TheRPGSite

A comment by Gronan on GM rulings reminded me of a strange conversation I had with a player a while back. It involved myself, as GM, altering the stats of an adversary and his response when he found out. Before I paraphrase it let me say the player is a great guy and an avid player but is somewhat of a stickler for the game/challenge/tactics/mechanics side of RPing.

GM: The orc goes down, a solid hit in the ribs yields a loud crack beneath his mail and he spits a gout of blood as he collapses.

Player: Awesome! Thats the last of them. We... wait...  Did you say mail?

GM: Huh? Oh, yeah... chainmail, he was wearing a chainmail hauberk, grieves... you know?

Player: But I rolled a 12 to hit. Chainmail is 14?

GM: Yeah, his AC was an 11.

Player: But thats not chainmal, thats like hardened leather or whatever. I should have missed.

GM: No you hit his AC of 11, fair and square. The orcs typically wear mail though, these do anyway, soldiers of the Black Duke and all. Doesnt matter how I describe it. I designed him with an AC of 11. Thats what you use when you fight him.

Player: So chainmail for me is 14 but for him is 11?  Do you make up other kinds of chaimails for other guys?

GM: No, well, yeah... they are monsters, adversaries, extras... whatever. They function differently. Yes as a character the armor should be consistent but for the monsters, who cares if his chainmail is AC11 or his broadsword only does 1d6 damage or whatever?

Player: WHA? They use different weapons too? So if I pick up an orc broadsword it only does a d6?

GM: No, it would probably do a d8 like normal, just not for him.

Player: So you have different rules for how much damage weapons do or armor stops based on who is using them?

GM: NO, I just rule it the way I see it. An orc grunt with a broadsword isnt as good as a hero. So I nerf them a little.

Player: So how the hell am I supposed to know what anything is, how good or challenging it will be? Chainmail isnt really chainmail, a broadsword really isnt a broadsword...

GM (Interrupting and a little hacked) ... yeah, thats right and a fireball may not do the same damage, a fall from the roof may do more, and they might take a saving throw differently too. So what? Its my world, those that live in it and arent under your control function as I see them, not based specifically on some freaking rulebook.

Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!


Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Player: So you have different rules for how much damage weapons do or armor stops based on who is using them?

GM: NO, I just rule it the way I see it. An orc grunt with a broadsword isnt as good as a hero. So I nerf them a little.

Player: So how the hell am I supposed to know what anything is, how good or challenging it will be? Chainmail isnt really chainmail, a broadsword really isnt a broadsword...

GM (Interrupting and a little hacked) ... yeah, thats right and a fireball may not do the same damage, a fall from the roof may do more, and they might take a saving throw differently too. So what? Its my world, those that live in it and arent under your control function as I see them, not based specifically on some freaking rulebook.

Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!


Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

Yours, undoubtedly. Your player sounds like he wants to be playing a videogame where he knows every bit of kit the opposition have and exactly what he has to do to beat them.

Your player is dead right in that he is playing in a fantasy world where everything, even physical laws are yours to change.

Haven't you ever read Aristotle's Poetics?
Both character and plot must be consistent and develop in ways that conform to the laws of probability.
What you've done is basically a deus ex machina.

I think it's a group consensus. You guys must agree on what kind of genre, tone, degree of realism, etc. the world will function. And whoever takes the role of GM has the responsability to uphold the agreed upon parameters.

Yours, but I think you could have explained it better -- the stats don't represent the weapons or armor but the wielder's skill with them.

Quote from: Altheus;1009299Yours, undoubtedly. Your player sounds like he wants to be playing a videogame where he knows every bit of kit the opposition have and exactly what he has to do to beat them.

Your player is dead right in that he is playing in a fantasy world where everything, even physical laws are yours to change.

You're missing the point.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1009300What you've done is basically a deus ex machina.

He gets the point.

There's no point to playing if today chain mail is AC:11 because Grove thinks we should have an easy fight and tomorrow it's AC:17 because he thinks we should have a tough fight.  Why not just save me the trouble of rolling a die and just tell me the story of what happens.

The DM should've stood his ground. I've put up with this crap from players before. Here's how it normally goes when I'm in charge.

Me: "And a hobgoblin teleports in."

Player: "What? A shaman can't do that! It says right here in--"

Me: *Slap!*

Player: "Ow! I--"

Me: *Slap!* "What's wrong with you!"

Player: "I just--"

Me: *Smack!* *Smack!* "You contradicted me, bitch! You contradicted the DUNGEON MASTER! I have the Viking hat! I am the master; you are the bitch! What are you?!

Player: "I--"

Me: *Slap!* "What are you?!" *Slap!*

Player: *Sobbing.* "Bitch! I'm the bitch!"

Me: "Yeah, that's right!" *Slap!* "And who am I! Say my name! Say my name, bitch!" *Smack!*

And so on, until in the player's mind it is very clear that *I'm* running the game, not three-hundred pages of recycled paper and second-rate art. I usually follow up my master-bitch sessions with a sort of symbolic mounting and rutting ritual. As I've said before, if it can work for those monkeys with the candy-colored asses, it can work for gamers.

Yeah, the DM fucked up by rearranging the game, but I'd be pretty damn pissed off if someone started citing line and verse in an attempt to contradict me in the middle of a game.

I can just see him now, holding up the book with his Cheetos-stained hands, spitting out the last syllable of "no thuch thpellth available to thhamanth" so that little flecks of saliva and popcorn land on my blazer as he engages in some twisted power-play for status as alpha geek. If that's what was going on, I'm not surprised that the DM got so pissed off he engaged in some massive screwage. The DM doesn't design games so you can slap your dick on the table trying to contradict him.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009306You're missing the point.


He gets the point.

There's no point to playing if today chain mail is AC:11 because Grove thinks we should have an easy fight and tomorrow it's AC:17 because he thinks we should have a tough fight.  Why not just save me the trouble of rolling a die and just tell me the story of what happens.

Oh please, here we go with this ridiculous bullshoy again. The two example are not even remotely the same. This orc with the lowered AC is maybe an older, slower veteran, or maybe his armor is tattered, maybe he is slow from a recent injury or disease, maybe he is just unmotivated by cruelty from a higher up. What the F.. ever it doesnt really matter, as GM I can drop his frigging AC if I want for any reason I feel appropriate. He will still be affected by and mesh with the rules of the game, have a chance of success and failure, be affected by the conditions at hand etc. . There is no F..ing STORY to tell. Please drop that overused and baseless accusation and stick to the topic at hand.

You have some great insight beneath all your prejudice Kreuger, stow the fingerpointing and you have my ear and respect.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

The GM's, always the GM's, unless I am playing ...

In this case, while I see the player's point, some things will be open to interpretation and slightly different. Players who know the rules might be thrown when a GM uses different AC or damage for armour or a weapon, but that's the nature of the game. Not all chainmail is the same, the GM should use whatever figures required for the scenario.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1009305Yours, but I think you could have explained it better -- the stats don't represent the weapons or armor but the wielder's skill with them.

Pretty much this. Or at least made it clear to all of the players that "I'm using mook rules. Your opponents could be gimped based on my own whim."

The conversation/argument could probably have been avoided if the DM had been clear to the players ahead of time. Set expectations, and all that. Obviously, if you don't, it's not a surprise that some players might feel cheated or disappointed.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009309Oh please, here we go with this ridiculous bullshoy again. The two example are not even remotely the same. This orc with the lowered AC is maybe an older, slower veteran, or maybe his armor is tattered, maybe he is slow from a recent injury or disease, maybe he is just unmotivated by cruelty from a higher up. What the F.. ever it doesnt really matter, as GM I can drop his frigging AC if I want for any reason I feel appropriate. He will still be affected by and mesh with the rules of the game, have a chance of success and failure, be affected by the conditions at hand etc. . There is no F..ing STORY to tell. Please drop that overused and baseless accusation and stick to the topic at hand.

You have some great insight beneath all your prejudice Kreuger, stow the fingerpointing and you have my ear and respect.

What you should do when explaining it is say you're not basing the AC and attack and damage on the armor/weapon, it doesn't represent the armor itself, per se, but the AC represents the ability of the orc to prevent you damaging it. And that's affected by the orc's skill itself.

I think you messed up. Just say it was chainmail yeah, but you made a mistake, so you'll let the melee results stand. Moving on...

OR, if you really need to save Face:

Say it was chainmail, but that Orc had a really shitty dex. No wonder he was easier to hit!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1009323What you should do when explaining it is say you're not basing the AC and attack and damage on the armor/weapon, it doesn't represent the armor itself, per se, but the AC represents the ability of the orc to prevent you damaging it. And that's affected by the orc's skill itself.

I always thought that was sort of assumed? But point taken.

I'd say the ref ought to learn the rules and apply them consistently, but I'd also say the player shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth and be so focused on minutiae. Another reason it's great when the players don't have copies of the rulebook and just focus on playing their characters.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296A comment by Gronan on GM rulings reminded me of a strange conversation I had with a player a while back. It involved myself, as GM, altering the stats of an adversary and his response when he found out. Before I paraphrase it let me say the player is a great guy and an avid player but is somewhat of a stickler for the game/challenge/tactics/mechanics side of RPing.

(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Futurama-Fry.jpg)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296GM: The orc goes down, a solid hit in the ribs yields a loud crack beneath his mail and he spits a gout of blood as he collapses.

Player: Awesome! Thats the last of them. We... wait...  Did you say mail?

GM: Huh? Oh, yeah... chainmail, he was wearing a chainmail hauberk, grieves... you know?

Player: But I rolled a 12 to hit. Chainmail is 14?

GM: Yeah, his AC was an 11.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/171/065/tumblr_lq1ipdonmj1qb6xks.jpg)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Player: But thats not chainmal, thats like hardened leather or whatever. I should have missed.

GM: No you hit his AC of 11, fair and square. The orcs typically wear mail though, these do anyway, soldiers of the Black Duke and all. Doesnt matter how I describe it. I designed him with an AC of 11. Thats what you use when you fight him.

(https://i.imgflip.com/19znwe.jpg)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Player: So chainmail for me is 14 but for him is 11?  Do you make up other kinds of chaimails for other guys?

GM: No, well, yeah... they are monsters, adversaries, extras... whatever. They function differently. Yes as a character the armor should be consistent but for the monsters, who cares if his chainmail is AC11 or his broadsword only does 1d6 damage or whatever?

Player: WHA? They use different weapons too? So if I pick up an orc broadsword it only does a d6?

GM: No, it would probably do a d8 like normal, just not for him.

Player: So you have different rules for how much damage weapons do or armor stops based on who is using them?

GM: NO, I just rule it the way I see it. An orc grunt with a broadsword isnt as good as a hero. So I nerf them a little.

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/87/11/7d/87117dcc03760f38f24252bb849d036c--bill-cosby-meme-generators.jpg)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Player: So how the hell am I supposed to know what anything is, how good or challenging it will be? Chainmail isnt really chainmail, a broadsword really isnt a broadsword...

