Quote from: J ArcaneIn another recent thread, I noted the oddity that so many games and players seem to assume that all fights are "to the death", despite that rarely being in the case in real life.  

That's true. You'll note that FtA! has fairly strict morale/intimidation rules that some of the playtesters even complained about.  A lot of gamers love the idea of battles all being "to the death".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditA lot of gamers love the idea of battles all being "to the death".

I'd imagine that has a lot to do with the implicit belief that it will nearly always be "to someone else's death."

I'm certainly interested in systems and rules that can facilitate non-to-the-death combat in a robust way.

Peace,
-Joel

Oh, and I've got one: the assumptions that a select group of people in the world have special status as "PCs" and will be deferred to in all ways by society at large.

I discovered a new and insidious application of that last night, when several of us players were devising a plan to bait out a group of mysterious ne'er-do-wells by spreading insults and challenge about them and hoping to be attacked. A fellow player vetoed the plan on the grounds that we're all far too "leet" (yes, that is an adjective with a lot of currency in our group--ugh) and our targets would probably only attack weak people. :rolleyes:

Peace,
-Joel

No-one ever falls down the stairs by accident or cuts himself shaving.

This was especially furstrating as I had 2 character classes (witches and gremlins) that specialized in generating seemingly random accidents. Since no-one ever accidentally hurt themselves, it was always clear that a gremlin or a witch was about. When I tried to fix it by introducing random accidents, itjust got tedious. I'm going to take another crack at it soon, but it's hard to strike the right balance.

The PCs must get along with one another.

GMs are responsible for the plot, and need to occasionally "push" the PCs into doing interesting stuff.

There needs to be "a plot" that everyone works on instead of many little things going on at once that diverge and converge into scenes, arcs and stories.

Heh, just had a campaign where the party kept splitting up. The first time, I told the player he needed to get his characters back with the rest of the group or make up new ones. When the party split 3 ways the next time, I just said we were done.

The players looked pretty surprised. I think they expected me to concoct a rationale for getting the group back together. As I saw it, they had rejected the campaign and voted with their character's feet, but I couldn't help noticing that each of the players was genuinely surprised to find that I wasn't going to drag them kicking and screaming back to the main plot line while they dreamed up reasons to go this way and that way. I don't think they knew they were voting with their feet until I said the campaign was over.

Quote from: jdrakehYep. And at the time, they were considered insanely wealthy. Ditto the Templars, the English Crown, and pretty much anybody else who hoarded gold and/or other precious metals. In fantasy games with a GP standard economy, a galleon full of gold pieces isn't actually all that impressive.

Oh, if we're talking about inside fantasy games, then you're dead wrong. (You would also have been wrong if you had meant it historically, which I originally thought you were saying, but it would have been slightly more effort to demonstrate that.)

Quote from: jdrakehGold pieces are valuable! In an economy based on a gold standard, gold pieces are no more valuable than paper dollars are in the current US economy (i.e., you'd have to amass millions of them to be considered independently wealthy by society's standards).

That's stupid.  Talking about D&D in particular, a gold piece is worth substantially more than a dollar.

Does a construction worker in the US have a salary of 30 cents a day?  Does flour sell for two cents a pound?  Can you eat out at a nice restaurant for 50 cents?  Is a $75 suit considered extremely expensive?

Quote from: stu2000That serious physical disabilities or character flaws are "balanced out" by secret superpowers.

Also, that secret superpowers are "balanced out" by serious physical disabilities or character flaws.

Quote from: One Horse TownThat equipment never wears out or breaks. One time, i decided that the PCs had been galloping all over the world for years and that some equipment was worn out. I rolled randomly to see who's cinch strap broke on their saddle. It happened and i nearly got lynched! Boo! GM abuse! Stuff breaks and wears out, deal with it! The PC either had to walk his horse or go bareback. He decided to walk. One day later a shiny new saddle, no biggie. But it was interesting to see a reaction i would have expected if i had told him that he had randomly broken his leg or 'rocks fall, you die'. Now i just make them spend a few gold every now and then for maintenance of equipment.

Given this (and nice solution, by the way) I think, then, that another common assumption that many DMs make is that if a player doesn't specifically mention he is doing something most people in the real world would consider routine, it isn't done. As a DM myself, I simply make the assumption, when it comes to equipment, that the PCs spend a bit of whatever downtime they have for maintenance. I mean, I don't expect them to tell me everytime their characters eat, shit, or bathe, either. The only thing I do is have them mark off days for consumables.

QuoteGiven this (and nice solution, by the way) I think, then, that another common assumption that many DMs make is that if a player doesn't specifically mention he is doing something most people in the real world would consider routine, it isn't done.

God I hate this attitude.  Especially when paired with the ever smug "Ha!  You didn't say you were gonna do it. so now, I fuck you in the ass!  Bwahahahaha!"

I could've done the same damn thing a million times before with my character, but if I don't explicitly declare every step in the process, the GM declares victory by player forgetfulness and proceeds to rape my character with a rusty chainsaw.

It always just smacked of childishness to me.

Well the flip side is you don't want players to be able to decide they did important things after the fact.

"I open the door."
"Okay the trap goes off."
"Well of course I check for traps, duh!"

No, that's the sort of activity where I do want to hear an explicit statement on the subject. "Unless otherwise stated, while we're in this dungeon I always check for traps and traps on the traps" would qualify, but I would actually need to hear that. Taking standard care of equipment I would be willing to assume, and I would make an effort to communicate the level of detail I wanted clearly in each given situation.

There are times in my campaign where I expect the players to be pretty precise about each thing they do, but I don't try and catch them unawares with the expectation. I also don't get cocky about it or mock the players for  stupidity as some GMs do. If the outcome is likely damaging, then so be it. But too often a GM will take a tone that seems to say 'you're stupid' as they deliver the damage. It's just a consequence, not a judgement.

Quote from: BrimshackWell the flip side is you don't want players to be able to decide they did important things after the fact.

Well, yeah. A good rule of thumb is that if there is an actual rule or game mechanic for it, then players need to specifically mention they're having their characters do it. In D&D, as far as I can tell, there are no rules or mechanics for equipment maintenance or shitting. Thank God.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWell, yeah. A good rule of thumb is that if there is an actual rule or game mechanic for it, then players need to specifically mention they're having their characters do it. In D&D, as far as I can tell, there are no rules or mechanics for equipment maintenance or shitting. Thank God.

There is discussion about parting adventurers from their gold however, and requiring an equipment maintenance expense is a reasonable and appropriate solution IMO. The DM get's to siphon spare gold from the characters, and enhance suspension of disbelief. On the player's side, they can expect that because they are spending gold to keep equipment maintained, they can depend on it to perform without flaw, unless there's a concrete reason why it shouldn't (sabotage, extreme conditions, malicious lephrechauns, etc...). I like it. As for shitting, I agree with you that it should remain "off camera"

I just thought of something else. Requiring reasonable equipment maintenance costs might have the effect of encouraging craft/profession skills if they could help offset the maintenance expense.

Sorry for the detour from the topic. Very interesting things have been brought up so far.

The belief that things you encounter are there for a reason, and probably linked together some way. Here's some bad news for you, sunshine -- the real world doesn't work like that. The real world is a fucking bag of random encounter tables and dungeon dressing charts. And sometimes you fall in a 80' pit and die.