophysicist from JPL who said it couldn't be done.  It didn't occur to them to listen to Joss Whedon's own explanation for it, which was "Science makes my head hurt."  The concept of "Of course it's absurd, but it's just a setting fiat Whedon did because he thought it'd be cool" provoked sneers.

So, really, I'd rather start from the basis of "Let's put in what's plausible and go from there" than "Oh, who the hell cares, we'll come up with some cockamamie explanation to justify it if anyone asks."  It makes my head hurt less.

Quote from: Bren;908584You forgot the charge of the Rohirrim at the siege of Gondor. The one where Jackson had them ride their horses straight into and through the prepared polearms of the orcs. Tolkien didn't write it that stupid. And then we have Legolas and the Mumak.  :eek: :rolleyes: :mad:

Now now, Bren, that wasn't even the stupidest depiction of a cavalry charge in the movies.  I'll see your Pellenor Fields and raise you Helm's Deep.  No cavalry charge in the history of mortalkind could possibly negotiate a FORTY-FIVE FUCKING DEGREE downward slope without disaster.