GM (Interrupting and a little hacked) ... yeah, thats right and a fireball may not do the same damage, a fall from the roof may do more

(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/7e/7edc948cb1f273614841622edb7bdd963a202c3c4b4e46746305a6cf0cd7fead.jpg)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296and they might take a saving throw differently too. So what? Its my world, those that live in it and arent under your control function as I see them, not based specifically on some freaking rulebook.

Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!

(https://ci.memecdn.com/819093.jpg)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009328I always thought that was sort of assumed? But point taken.

Nah, it goes back to the original poster of the Viking Hat screed: there are a lot of gamers -- whether metagamers or just wannabe alpha geeks -- who demand not only that everything be in a defined slot with defined numbers, but that they know what those numbers are.

For my part, a player who whinged that he shouldn't have been able to hit a foe with X die roll, if he persisted beyond a droll "Yet you did all the same," might provoke me to a "Fine, fine, you didn't scratch his paint.  He's in your face and about to kill you, happy?"

If I had players that stupid.  Which I don't.

I know running 4e D&D I don't much like it that monster armour & weapons are unrelated to their AC and damage. I prefer games where by default chainmail gives AC 5 (etc).

That said, I don't expect players to argue with me re Orc AC & damage. They should go with what I describe the orc as wearing.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1009300Haven't you ever read Aristotle's Poetics?
Both character and plot must be consistent and develop in ways that conform to the laws of probability.
What you've done is basically a deus ex machina.

Yup. In the player's defense, now he has no idea what any armor, or even equipment is capable of. An opponent with plate mail and a battle axe could be as effective as a guy in cloth armor wielding a dagger, or vice versa. A player needs information in order to make decisions and that kind of information is now removed from the game.

Well, OD&D assumes that armor class is armor class, so if an orc has chainmail it's because I want him to have chainmail.

Chainmail is chainmail; I wouldn't vary it depending on who wears it.

YM, as always, MV.

But it sounds to me like the player was "chainmail is fucking chainmail, not Schroedinger's Armor," which is a position I personally agree with.  But I'm an armor fetishist.

Quote from: saskganesh;1009326I think you messed up. Just say it was chainmail yeah, but you made a mistake, so you'll let the melee results stand. Moving on...

OR, if you really need to save Face:

Say it was chainmail, but that Orc had a really shitty dex. No wonder he was easier to hit!

Number one.  The ref shouldn't need to save face.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009328I always thought that was sort of assumed? But point taken.

No, it's not assumed in all games.

Quote from: S'mon;1009336I know running 4e D&D I don't much like it that monster armour & weapons are unrelated to their AC and damage.

...seriously?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009340Number one.  The ref shouldn't need to save face.

Well ya, if you make a mistake, you should own it. Game on. It happens. Convoluted explanations of a fuck up are just a dodge.

I certainly wouldn't fret and handwring about it, and start a thread online so that strangers could comment and try to solve mistakes of the past and the lost hope of wasted table time.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009342...seriously?

  Something of an exaggeration. Baseline weapon damage tends to be set by weapon, and ceteris paribus, armor class will vary by armor. But both can be affected by level, ability scores, special abilities, etc., and when providing monster stats, 4E doesn't usually break out how much is contributed by what.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1009338Yup. In the player's defense, now he has no idea what any armor, or even equipment is capable of. An opponent with plate mail and a battle axe could be as effective as a guy in cloth armor wielding a dagger, or vice versa. A player needs information in order to make decisions and that kind of information is now removed from the game.

Yeah, a 2 modifier to the AC has removed all consistency from the game. All is lost, all is lost.

Quote from: saskganesh;1009344Well ya, if you make a mistake, you should own it. Game on. It happens. Convoluted explanations of a fuck up are just a dodge.

I certainly wouldn't fret and handwring about it, and start a thread online so that strangers could comment and try to solve mistakes of the past and the lost hope of wasted table time.

what mistake? I intended the damn orc have a lower AC. It was a conscious decision. THe GM can make up his critters any way he likes, or so Ive always been told.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009342...seriously?

Yeah; in 4e a monster AC and damage are determined by its Level & Role, a typical monster AC is 14+Level and its average damage is 8+Level. Heavy armour and big weapons may be signs the monster has good AC & damage, but not reliably. There's a knight NPC Halvath Cormarrin in Threats to the Nentir Vale who wears plate but has a crap AC because his role is Brute not Soldier.

4e is the only edition that does this; 5e went back to "plate & shield is AC 20" which I think works a lot better in assisting immersion.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009354what mistake? I intended the damn orc have a lower AC. It was a conscious decision. THe GM can make up his critters any way he likes, or so Ive always been told.

But... seriously... why not just give him worse armor to make a lower AC?

But I repeat, I'm an armor fetishist.

You, original poster, as the game master, may design the orc any way you like, however, there are two possibilities here:

1. You have designed something that is at variance with the rules as written because you want that particular outcome.  In that case, to my way of thinking, should be some description that explains the variation, should the player pop up with exactly the dialogue you offer in the original post.  The time to offer that explanation is during combat as it may affect player decisions and tactics.  

So, "the orc has chainmail, to be sure, but as you examine it more closely, it has links that are missing, bits that are torn and exposed, a lot of damage and rust.  Sure, it is chainmail, and you could fix it up, but at the moment it is a sad case, and oh by the way, the value as treasure is also diminished."

On the whole though life is easier all round when one doesn't do that too often.  SO AC 11 orc has leather armor and leather armored orc has AC 11 and AC 14 orc has chainmail and chainmail armored orc has AC 14 if that is the way the rules are written.

2. An honest mistake has been made, in which 11 was written for chainmail when 14 was originally intended.  In this case, to my way of thinking, any mistakes I make on behalf of the players stay on behalf of the players; I am not going to walk them back, and I will try to fix any mistakes I make against the players, though that is harder.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009352Yeah, a 2 modifier to the AC has removed all consistency from the game. All is lost, all is lost.

If you didn't want opinions, why did you ask for them?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009360But... seriously... why not just give him worse armor to make a lower AC?

But I repeat, I'm an armor fetishist.

Sure. I can think of lots of reasons to rationalize a lower AC. Damaged armor and/or low Dex off the top of my head. The important thing is to be consistent so the players could at least know that there is a reason.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1009366If you didn't want opinions, why did you ask for them?

I was going to ask that, but it tends to come up in half the threads Grover starts.

You fucked up and got caught out at it by the player.
If the Orc's armour worn has no actual effect on its armour class why bother having it wear armour at all? You have removed all predictability and consistency from your world. Chainmail is no longer chainmail.

You would have been better off saying, yes the Orc was wearing chainmail, but it was really crappy chainmail. As for a broadsword changing damge factor based on who is swinging it, I call bullshit. A sword is a sword. It shouldn't magically become a 1d8 weapon instead of a 1d6 weapon just because a PC picks it up.  It could do more damage because the PC has better skill or stronger muscles, but that has nothing to do with the sword itself.

I deal with it in my games by saying nothing beyond the Orcs are AC6 and do 1d6 on successful hit. Pick up an Orc's weapon and it will do 1d6 for you too. Put on their armour and you will be AC6. Assuming a D&D type rule set.

In RuneQuest a 3 point breastplate is a 3 point breastplate no matter who is wearing it it stops 3 points of damage.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1009305Yours, but I think you could have explained it better -- the stats don't represent the weapons or armor but the wielder's skill with them.

Agreed.

The better answer would have been that they are using either low quality chainmail or are wearing badly worn chain, or it was sabotaged by a rival, or its actually cursed chain, or whatever explains why its less than standard. Or "This orc has a low DEX.".

Personally I just lean to quality issues good or bad.

Instead of bitchfesting the player should have been wondering WHY this particular suit or this particular orc was less than average.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009328I always thought that was sort of assumed? But point taken.

Depends on the game. Most assume a certain consistency. A few dont.

Most iterations of D&D assume that the gear worn works just the same as the PCs gear. but its effectiveness may be better or worse due to the users stats/ability/whatever.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009352Yeah, a 2 modifier to the AC has removed all consistency from the game. All is lost, all is lost.

Except you stated that you can change anything on a whim to facilitate the story, action, whatever. Literally nothing then is consistent from the players viewpoint.

A sword might do 1d4 today and 1d20 tomorrow and there may be no way to tell or make decisions based on what the PC sees.

When Im DMing and using worn armor or a wearer with better or worse stats then I try to mention that during the encounter. "You notice this guys plate mail is dented and barely holding together." "This thief seems alot brawnier than the ones you've met so far." "This yokel is just wearing chainmail over a shirt? (wheres the rest of it?)" and so on.

And the stuff is still degraded, the same. or better than average when they pull it off the body based on the why of its performance.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009370You fucked up and got caught out at it by the player.
If the Orc's armour worn has no actual effect on its armour class why bother having it wear armour at all? You have removed all predictability and consistency from your world. Chainmail is no longer chainmail.

4e D&D Gamma World. The name of the item was irrelevant. Its what it does that matters and that at least was consistent. So this mutant is wearing heavy cardboard armor gaining +2 AC and this colony of kittens shaped like a person is wearing light full plate AC +1. The clue is the heavy or light part. Same with weapons. Name is irrelevant.

Replying to the original question, the game I play (GURPS) has rules for different damage and defensive abilities based on opponents' abilities, and it's normal not to know exactly what those are for everyone, so it wouldn't be exceptional at all.

Whether GM modifications to other things seem good or bad to me tends to have to do with how appropriate they seem to me. One GM gave a pirate with bad breath a breath attack, which seemed slightly overdone, but only slightly, and it was funny and colorful so that was fine with me. But when the GM decided to use an "NFL Football Player" template as base physical stats for a bunch of ordinary security guards, that seemed like the GM had a poor sense of proportion and seemed fairly annoying.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

I lean on the side that says you are a lousy DM whose encounters lack consistency. I also lean on the side that views your player as a whiny argumentative bitch.

Of course you can run it however you want, but I would agree that the player has a valid point and I'd prefer the consistency that the player is asking for from you.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1009338Yup. In the player's defense, now he has no idea what any armor, or even equipment is capable of. An opponent with plate mail and a battle axe could be as effective as a guy in cloth armor wielding a dagger, or vice versa. A player needs information in order to make decisions and that kind of information is now removed from the game.

Sure, but if players assume that everything works in exactly the same way then they will be surprised when it doesn't. Why should I, as a GM, always give the players an eminently predictable encounter?

I'd just say the chainmail was weak or poorly made, so had a worse AC.

Well ... we can all opine what we'd have done in his shoes, and whether if we did things his way we'd have lied about it or covered it up in some way.  Instead he was honest with his player, and I can't throw bricks at that.

Quote from: jeff37923;1009417I lean on the side that says you are a lousy DM whose encounters lack consistency. I also lean on the side that views your player as a whiny argumentative bitch.

Gotta ask. Why leave a comment like that. Its not constructive or helpful... just argumentative. You that miserable or what?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1009419Of course you can run it however you want, but I would agree that the player has a valid point and I'd prefer the consistency that the player is asking for from you.

I guess Im not seeing the reality in absolute consistency. Sure the rules cover a lot but not every nuance of every situation. A buddy and I own the same gun, but we shoot very differently, in his hands its a much more lethal weapon. Sure, firearms skill (To Hit) has a part in that but if I were to assign the gun a damage dice, his would be higher, no doubt. The chainmail armor, worn by a trained warrior, is far more effective. Its not just lying there on a stool being beaten on by a chunk of steel. I agree with you guys that I could handled it differently but just looking at pictures of ancient armor reinforces my point that even lying on that stool every suit of armor isnt the same, world wide!

Quote from: Ravenswing;1009428Well ... we can all opine what we'd have done in his shoes, and whether if we did things his way we'd have lied about it or covered it up in some way.  Instead he was honest with his player, and I can't throw bricks at that.

Why is everyone assuming I made a mistake? I never said that. The armor class was exactly what I intended it to be. I was well aware of what the RAW indicated chainmail should be rated for, I chose to do otherwise. Is that so vile that it has to be assumed to be a mistake?

Grove the idea isn't that the GM can't make that Orc old and slow, or his chainmail is butted instead of riveted, or rusty, or whatever.  Of course he can.  The idea is that based on your explanation, there is no reason for the chainmail to not act as chainmail except because.  It is, like Gronan said, Schrodinger's Armor.

If the GM said, "There are factors you're not aware of." or "Yeah, that's odd, isn't it?" or something similar, then the player at least knows the GM has a coherent, cohesive setting and the rationale behind things is based on elements within the setting.

If the GM wants the Orc to have AC:11 for some reason, but that reason has nothing to do with the armor worn, then that tells the player the rationale behind the things is not based on elements within the setting, but something else.  It tells the player you're metagaming the setting, for whatever reason (usually tactical numbers, story or adjusting for desired outcome).

Why would you...
1. Desire to give the Orc AC:11?
2. Then proceed to give the Orc a logical incongruity (namely equipment that would make it much tougher).
...what is the point?

All you're doing is telling the player "Hey, there's something weird here, that Orc seemed weaker than it should have been."  Successful players look for clues, for patterns, for hints...it's how they find out things about the world and it's how they save their bacon and hopefully surprise the bad guys and not get surprised in turn.

You're just waving a big sign in their faces that says, "There is no verisimilitude here, so don't bother.  Things will change to be more difficult or harder as Grove decides on a whim from moment to moment.  If he wants you to succeed, you will, if he wants you to fail, you will.  Just roll your dice and enjoy the ride."

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296GM: No you hit his AC of 11, fair and square. The orcs typically wear mail though, these do anyway, soldiers of the Black Duke and all. Doesnt matter how I describe it. I designed him with an AC of 11. Thats what you use when you fight him.

Player: So chainmail for me is 14 but for him is 11? ]Do you make up other kinds of chaimails for other guys?

GM: No, well, yeah... they are monsters, adversaries, extras... whatever. They function differently. Yes as a character the armor should be consistent but for the monsters, who cares if his chainmail is AC11 or his broadsword only does 1d6 damage or whatever?

Player: WHA? They use different weapons too? So if I pick up an orc broadsword it only does a d6?

GM: No, it would probably do a d8 like normal, just not for him.

Player: So you have different rules for how much damage weapons do or armor stops based on who is using them?

GM: NO, I just rule it the way I see it. An orc grunt with a broadsword isnt as good as a hero. So I nerf them a little.

Player: So how the hell am I supposed to know what anything is, how good or challenging it will be? Chainmail isnt really chainmail, a broadsword really isnt a broadsword...

GM (Interrupting and a little hacked) ... yeah, thats right and a fireball may not do the same damage, a fall from the roof may do more, and they might take a saving throw differently too. So what? Its my world, those that live in it and arent under your control function as I see them, not based specifically on some freaking rulebook.

Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!


Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

Read the bold bits.  You may as well through the rule book away.  That is also the answer to your question in the other three about how long to stick with the rules if you need to make changes. For you, be honest, ditch the rules, and go to a "roll high is good system".  

You are saying here that the rules don't matter, your descriptions don't matter it's all arbitrary and the only thing that matters is the subjective feeling your head. You have said this before. What is important to you is the story you want to tell. Any internal constancy of the natural laws of the game world, or external consistency of the game rules be damned if it gets in the way of that cool story.

I can understand exactly why the player is pissed.  Hearing you say "it's a thirty foot cliff", by your own admission, tells nothing about how dangerous it would be to step off it. In the real world I can look at a thirty foot cliff and I have pretty good sense of exactly how dangerous it would be to step off it.  Show the player an Orc in tattered leather armour and one in polished chainmail and there is absolutely know way of saying for sure that the one in chainmail won't be easier to hit and damage because you decided today that he was going to have a worse AC, never mind the chainmail.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009439I guess Im not seeing the reality in absolute consistency. Sure the rules cover a lot but not every nuance of every situation. A buddy and I own the same gun, but we shoot very differently, in his hands its a much more lethal weapon. Sure, firearms skill (To Hit) has a part in that but if I were to assign the gun a damage dice, his would be higher, no doubt. The chainmail armor, worn by a trained warrior, is far more effective. Its not just lying there on a stool being beaten on by a chunk of steal. I agree with you guys that I could handled it differently but just looking at pictures of ancient armor reinforces my point that even lying on that stool every suit of armor isnt the same, world wide!

Guns are probably the worst example for this, but let's assume you, your gun-toting friend, and a 98-year old grandmother who's never picked up a gun are PCs.  You are grab the exact same gun, a .357 magnum and you're playing AD&D.  The gun does 1d10 damage.  You could say, Granny does 1d4 with it, you do 1d8 and your friend does 1d12.  It's quick and it's easy, but probably not the best way to handle it with that ruleset.  Plus, firearms are weird, Granny can't cut your head off with a two-hander no matter what she does, but she can sure empty your brainpan with a magnum.

So Granny does 1d10 if she hits, but she's got some crazy modifier to hit like -8.
You are unmodified to hit and roll a 1d10.
Your friend probably has weapon specialization with guns, so gets a +1 to hit and rolls 1d10+2 damage.

Guns kill regardless of who uses them, it's all in the skill with wielding them, so that's where the changes should be made.  Could you do it with damage, sure you can do whatever you want, but for every solution there's good and poor ways to do it, even if in the end it gets done.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009437Gotta ask. Why leave a comment like that. Its not constructive or helpful... just argumentative. You that miserable or what?

Because when you read the discussion between you and the player about the chainmail wearing orc, it reads like you are not playing the game as intended but are trying to adjust setting pieces so that a storyline within your head is realized instead of players determining the outcome of an encounter by their actions. It kills the suspension of disbelief that the players are fully three dimensional characters immersed in a living breathing world and not just some low resolution NPCs in a computer game acting out a story with a scripted plot and a predetermined ending.

Your biggest mistake is that in the exchange with your player, you essentially lifted the curtain and showed that The Great and Powerful Oz was nothing more than a charlatan pulling levers and twisting knobs on a special effects device designed to fool the rubes.

RGrove here is what you are doing: you are asking your player to join you for a game of chess, then with no warning or explanation you are moving a pawn as if it were a knight. When asked for an explanation you are saying "because that is the way this pawn moves today, for you pawns move like standard chess." Your pawn, err, player now wonders what is next, a bishop moving like a queen perhaps?

You were using mook rules, as seen in eg Feng Shui and 4e Dnd. Nothing wrong with them in the right genre, but it sounds like you and the player were in different genres with clashing ecpectations.

Nothing wrong with using mook rules, except by Grove's own amount that is not what was happening. Not a single mention of "I was using this game's mook rules" just a lot of I was ignoring this game's rules because I felt like it.

I'm a bit mystified how Rgorove, who couldn't let the rapid healing rules for 5e go, has no issue ignoring as basic a rule as AC.

Quote from: S'mon;1009451but it sounds like you and the player were in different genres with clashing ecpectations.

This isn't about clashing genre expectations. Rgrove and the player are playing a game with rules. The player knows the rules and how they work. The player quite reasonably expects that as GM Rgrove is also playing by the rules. Rgrove has stated to the player that he is not, in fact, playing by the rules. Quite the contrary, Rgrove has stated to teh player that he ignores the rules whenever he sees fit for any reason whatsoever.

What genre the game is has no relevance. It is an issue of are teh rules going to be followed in playing the game or not.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296I suppose all or most of GMing takes place behind the curtain, or a GM screen of some kind. Im not talking about hiding your notes or whatever though. I'm referring to decisions and actions taking place beyond the knowledge of the players, and in this case not hidden plot elements but actual game mechanics.

I have found in over 35 years of GMing that fairly regularly the actions of NPCs, if handled strictly as per the rules, would slow the pace of the game down and kill the tension/drama and excitement that is typically the goal of any session. No matter how versed you are with the rules, no matter how streamlined the process, it takes time to decide on an action, glance at a stat, consider modifiers, roll the dice, interpret and assign damage etc. then relay the information. (if indeed the players would notice) This is just a combat example but the same applies in any number of situations where there are a number of other figures involved.

I could give an actual example but I think most of you know exactly what Im talking about. Conclude a series of actions by the players with a long pause as you roll for henchmen #1 through #4 then check on the mooks your fighting, A-J etc.

BIG ADMISSION FOLLOWS - Please don't tell my buddies from 1979

When confronted with these situations I often fudge the die rolls and simply narrate the action in a way that seems plausible and typically beneficial to the flow of the story. I may roll the dice behind my screen, pretend to consult a chart or two to keep the players guessing but those NPCs and Mooks hit or miss based on my whim, not the dice.

There it is, I said it aloud.... I feel sooooo much better. Ok, Im prepared to take on whatever penance handed me.

Seriously though, is this such a rare practice? Do you guys really roll for each and every one of 8 Orcs/Pirates/Ape Soldiers/Romulans/Democrats that your players are up against?

Do you make rolls for NPCs who aren't even in the scene but are performing some function that may affect the story or do you just rule it?

Ok, on second thought here are a couple examples....

1. Players are waiting for a riverboat, the pilot was supposed to meet them at sundown. As GM you know a group of mooks were following the boat and ordered to detain or sink it. Do you roll for this encounter or do you just assign an outcome given the player characters weren't even there?

2. The PCs are fighting in a saloon, a typical brawl. They square off with first one drunk cowboy then another. In between, are you actually rolling for any of the other guys?

3. The PCs are stuck behind a barricade fighting a group of musket armed Frenchmen. There are a dozen or so indian warriors with them. The characters have 6 English regulars lending a hand. Do you really roll for each and every combatant between players turns? Or does it sound something like...

"Ok, Roderick hits an Indian pretty hard, the guy goes down. While you reload and pick out targets muskets continue to fire, filling the air with smoke. A few balls zip by and you hear more than one painful cry and see at least a couple of your fellow Englishman fall back from the barricade clutching their face. (GM rolls a few dice, interprets a better roll for the French as 3 kills to one by the English) Alright Bob, you've got initiative, your turn.

I will readily admit I always feel a little guilty about this. It completely eliminates the quality of the NPCs, their stats, talents, or whatever. Unless you spend the time to come up with some mass combat system that takes that into consideration. I do roll a random dice or two, just to see sort of how a side is doing but its nothing technical, just kind of helps me make up my mind. In the end, if the players were a major part of the action, then their performance steers the result, but if they weren't (Say in a battle of hundreds or thousands) then its totally up to me.

Thoughts?

Remember this post, buddy? You made this post over a year ago Rgrove. Have you learned nothing in the intervening year?

The fine poster on this board, myself included, have told you over. And over. And over again: don't lie to your players. If its "who's die is it anyway?" where the rules are made up and the rolls don't matter, have the decency of Drew Carey and tell them that before the game starts.

I've finally lost my patience with this. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for over a year man; at this point I'm joining the haters. It does not matter how many ways you try to sleight of hand this argument into a post (and it is ALWAYS the same argument: "it doesn't make you a BAD GM if you deceive your players because that's what I do and I'M not a BAD GM!") you will always be wrong

Either stop refusing to learn, or stop posting this dreck. We're all tired of it.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009452Nothing wrong with using mook rules, except by Grove's own amount that is not what was happening. Not a single mention of "I was using this game's mook rules" just a lot of I was ignoring this game's rules because I felt like it.

He made his own rules.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009440Why is everyone assuming I made a mistake? I never said that. The armor class was exactly what I intended it to be. I was well aware of what the RAW indicated chainmail should be rated for, I chose to do otherwise. Is that so vile that it has to be assumed to be a mistake?

Your biggest mistake is not realizing or learning from your initial mistake and instead defending it.

You're cheating your players of the game experience by catering to your whims. I wouldn't want to be a player in your games based on your constant posts about ignoring rules to suit the outcome you prefer.

To put it another way, if you are going to freeform the game instead of following the printed rules, tell your players up front so they know what to expect.

Some of you guys are blatantly hostile or dense. You miss the whole point. But yeah, you win...the nays have it. Whoop!

This:

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009467Some of you guys are blatantly hostile or dense. You miss the whole point. But yeah, you win...the nays have it. Whoop!

Is a childish way to respond to this:

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009466To put it another way, if you are going to freeform the game instead of following the printed rules, tell your players up front so they know what to expect.

But every fucking post, man, this is what happens. This is why I get frustrated.

What happened to all the D&D people who claim the rules are just suggestions and the DM can & should use rulings over rules?

Is there no mechanic for foes of different skill to be harder to hit than others, other than armor class which doesn't get adjustments?

If not, it sounds to like rgrove was just trying to improve the combat system, and in a way that sounds like an improvement to me, no?

Quote from: Skarg;1009470What happened to all the D&D people who claim the rules are just suggestions and the DM can & should use rulings over rules?

Is there no mechanic for foes of different skill to be harder to hit than others, other than armor class which doesn't get adjustments?

If not, it sounds to like rgrove was just trying to improve the combat system, and in a way that sounds like an improvement to me, no?

No.

Grove decided, for whatever reason, that this particular orc was less hard to hit.  Instead of using a rule to make the Orc less hard to hit, or come up with a rule to make the Orc less hard to hit, he simply, without any rule whatsoever, decided that despite all the rules that dictated the AC should be X, he decided Y.

The rules essentially mean nothing in his game, as he will ignore them at any given time to deliver his desired outcome, he's been admitting to such for...yes it's been over a year now.

Go read up on Illusionism in RPGs and Schrodinger's Ogre, or read some of his past posts.  Pay special attention to the one where because he didn't want a PC to catch an NPC because he didn't want her to find out the guy was actually her long lost brother, he nullified the fact that he rolled a fail to evade her and she rolled a very good success to catch him because it would have been inconvenient for his planned tale. (To be fair to Grove, he admits that was probably going too far in retrospect.)

I am still right here where I have always been, Skarg, but I am upfront with my players that sometimes I will override the letter of the printed rules. Upfront, as in before we start playing. Not pull bait and switch. And when I do it I am honest about it.

If I make a house ruled improvement to a game system I tell my players the new rule that will be in play. It is not unreasonable to make changes to the game rules. It is also not unreasonable to expect the game to be played by the printed rules unless told otherwise. What is unreasonable is to change the rules without telling the players. Or to simply toss the rules entirely at arbitraily determined moments and not tell the players that this may occur.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009467Some of you guys are blatantly hostile or dense. You miss the whole point. But yeah, you win...the nays have it. Whoop!

You had the Star Wars player react unexpectedly when you told him how you GM, and came here to find out why.
You had this player react unexpectedly when you told him how you GM, and came here to find out why.
We've been telling you for a year now why this is happening and why this should not be unexpected and you still don't understand, or refuse to understand why people may be hostile to finding out after the fact what's actually going on behind the curtain.

You may find Jeff's response hostile, but guess what...so were your players, right?

So...maybe try to understand that point of view, instead of dismiss it and go Tra-la-la-ing along blissfully ignoring the advice people are giving in repeated attempts, despite your repeated mockery of their views, to help you understand.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009467Some of you guys are blatantly hostile or dense. You miss the whole point. But yeah, you win...the nays have it. Whoop!

I can't agree with some of the criticisms, but I have to weigh in with the nays.

The problem is not that the orc has a worse armor class than it should (what does that even mean?), but that the descriptive detail you wanted ("wearing chainmail") now has no correlation with any game statistic. The players can respond in one or more ways:

• Ignore every description that you give, unless it's explicitly a game statistic like AC, because apparently it's just meaningless fluff.
• Delay the game by spending the rest of the session trying to fathom why the orc was easy to hit despite wearing chainmail.
• Never choose an interesting path because they can't pick out (or trust) the subtle clues that might, correctly or incorrectly, point them in that direction.
• Never disguise themselves or use illusions, because why should they expect mere appearance to deceive an NPC when it tells the PCs nothing reliable?
• Complain about your GMing, to you or to each other or to an online forum or to random non-gamers who don't have any idea what they're talking about.

None of these benefit your game. Conversely, if descriptions actually correlate with the game statistics, players will hang on your descriptions and ask for more detail. If Green Dagger tribe orcs use poison and Shadowed Eye tribe orcs are almost all spell-casters, then the players will try to learn the subtle distinctions in tattoos and ritual scarring that distinguish these two tribes so they can proceed with better tactics. And I'm not saying that the players should always be able to discern everything from observable details; the guy in ordinary clothes they meet on the road might be a peasant, a well-nigh unbeatable martial artist, a powerful wizard or a shape-changed dragon.

Quote from: Azraele;1009469This:



Is a childish way to respond to this:



But every fucking post, man, this is what happens. This is why I get frustrated.

You get frustrated? I get maybe 10% support on any idea I relate! Laugh.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009491You get frustrated? I get maybe 10% support on any idea I relate! Laugh.

You're looking for approval under the guise of asking for opinions: you're lying. And when people take you at your word, you get frustrated and complain about it. You refuse, both in your online interactions with us and in your in-game interactions with your players, to recognize that your deception is the key ingredient  to your own misery.

Yeah, that's frustrating. Further frustrating? You seem to need approval from an egomass to justify your own decisions to yourself. Do you know why you feel that need, dude? It's because even you know that you're behaving poorly.

Let me save you another year of frustrated posting: stop lying. Be 100% honest. That's what I do, and my problems just melt away. Be honest about what you want in your interactions with us (support, not feedback). Be honest about how you make decisions with your players (you modify things behind the screen to fit with your idea of how they should play out).

Not everyone here agrees with either of those things; far from it. But, according to your own admission, 10% of us do. Honesty will result in a 100% response rate from those people, and the vast majority of us lured here under the pretense of actually debating you will not show up; why would we? I ignore threads I can't contribute to; you'd never have me chew your ass again.

Honesty in how you run games will let you frustrated player know that he's going to be let down by your style. He'll find another game, and you'll find a player that loves the way you run. People do! Loads of people love the exact style you're describing!

I don't want to shit on the way you enjoy your elfgames, sir; I respect your right to play and run however best suits your taste. As a matter of fact, I heartily invite debate on our differences; I'm certain you have something to teach me about our shared hobby.

But I do you a disservice if I fail to teach you the wages of dishonesty. Post and run in good faith Rgrove, and you'll be received in kind.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009437Gotta ask. Why leave a comment like that. Its not constructive or helpful... just argumentative. You that miserable or what?

I suspect lack of fiber.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009328I always thought that was sort of assumed? But point taken.

The game treats it more like, you put on chain mail, and the mere quality of the armor determines your AC. Same with the weapon. There's an objective relationship between their mechanics and the object. Chain mail is always so and so AC, a longsword always deals d8 damage, etc.

If you want to change those, just change the description. Call it shitty, run down chain mail. Call it a rusty sword. That way the details of the world match the mechanics.

Quote from: Skarg;1009470What happened to all the D&D people who claim the rules are just suggestions and the DM can & should use rulings over rules?

Is there no mechanic for foes of different skill to be harder to hit than others, other than armor class which doesn't get adjustments?

If not, it sounds to like rgrove was just trying to improve the combat system, and in a way that sounds like an improvement to me, no?

As I've said many times, the rules and in-game explanation are different.

Many, many people in this thread have pointed out ways Grover could have done this other than "I pulled it out of my ass."  He didin't use a mechanic for foes of different skill, he said "I wanted this orc to be easier to hit because reasons."

Basically, he's being dishonest with his player and destroying the trust.  The single most important thing in Free Kriegsspiel is that the players have to trust the referee.  Grover just shot his player's trust in the face.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009467Some of you guys are blatantly hostile or dense. You miss the whole point. But yeah, you win...the nays have it. Whoop!

Man, YOU miss the point.  You TOLD the player to his face that things are entirely arbitrary based on whim.  You could have said "This orc was old and arthritic" or anything else, but you chose to say "Dance for me, monkey, dance."

Until you realize that you ass-raped your players' trust in you to death, NONE of your pity party threads are going to turn out differently.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009491You get frustrated? I get maybe 10% support on any idea I relate! Laugh.

Maybe it's because your ideas aren't very good.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009466To put it another way, if you are going to freeform the game instead of following the printed rules, tell your players up front so they know what to expect.

Reminds me of playing Legos (Star Wars rebels versus battledroids or whatever they are) with my son where he essentially tells me what he wants my Lego guys to do and then if it isn't working out as he expected, changes the rules mid-game so that it does. But he's eight.

Grover, are you eight?

Quote from: Ravenswing;1009428Well ... we can all opine what we'd have done in his shoes, and whether if we did things his way we'd have lied about it or covered it up in some way.  Instead he was honest with his player, and I can't throw bricks at that.

Nobody is accusing him because of this:). And yes, kudos for being honest.
People are just saying that when they see chainmail-wearing people, they expect a certain difficulty to hit them. Now, the chain might be butted or riveted, the steel of higher or lower quality...but that's D&D's rules not always mapping well to reality, which contains variations, and not anyone's fault. And to be honest, preciously few games give armours a range of possible qualities!

Quote from: Voros;1009453I'm a bit mystified how Rgorove, who couldn't let the rapid healing rules for 5e go, has no issue ignoring as basic a rule as AC.

I admit I was a bit surprised, myself. But what I was thinking while reading was what Azraele posted.

Quote from: Azraele;1009459Remember this post, buddy?

So, my question to rgrove is - do we assume the OP here is you trying to change the ways mentioned in the post Azraele quoted? Or just continuing them?

Quote from: Skarg;1009470What happened to all the D&D people who claim the rules are just suggestions and the DM can & should use rulings over rules?

Is there no mechanic for foes of different skill to be harder to hit than others, other than armor class which doesn't get adjustments?

You know that in D&D that's represented by the HP, right;)? Not necessarily the most elegant solution, but it mostly works.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009471No.

Grove decided, for whatever reason, that this particular orc was less hard to hit.  Instead of using a rule to make the Orc less hard to hit, or come up with a rule to make the Orc less hard to hit, he simply, without any rule whatsoever, decided that despite all the rules that dictated the AC should be X, he decided Y.

The rules essentially mean nothing in his game, as he will ignore them at any given time to deliver his desired outcome, he's been admitting to such for...yes it's been over a year now.

Go read up on Illusionism in RPGs and Schrodinger's Ogre, or read some of his past posts.  Pay special attention to the one where because he didn't want a PC to catch an NPC because he didn't want her to find out the guy was actually her long lost brother, he nullified the fact that he rolled a fail to evade her and she rolled a very good success to catch him because it would have been inconvenient for his planned tale. (To be fair to Grove, he admits that was probably going too far in retrospect.)

I remember quite a few previous Grove posts and threads (where he talked about narrating whatever he liked and pretended to roll and was asking if any of us even use the rules or roll LOL), but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and taking him at his word and responding to what he wrote in this original question. I'm not very familiar with D&D but it seemed like he was saying he just basically assigned a +2 to hit the Orcs in the Duke of Poop's fodder brigade because they generally suck, though it sounds like many players expect that not to be something DM's mess with.

Quote from: Skarg;1009506I remember quite a few previous Grove posts and threads (where he talked about narrating whatever he liked and pretended to roll and was asking if any of us even use the rules or roll LOL), but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and taking him at his word and responding to what he wrote in this original question. I'm not very familiar with D&D but it seemed like he was saying he just basically assigned a +2 to hit the Orcs in the Duke of Poop's fodder brigade because they generally suck, though it sounds like many players expect that not to be something DM's mess with.

It depends on the rules.

In OD&D armor class is armor class, period.  You COULD assign a dex penalty to modify the AC.  But Grover didn't do that, he used "just because."

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009491You get frustrated? I get maybe 10% support on any idea I relate! Laugh.

You told your player "armor does whatever I want it to, and weapons do whatever I want them to."

So.  There are two orcs, one with a jockstrap and a stick, the other in plate armor with a battleaxe.

How the FUCK is the player supposed to make any meaningful decision about which one is the greatest danger, when you SAID "It doesn't matter how I describe it"?  Your OWN FUCKING WORDS, Cupcake.  You told the player in as many words that the information you give them as referee is not actually useful, and whine when your player points out that the entire game is now meaningless.

You bitch, whine, piss, moan, and shit yourself publicly about rules, and then wonder why people throw rocks at you when you say "fuck rules, I'm pulling this all out of my ass as I go."

Your problems are entirely of your own making.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009509It depends on the rules.

In OD&D armor class is armor class, period.  You COULD assign a dex penalty to modify the AC.  But Grover didn't do that, he used "just because."

I see, thanks. It also (in addition to using whatever mechanic is appropriate to represent incompetence) occurs to me that when the orcs are notably bad, the GM should mention that, probably particularly when a roll happens where the result is different than expected, like this one, e.g. "the orc is wearing chainmail, but he fights like an untrained clod, allowing you injure him nonetheless."

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009467Some of you guys are blatantly hostile or dense. You miss the whole point. But yeah, you win...the nays have it. Whoop!

Except some of us are enguaging the question and offering thoughts and insights. And you seem to keep ignoring those and only picking up the ones where you get to defend yourself. Again.

It also makes some of your other threads look really off kilter when in one you post about how the rules are GOD and you are frustrated, then you post about how you totally overhaul a game and houserule it till its an different game, then you post about how the rules are meaningless because you might change them on a whim to suit the story.

For me the hangup as noted in my other post you ignored is that theres no logic or consistency to what you did. For a player this can be a really jarring experience and can lead to a player wondering why even bother? Not because Chainmail is AC 14 here and 11 there. But because it is so "just because".

You did right by telling the truth and explaining to the player why things were as they were. The player had due reason to be a little irked.

You had the right idea. You just executed it poorly.

Give your alterations an internal consistency or reasonable explanation and players will be fine with it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009496I suspect lack of fiber.

Close.

(I've had the dubious pleasure of dealing with Ken Whitman today on Facebook. My patience for playing dumb is pretty low right now.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009467Some of you guys are blatantly hostile or dense. You miss the whole point. But yeah, you win...the nays have it. Whoop!

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009473You may find Jeff's response hostile, but guess what...so were your players, right?

Rgrove0172, fuck you, you fucking fuck.

Now THAT was hostile and dense. The rest is just people telling you that most players want to play a game and not be set pieces in a story you have playing in your head that masquerades as a game.

Quote from: jeff37923;1009527Close.

(I've had the dubious pleasure of dealing with Ken Whitman today on Facebook.)

Dear Christ on the Cross, WHY?

Quote from: jeff37923;1009528Rgrove0172, fuck you, you fucking fuck.

You forgot "with fuck sauce."

Quote from: jeff37923;1009528The rest is just people telling you that most players want to play a game and not be set pieces in a story you have playing in your head that masquerades as a game.

"Tonight on 'It's the Mind,' we present Deja Vu: The feeling that you have experienced something before."

It had seemed like Grover was starting to get some of what people were trying to tell him.  Then this.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009529Dear Christ on the Cross, WHY?

The duties of being a Group Admin require it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009531You forgot "with fuck sauce."

Mea culpa. :D

Quote from: jeff37923;1009527Close.

(I've had the dubious pleasure of dealing with Ken Whitman today on Facebook. My patience for playing dumb is pretty low right now.)

Who'd he rip off today?

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296A comment by Gronan on GM rulings reminded me of a strange conversation I had with a player a while back. It involved myself, as GM, altering the stats of an adversary and his response when he found out. Before I paraphrase it let me say the player is a great guy and an avid player but is somewhat of a stickler for the game/challenge/tactics/mechanics side of RPing.

GM: The orc goes down, a solid hit in the ribs yields a loud crack beneath his mail and he spits a gout of blood as he collapses.

Player: Awesome! Thats the last of them. We... wait...  Did you say mail?

GM: Huh? Oh, yeah... chainmail, he was wearing a chainmail hauberk, grieves... you know?

Player: But I rolled a 12 to hit. Chainmail is 14?

GM: Yeah, his AC was an 11.

Player: But thats not chainmal, thats like hardened leather or whatever. I should have missed.

Things would deviate at this point

Me: But you hit. That should tell you something about the world.  Think about it.

Player: It tells me you aren't following the rules.

Me: What did I tell you when you started playing  in my game about "the rules"? I believe it was something like "There really aren't any rules, the written rules are only guidelines for the GM to use or not use as he needs to determine what happens." Thinking about what the rules say isn't really going to help you here. The orcs are wearing chainmail armor, but their chainmail armor doesn't seem to protect them to the extent you expect it to. This should tell you something about the world -- or at least this part of it.

In my experience, if the player doesn't realize this means this orc tribe's chainmail is probably defective or poorly made, some other player in the game who is more focused on the world instead of the rules will quickly suggest it.

Quote from: jeff37923;1009445Because when you read the discussion between you and the player about the chainmail wearing orc, it reads like you are not playing the game as intended but are trying to adjust setting pieces so that a storyline within your head is realized instead of players determining the outcome of an encounter by their actions. It kills the suspension of disbelief that the players are fully three dimensional characters immersed in a living breathing world and not just some low resolution NPCs in a computer game acting out a story with a scripted plot and a predetermined ending.

Your biggest mistake is that in the exchange with your player, you essentially lifted the curtain and showed that The Great and Powerful Oz was nothing more than a charlatan pulling levers and twisting knobs on a special effects device designed to fool the rubes.

"Playing the game as intended". Just what the heck is that? Im willing to bet every GM plays their game the way they want, designer intentions be damned. We arent talking about winging or tossing entire rules sections. Its a modifier to an armor class for christs sake.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009450RGrove here is what you are doing: you are asking your player to join you for a game of chess, then with no warning or explanation you are moving a pawn as if it were a knight. When asked for an explanation you are saying "because that is the way this pawn moves today, for you pawns move like standard chess." Your pawn, err, player now wonders what is next, a bishop moving like a queen perhaps?

Thats a very poor example. Perhaps a better one would be I forgive him a dumb move and ignore his exposed bishop for a turn so as to continue playing a bit longer.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009543"Playing the game as intended". Just what the heck is that? Im willing to bet every GM plays their game the way they want, designer intentions be damned. We arent talking about winging or tossing entire rules sections. Its a modifier to an armor class for christs sake.

So why did you do it?

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009455This isn't about clashing genre expectations. Rgrove and the player are playing a game with rules. The player knows the rules and how they work. The player quite reasonably expects that as GM Rgrove is also playing by the rules. Rgrove has stated to the player that he is not, in fact, playing by the rules. Quite the contrary, Rgrove has stated to teh player that he ignores the rules whenever he sees fit for any reason whatsoever.

What genre the game is has no relevance. It is an issue of are teh rules going to be followed in playing the game or not.

 I cannot begin to recall all the times on this site Ive have heard GMs claim they ignore or change the rules as a matter of standard practice. They "Make RULINGS" not "Follow RULES". And yet that seems to be a travesty when I do it.

Quote from: Dumarest;1009462Your biggest mistake is not realizing or learning from your initial mistake and instead defending it.

You're cheating your players of the game experience by catering to your whims. I wouldn't want to be a player in your games based on your constant posts about ignoring rules to suit the outcome you prefer.

The outcome in this case was a F....ing Orc with an AC of 11. So sue me. Geeze people, get a grip.

Quote from: Omega;1009541Who'd he rip off today?

Nobody, I hope. The people who were not familiar with his history were alerted in time, I think.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009471No.

Grove decided, for whatever reason, that this particular orc was less hard to hit.  Instead of using a rule to make the Orc less hard to hit, or come up with a rule to make the Orc less hard to hit, he simply, without any rule whatsoever, decided that despite all the rules that dictated the AC should be X, he decided Y.

The rules essentially mean nothing in his game, as he will ignore them at any given time to deliver his desired outcome, he's been admitting to such for...yes it's been over a year now.

Go read up on Illusionism in RPGs and Schrodinger's Ogre, or read some of his past posts.  Pay special attention to the one where because he didn't want a PC to catch an NPC because he didn't want her to find out the guy was actually her long lost brother, he nullified the fact that he rolled a fail to evade her and she rolled a very good success to catch him because it would have been inconvenient for his planned tale. (To be fair to Grove, he admits that was probably going too far in retrospect.)

Yes I owned up to that, although in defense it would have been a major setback in the game and required a good bit of effort to work around. Not to mention an end to the game that night as I stepped back and prepared something different. This is hardly the same however. GMs make up adversaries all the time. We dont always use whats in the book. If a given stat is different thatn a similar circumstance would be elsewhere I just cant find the harm in it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009498As I've said many times, the rules and in-game explanation are different.

Many, many people in this thread have pointed out ways Grover could have done this other than "I pulled it out of my ass."  He didin't use a mechanic for foes of different skill, he said "I wanted this orc to be easier to hit because reasons."

Basically, he's being dishonest with his player and destroying the trust.  The single most important thing in Free Kriegsspiel is that the players have to trust the referee.  Grover just shot his player's trust in the face.

I prefer to describe it as reminding the player that we are simulating a real, chaotic and infinitely variable world, not formula with hard numbers and statistics. The rules are there to help us figure out how things happen in the world, not to provide a game in of themselves. We are Roleplaying, not Ruleplaying.. as I have often heard here before.

Quote from: Dumarest;1009501Reminds me of playing Legos (Star Wars rebels versus battledroids or whatever they are) with my son where he essentially tells me what he wants my Lego guys to do and then if it isn't working out as he expected, changes the rules mid-game so that it does. But he's eight.

Grover, are you eight?

And yet another useless, immature comment ... this one oddly accusing me of being immature.

Quote from: Skarg;1009506I remember quite a few previous Grove posts and threads (where he talked about narrating whatever he liked and pretended to roll and was asking if any of us even use the rules or roll LOL), but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and taking him at his word and responding to what he wrote in this original question. I'm not very familiar with D&D but it seemed like he was saying he just basically assigned a +2 to hit the Orcs in the Duke of Poop's fodder brigade because they generally suck, though it sounds like many players expect that not to be something DM's mess with.

Give the man a F..ing Huge Ass CIGAR!  Laugh... that was it exactly. I wanted the image of the mail clad warrior but didnt want them to be that much of a challenge. Its an easy concept.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009511You told your player "armor does whatever I want it to, and weapons do whatever I want them to."

So.  There are two orcs, one with a jockstrap and a stick, the other in plate armor with a battleaxe.

How the FUCK is the player supposed to make any meaningful decision about which one is the greatest danger, when you SAID "It doesn't matter how I describe it"?  Your OWN FUCKING WORDS, Cupcake.  You told the player in as many words that the information you give them as referee is not actually useful, and whine when your player points out that the entire game is now meaningless.

You bitch, whine, piss, moan, and shit yourself publicly about rules, and then wonder why people throw rocks at you when you say "fuck rules, I'm pulling this all out of my ass as I go."

Your problems are entirely of your own making.

You seem to choose to ignore It was a drop of 2 in AC and maybe one die type for the weapon. I hardly see that as a massive change in perceived threat...hell it was barely a noticeable change in actual performance.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009550I prefer to describe it as reminding the player that we are simulating a real, chaotic and infinitely variable world, not formula with hard numbers and statistics. The rules are there to help us figure out how things happen in the world, not to provide a game in of themselves. We are Roleplaying, not Ruleplaying.. as I have often heard here before.

OK, so if the rules are meant to be changed from game to game, if not moment to moment by you, then why isn't your game called "Mother, may I?"?

Seriously, you have taken the concept of "rulings not rules" to the most extreme end of the spectrum. The rules are there so that people with an interest in them can use them to participate in the shared framework of your game - if a rule is not to your liking, then change it but make sure that the Players know so that they can follow along with you. Be consistent.

Quote from: jeff37923;1009545So why did you do it?

To balance the encounter a bit, go just a little easier on the players. Simple as that. I dont believe the stat blocks are chiseled in stone. They are there to be modified as fitting the GMs setting and or the specific encounter. I find it hard to believe this is a strange concept to the veterans here. Surely you guys dont buy into the MM religion?

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009554You seem to choose to ignore It was a drop of 2 in AC and maybe one die type for the weapon. I hardly see that as a massive change in perceived threat...hell it was barely a noticeable change in actual performance.

"Size matters not."  You violated your player's trust, and told him so to his face.  This is what everybody is having a problem with.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009552Give the man a F..ing Huge Ass CIGAR!  Laugh... that was it exactly. I wanted the image of the mail clad warrior but didnt want them to be that much of a challenge. Its an easy concept.

"I wanted a guy in armor that wasn't armored."

What.
The.
Fuck.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009556To balance the encounter a bit, go just a little easier on the players. Simple as that. I dont believe the stat blocks are chiseled in stone. They are there to be modified as fitting the GMs setting and or the specific encounter. I find it hard to believe this is a strange concept to the veterans here. Surely you guys to buy into the MM religion?

Then you fucked up in telling the player that the orc was wearing chainmail. You should have said piecemeal armor that looks like chainmail but with rusted broken links or leather armor or that the orc had a shitty dex score. You fucked up by letting the player know that common definitions of items and what those do can change arbitrarily in your games. Once again, the lack of consistency cause the players to not know what information is valid upon which to make meaningful decisions. How are they supposed to figure out what actions to take if their environment changes like a bad acid trip around them?

Most people here support GMs making rulings on the fly and ignoring the letter of the rules, as long as such decisions are based on an internally consistent logic that is visible to the players when it should be visible to the characters.

Good reasons for altering the AC or damage of your orc:

• "Mooks in this game have worse combat stats than the baseline, to help show how bad-ass the PCs are. In this case, a typical orc has a 2 point AC penalty and uses one die-type lower than normal for damage."
• "After fighting a number of orcs, you have noticed that, in general, they are far less fierce and dangerous than common wisdom indicates." (Both this and the previous option set a baseline, and it is now the GM's duty to be clear when an orc is met that fights better than the baseline.)
  
• "This particular orc is noticeably incompetent."
• "This orc is unusually scrawny and does not appear confident."
• "You realise now that taking down this orc was easier than it should have been, but you can't identify a clear reason. Something strange must be going on." (Leaving the player the option of investigating further if a better answer is important to them.  Were those orcs cursed? Does that war hammer you found last session have orc-slaying properties? Has a divine power taken an interest in the character and is subtly helping them out?)

Bad reason for altering the orc's AC

• "NPCs, monsters and the environment have whatever stats and effects seem suitable to me at the time, and when I describe things I won't give you any clue as to what I'm actually thinking."

The problem with the OP's position is that it specifically states that descriptions of the environment provided to the players by the GM contain no useful decision-making information.

Quote from: jeff37923;1009559Once again, the lack of consistency cause the players to not know what information is valid upon which to make meaningful decisions. How are they supposed to figure out what actions to take if their environment changes like a bad acid trip around them?

Look, if we each had a buck for every time somebody said that in this thread, we'd have .... well, enough for a hell of a night of drinking, anyway.

I can only assume that for whatever reason Grover is deliberately refusing to pay attention to this.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1009560The problem with the OP's position is that it specifically states that descriptions of the environment provided to the players by the GM contain no useful decision-making information.

And yet another person points it out.

The information provided by the GM is the only access the players have to what is happening to their characters.  If it does not reflect reality, how the festering fuck are players supposed to make a rational decision.

But this has been pointed out numerous times in this thread.  Grover just doesn't want to hear it, apparently.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009547The outcome in this case was a F....ing Orc with an AC of 11. So sue me. Geeze people, get a grip.

WRONG!

Go back and read your original post. The outcome in this case was that at least one of your players now feels as follows, "Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change," and is not at all happy about it.

The outcome in this case is that you pissed off at least one of your players with your GMing style. This tread has been people trying to get you to see how and why that happened.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009567WRONG!

Go back and read your original post. The outcome in this case was that at least one of your players now feels as follows, "Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change," and is not at all happy about it.

The outcome in this case is that you pissed off at least one of your players with your GMing style. This tread has been people trying to get you to see how and why that happened.

I hear what everyone is saying. To my mind my player was dissapointed because I don't play the entire game and create my.whole setting exactly as per the core book stats. Some players and GM'S roll that way. I prefer to create my setting and then curb the rules to fit. He's one of those analytical types that uses the rules as a weapon to dominate. My style frustrates that. That's my opinion.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009551And yet another useless, immature comment ... this one oddly accusing me of being immature.

You're just feeling defensive because you did something very stupid and apparently expected accolades rather than criticism. Get over it. Stop posting your idiotic questions if you don't want to be mocked for fucking up your own games and then whining about it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009551And yet another useless, immature comment ... this one oddly accusing me of being immature.

You didn't answer the question. So, are you eight?

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009568I hear what everyone is saying. To my mind my player was dissapointed because I don't play the entire game and create my.whole setting exactly as per the core book stats. Some players and GM'S roll that way. I prefer to create my setting and then curb the rules to fit. He's one of those analytical types that uses the rules as a weapon to dominate. My style frustrates that. That's my opinion.

Your player may be an annoying idiot who wants everything the GM does to have a clear justification based on a clearly written, official rule. If so, that's pretty shit. I wouldn't want them in my group.

You know what is even more shit? A GM who thinks it "Doesnt matter how I describe it."

The point you're missing, Grover, is that even if your player is, in fact, an annoying, shit player, that doesn't absolve you of being an annoying, shit GM.

Bingo.

The referee's description is the players' only source of information.  Grover insists that the referee's description does not have to be related to reality.  Which means that the players have no actual source of reliable information.

And he pretends to not understand this.  At this point, he's just being an asshole, because nobody is that fucking stupid.

The other day, I invited some friends over for a party, where I served cake. I explained in the invitations that I would be serving a chocolate mudcake. After everyone had eaten, one of my guests pointed out that that it tasted a bit off. I explained to the guest that I had made the cake out of my own excrement, because it was my party and it doesn't matter how I describe the menu, I serve whatever I feel is best.

The guest was angry, because the accepted High Society Style Guides indicate that in November you should only serve white chocolate mudcake. These style guides are just pretentious twattery, and the guest was being completely unreasonable. Why should I be limited to serving only white chocolate in November?

Clearly, the only real issue here is the guest's insistence that the style guide be adhered to.

[video=youtube;51iohb6sOS8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51iohb6sOS8[/youtube]

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009568I hear what everyone is saying. To my mind my player was dissapointed because I don't play the entire game and create my.whole setting exactly as per the core book stats. Some players and GM'S roll that way. I prefer to create my setting and then curb the rules to fit. He's one of those analytical types that uses the rules as a weapon to dominate. My style frustrates that. That's my opinion.

We'll see you for the next time a player complains then.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009556To balance the encounter a bit, go just a little easier on the players. Simple as that. I dont believe the stat blocks are chiseled in stone. They are there to be modified as fitting the GMs setting and or the specific encounter. I find it hard to believe this is a strange concept to the veterans here. Surely you guys dont buy into the MM religion?

No one in this thread has criticised that part of your post.

Dude. GMs fuck up. The problem is when a GM doesn't or can't see their error and improve.

I ran a combat once upon a time where I played the monsters "smart", and had them use focus fire tactics. I killed the party doing that, and pissed of my players. I apologized, and after some thought, I introduced a bit of randomness to my NPC "AI". This improved my approach considerably, and I do it for all my games now. The GM has access to information that the NPCs don't, and sometimes using randomness introduces a bit of uncertainty to their tactics. And keeps encounters from becoming "Beat the GM", instead of "Beat the monsters".
I could have doubled-down and said it's only appropriate for the NPCs to use good tactics, but I recognized that the players had a legitimate complaint, and reacted accordingly.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1009323What you should do when explaining it is say you're not basing the AC and attack and damage on the armor/weapon, it doesn't represent the armor itself, per se, but the AC represents the ability of the orc to prevent you damaging it. And that's affected by the orc's skill itself.

Yes or, you know, actually use the rules of the game you are purportedly playing or choose a different game with rules you want to use.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1009338Yup. In the player's defense, now he has no idea what any armor, or even equipment is capable of. An opponent with plate mail and a battle axe could be as effective as a guy in cloth armor wielding a dagger, or vice versa. A player needs information in order to make decisions and that kind of information is now removed from the game.

Yep. While the character in the game world probably doesn't have exact probabilities an experienced fighter ought to have some reasonably accurate idea about how weapons and armor work in the universe they fight in.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009352Yeah, a 2 modifier to the AC has removed all consistency from the game. All is lost, all is lost.

Not all consistency, but significant consistency for those players who can do arithmetic and understand the rules. Why not give the orc worse armor and avoid the whimsical modifier?

Quote from: wombat1;1009363You, original poster, as the game master, may design the orc any way you like, however, there are two possibilities here:

1. You have designed something that is at variance with the rules as written because you want that particular outcome.  In that case, to my way of thinking, should be some description that explains the variation, should the player pop up with exactly the dialogue you offer in the original post.  The time to offer that explanation is during combat as it may affect player decisions and tactics.  

So, "the orc has chainmail, to be sure, but as you examine it more closely, it has links that are missing, bits that are torn and exposed, a lot of damage and rust.  Sure, it is chainmail, and you could fix it up, but at the moment it is a sad case, and oh by the way, the value as treasure is also diminished."

On the whole though life is easier all round when one doesn't do that too often.  SO AC 11 orc has leather armor and leather armored orc has AC 11 and AC 14 orc has chainmail and chainmail armored orc has AC 14 if that is the way the rules are written.

2. An honest mistake has been made, in which 11 was written for chainmail when 14 was originally intended.  In this case, to my way of thinking, any mistakes I make on behalf of the players stay on behalf of the players; I am not going to walk them back, and I will try to fix any mistakes I make against the players, though that is harder.

See now this is what I always thought was assumed in RPGs.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009450RGrove here is what you are doing: you are asking your player to join you for a game of chess, then with no warning or explanation you are moving a pawn as if it were a knight. When asked for an explanation you are saying "because that is the way this pawn moves today, for you pawns move like standard chess." Your pawn, err, player now wonders what is next, a bishop moving like a queen perhaps?

Kind of this, except in the example, the orc knight moves like a pawn for the GM and like a knight for the player.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009554It was a drop of 2 in AC and maybe one die type for the weapon. I hardly see that as a massive change in perceived threat...hell it was barely a noticeable change in actual performance.

Massive? No. Significant? Damn straight.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009339Well, OD&D assumes that armor class is armor class, so if an orc has chainmail it's because I want him to have chainmail.

Chainmail is chainmail; I wouldn't vary it depending on who wears it.

YM, as always, MV.

But it sounds to me like the player was "chainmail is fucking chainmail, not Schroedinger's Armor," which is a position I personally agree with.  But I'm an armor fetishist.

Is it riveted mail? There were rusty suits of mail that wouldn't stand up to a hard stare and perfectly good suits that looked like crap. If a player in my campaign sees mail on a Hobgoblin (I don't have Orcs) she would not assume that it was rusty and weak but it often would be because most Hobgoblins take really bad care of their gear. I think the variation that the OP made was larger than I usually allow and needed a better explanation but it wasn't out of line.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009352Yeah, a 2 modifier to the AC has removed all consistency from the game. All is lost, all is lost.

Why not "the armor was rusted and weak. Orcs sometimes don't take good care of their gear." Add a little color; shut the player up.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1009590Why not "the armor was rusted and weak. Orcs sometimes don't take good care of their gear." Add a little color; shut the player up.

You mean, like pretty much everybody has been saying throughout this thread?

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1009587I think the variation that the OP made was larger than I usually allow and needed a better explanation but it wasn't out of line.

Except the variation in protection was not based on a variation in the armor.* It could have been poor armor and an orc with a below normal DEX. It could have been normal armor and an orc with a terrible DEX. It could have been terrible armor and an orc with a normal DEX. It wasn't any of those things which the character might have been able to observe either during or after the combat. It was a narrative or whimsical GM change which was applied this one time and which might or might not apply some other time.


*

Spoiler

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Player: So chainmail for me is 14 but for him is 11?  Do you make up other kinds of chaimails for other guys?

GM: No, well, yeah...

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009568I hear what everyone is saying. To my mind my player was dissapointed because I don't play the entire game and create my.whole setting exactly as per the core book stats. Some players and GM'S roll that way. I prefer to create my setting and then curb the rules to fit. He's one of those analytical types that uses the rules as a weapon to dominate. My style frustrates that. That's my opinion.

So you still think you're right? In one way, I think you are. The amount of protection an armor type gives is not necessarily set hard and fast in the rules. I think the idea that a particular suit of mail might be rusty or weakened in some other way is not terribly unlikely. And I don't think players should have the damn numbers in their heads anyway. "Mail is better than leather, so I guess this guy might be good" is fine. "Ah, ACwhatever," meh.

I have made posts in this thread that might seem to support you. However, I don't think you handled it well  at all. Give the player a reason that the armor wasn't as good as expected. Have an NPC non-com exclaim in disgust "Rust!! it's a pity for the equipment." or something like that.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009440Why is everyone assuming I made a mistake? I never said that. The armor class was exactly what I intended it to be. I was well aware of what the RAW indicated chainmail should be rated for, I chose to do otherwise. Is that so vile that it has to be assumed to be a mistake?

Why are you assuming that we're all claiming your ruling was a mistake?  Your action was a YMMV deal: you think that opposition attributes should be fluid, even down to its gear and abilities, to suit your notion of how tough challenges should be.  I agree about 20% with that -- you don't have to bend a system a jot to adjust skill levels, equipage, headcount or fanaticism of the mooks -- but in the end it's up to how you prefer to GM, and we don't get a vote on that.  An opinion, yes; a vote, no.  

Where you really screwed up is that you hadn't informed your players, and plainly at least one of them doesn't care for that style of play.  (I wouldn't myself, being in agreement with Gronan's take on how much your players can trust the descriptions you give them.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009546I cannot begin to recall all the times on this site Ive have heard GMs claim they ignore or change the rules as a matter of standard practice. They "Make RULINGS" not "Follow RULES". And yet that seems to be a travesty when I do it.

Eeeesh.  I've got a big word for you here.  Let me spell it out for you.

C-O-N-S-I-S-T-E-N-C-Y

Indeed, I make rulings, and I change rules as suits me.  But my players know I don't do it often, lightly or capriciously.  I decided, for instance, that I didn't like how GURPS did prerequisite chains for learning magic spells.  So I came up with a fix of my own.  I didn't like third edition ranged weapon mechanics, so I stuck with the second edition mechanics.  I wanted to make PCs slightly more survivable, so I just gave them all five extra HP across the board.  I wanted to make magic items more common, so I liberalized how many mage-days it would take to enchant things by a factor of four.  I rule that a roll of a 5 always succeeds, and that 16 always fails.

The most recent of those changes was in 1989.  And it's not only that I change things around very seldom, but that I've got a handout summarizing every one I've ever made.  My players know I'm not going to flip-flop based on my whim of the moment.

While you're wondering why So Many People Are Always Against Me, as long as you insist on debating with what you want us to be saying rather than what we actually are saying, you'll never get it.

Rgrove, I'd like to put something out there which I'm almost certain you'll ignore.  But what the hell, it's nearly 2 AM and here I am in an online debate no one will care about next week or remember the week after that, least of all me.  So why not.

Let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that you come onto this board and whatever you say, Everyone Is Always Against You.

So what do you truly think is more likely?  That dozens of other people are Always Wrong and you, alone, are Always Right?

Or that -- just possibly, just maybe -- you might actually be wrong?

Quote from: Ravenswing;1009600
While you're wondering why So Many People Are Always Against Me, as long as you insist on debating with what you want us to be saying rather than what we actually are saying, you'll never get it.

[video=youtube;BRzhflMkGLg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRzhflMkGLg[/youtube]

The problem was Rgrove's explanation.

Why does an Orc with Chainmail Hauberk have AC 11?

Right Answer = something that makes sense in the setting.

Wrong Answer = because I change stuff on a whim

Alterations on a whim are bad because they toss out consistency which fucks badly with immersion.

Instead, that Orc should have been found with a pegleg (-2 Dex, thus AC 12) or the chainmail was severely damaged / rusted / badly made, or the PC pulls their blade from the orc guts and out pours worms, orc disappears as an illusion, etc.

AKA, almost anything but "I just change rules on the fly".

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009547The outcome in this case was a F....ing Orc with an AC of 11. So sue me. Geeze people, get a grip.

Actually, the outcome also includes this thread, and we couldn't be here commenting on this unless the situation bothered you enough to start a post...and you did, so it did. You might as well listen to (or read since it's text) the results.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009568I hear what everyone is saying. To my mind my player was dissapointed because I don't play the entire game and create my.whole setting exactly as per the core book stats. Some players and GM'S roll that way. I prefer to create my setting and then curb the rules to fit. He's one of those analytical types that uses the rules as a weapon to dominate. My style frustrates that. That's my opinion.

Um. No. Sounds like the player was just irked that there was no consistency or reason. Not that he wanted everything nailed down.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009557"Size matters not."  You violated your player's trust, and told him so to his face.  This is what everybody is having a problem with.

To be honest, as a GM I have no problem with it and as a player I'd let it go.

Other people are getting very irate over something that, in my game, would be inconsequential.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1009560Most people here support GMs making rulings on the fly and ignoring the letter of the rules, as long as such decisions are based on an internally consistent logic that is visible to the players when it should be visible to the characters.

Good reasons for altering the AC or damage of your orc:

• "Mooks in this game have worse combat stats than the baseline, to help show how bad-ass the PCs are. In this case, a typical orc has a 2 point AC penalty and uses one die-type lower than normal for damage."
• "After fighting a number of orcs, you have noticed that, in general, they are far less fierce and dangerous than common wisdom indicates." (Both this and the previous option set a baseline, and it is now the GM's duty to be clear when an orc is met that fights better than the baseline.)
  
• "This particular orc is noticeably incompetent."
• "This orc is unusually scrawny and does not appear confident."
• "You realise now that taking down this orc was easier than it should have been, but you can't identify a clear reason. Something strange must be going on." (Leaving the player the option of investigating further if a better answer is important to them.  Were those orcs cursed? Does that war hammer you found last session have orc-slaying properties? Has a divine power taken an interest in the character and is subtly helping them out?)

Bad reason for altering the orc's AC

• "NPCs, monsters and the environment have whatever stats and effects seem suitable to me at the time, and when I describe things I won't give you any clue as to what I'm actually thinking."

The problem with the OP's position is that it specifically states that descriptions of the environment provided to the players by the GM contain no useful decision-making information.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1009572Your player may be an annoying idiot who wants everything the GM does to have a clear justification based on a clearly written, official rule. If so, that's pretty shit. I wouldn't want them in my group.

You know what is even more shit? A GM who thinks it "Doesnt matter how I describe it."

The point you're missing, Grover, is that even if your player is, in fact, an annoying, shit player, that doesn't absolve you of being an annoying, shit GM.

In general, I think that this thread might help people on this board understand better why some people dislike "Mother, May I" style and prefer rules instead of rulings. Putting it simply, because rgrove's example isn't actually all that uncommon. I've seen it in more than one GM I've played with, on a different continent from him:).
Yes, I don't play with them.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009568I hear what everyone is saying. To my mind my player was dissapointed because I don't play the entire game and create my.whole setting exactly as per the core book stats. Some players and GM'S roll that way. I prefer to create my setting and then curb the rules to fit. He's one of those analytical types that uses the rules as a weapon to dominate. My style frustrates that. That's my opinion.

Maybe he is exactly as you describe him, maybe you've misrepresenting him - consciously or not.
It doesn't matter. As you can see, the majority of people in this thread still believe that you were in the wrong. And as you noted, that's THE board for "rulings, not rules" people;)!
Hint: those people just believe that your ruling, in this particular situation, sucked.

Listen, Rgrove, it's not a problem that you decided to change the rules. The problem is you had no IC justification for it, and indicated to the player that the reasons are totally OOC. "GM's whim" is OOC, too.
People here believe you make a ruling when the situation warrants it.
You make your rulings because it fits better your narrative.
Narrative=/=situation. You actually even - tacitly - told the player not to look at the situation (by indicating that the changes were based purely on GM's whim). Don't know if that's what you meant, but if it wasn't: the majority of people in this thread would have misunderstood you, too. To me, that means you weren't clear enough.

Guys its actually been a constructive thread for the most part, with a minimum of personal attacks, and around here that is a win. I actually do see your points in that a simple logical explanation for my modification of the rule would have avoided the confrontation. As it was I was a little hacked that this rules lawyer was getting his dander up over a very minor change that was put in place for his benefit no less. Points taken though, could have been handled better, definitely.

At the risk of extending this thread, which has run its useful course, I will add this however. What I reacted to with the player, and here in this thread, is the idea that the stats are somehow sacred. That Chainmail is AC14 by GOD unless there is a logical, in game, reason for it to be otherwise.

Somebody, somewhere, once upon a time, sat down with a spiral notebook and decided on what number to assign the armor types in the game they were developing. They decided, based on their perception and understanding of armor and the probability of achieving a damaging hit and how they wanted the armor to be represented in the game  on 14.  Great!

But Im playing MY game, and in performing the same mental process I came up with something different in this instance.  Perhaps its the number of hit points a gryphon has, or how long the poison lasts from a frog bite. Maybe its how strong the paralysis effect is from a ghoul, or even if it has that effect at all. Yes, these could be seen as deviations of the monster in a different setting but they could also be differences present in the species. Why should a demi-human adversary be any different? The weapon is merely an extension of their ability to do damage. Is it so strange to think that a Goblin with a mace does a bit less than a human? Or that he is easier to damage in his leather jerkin, or harder, than his human counter part?

Sure... These changes can, and admittedly probably should, be explained to players when encountered, (Especially to the rules mongrel types) but from a GM perspective it simply IS what it IS. If that makes any sense.

I made up a giant insect for a Star Wars game a while back. I imagined it a certain way and jotted down the stats to fit. I didnt worry that this insect must be a bit slower than this other one in the rulebook because its defense was lower, or that its bite must be more ferocious than this other alien creature because it did more damage. Perhaps the reason for the ability I assigned was obvious (chitinous armor for a tough defense etc.) but perhaps not. I certainly didnt compare its abilities to that of player characters, they operate on different scales entirely. I just created the adversary the way I perceived it and with a mind towards how tough they would be to overcome by the characters at hand.

Thats what I was doing here with the damned Orc. In retrospect I got testy and made the situation worse but I dont see what I did initially as a break of trust with the players or against some sort of unwritten GM oath to follow the letter of the rules. Consistency in a rule is of course important. I put a great deal of time and effort researching, testing and then documenting houserules, and provide a copy to my players. The variation of a particular stat of a certain creature during a single encounter however doesnt apply in my opinion.

Last word -

Recently in a rare, hobby shop game wherein I was actually a player, our group (strangers most of us) encountered a mummy. We werent having much luck and getting our asses handed to us when someone decided to attack with a torch from a momentary position of advantage. They rolled a nat 20 and the GM described the thing going up in flames, whirling around crazily for several rounds and then dying.  We all cheered and moved on. Later during a break one of our group, another rules lawyer, questioned the outcome. Mummies are vulnerable to flame but even with additional damage, and even GM assigned damage for actually being on fire shouldnt have killed it that easily, should it have? The GM should have, according to what you all are saying here, explained how its bandages were soaked in old oils or something, or maybe that it had a curse on it making it very susceptible to fire or whatever. Instead, he simply stated that he realized the mummy might have been a bit too much of a challenge and let the Critical Hit finish it off, something along the lines of 40HP reduced.

He chose to do that on a whim, side stepped the rules in favor of the players to bail them out of a bad situation. Perhaps he made an error when building the encounter and was trying to make up for it? Maybe he shouldnt have chosen a mummy as an adversary. Would it have been better to have assigned the mummy the super vulnerability before hand? Kind of like my -2 Chainmail.

Funny thing is, the GM of this game with the mummy? He was the guy complaining about the chainmail. Go figure. Apparently its critical you follow the rules to the letter right up to the point where you dont want to.

Thanks guys, as always - good information from all - even in the roughest format.

If you think that the player questioning your lack of consistency is a Rules Lawyer, then you haven't listened to a fucking thing you have been told in this thread.

It was never about the AC of an orc in chainmail.

It was fine to lower the difficulty of the mummy encounter because the DM realized he had erred and made it too powerful for the group.  Mummy is on fire and burns up is a sensible way in game for it to go, and most players will buy the out of game rationale of "I made a mistake and am correcting it".

The difference with the orc is that it was not "I made a mistake", nor was it "I wanted this orc to be a weak orc". It was "I arbitraily changed the orc from what it 'should' have been because I felt like it."  Players tend not to like arbitrary GMs.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009656It was never about the AC of an orc in chainmail.

It was fine to lower the difficulty of the mummy encounter because the DM realized he had erred and made it too powerful for the group.  Mummy is on fire and burns up is a sensible way in game for it to go, and most players will buy the out of game rationale of "I made a mistake and am correcting it".

The difference with the orc is that it was not "I made a mistake", nor was it "I wanted this orc to be a weak orc". It was "I arbitraily changed the orc from what it 'should' have been because I felt like it."  Players tend not to like arbitrary GMs.

Doesnt the fact that I reduced his AC make it sort of obvious I was making him an easier opponent? "I wanted this to be a weak orc." and "I arbitrarily changed the orc" is sort of the same thing... well actually its the exact same thing. Must I discuss the reasoning behind my encounter design with every player?


Something I should probably remind those who havent followed some of these threads is that a VAST amount of the gaming I have done over the last 35 years or so has been with a single player or perhaps two. For many reasons its been a very rare occasion indeed when I had a group to game with.  I am finding out recently that the dynamics are quite different when gaming with a few strangers or maybe even loose acquaintances v.s. a single or pair of close friends. The trust there is implicit, these issues simply dont come up. If I as GM decided to forego rolling the die, change a scene or modify an adversary, the friends Ive had over the years wouldnt have balked, or frankly thought anything of it. I did in fact, frequently as Ive eluded to before and never got a complaint. They knew that my primary goal was for us to have a good time and to allow them share in the experience of a narrated adventure. The idea of "cheating" simply didnt exist. I was the GM, I had essentially infinite power to do as I pleased in the pursuit of our common goal. There was no sense of competition or strict adherence to RAW to raise its nasty head and ruin our fun. It was all about the roles taken on by the players and the world they were pretending to play them in.

Apparently that makes a big difference and Ill admit freely that my style of GMing was heavily influenced by those experiences. I am seeing now, for the past year or so on this forum, that I was isolated as a gamer and missed many of the notions, nuances, unwritten rules, perceptions and ideals apparently common in the hobby. I wont apologize for it however as it provided me and my friends with decades of enjoyable gaming. Even now, although my style has changed but little from my exposure here, the vast majority of the time all is well in my gaming. Only when a player with a decidedly different view of gaming ethics appears at my table have I had issues. You guys have made it clear however that those rare individuals at my table are probably the norm and I and my friends the oddity across the hobby.

Well, when you engage in a group activity with strangers, it's good sense to understand the preferences and styles favored by that group. This is true for everything from basketball to jujutsu to rpgs.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009656... The difference with the orc is that it was not "I made a mistake", nor was it "I wanted this orc to be a weak orc". It was "I arbitraily changed the orc from what it 'should' have been because I felt like it."  Players tend not to like arbitrary GMs.

Well, according to what Grove wrote about what he thought he was doing, it was "I wanted this orc to be a weak orc". The difference seems to be that Grove felt it was reasonable to change practically any stat to show that, even ones that other players feel are material values that should remain consistent (in particular, the AC given to everything wearing chainmail - also the damage done by everyone using a broadsword).

I didn't get why that was a big deal because I don't know D&D that well and figured the net effect would be a +2 to hit which might be reasonable for lamer-than-usual orcs, but apparently it's a stat people don't expect to change without a reason like defective equipment. That I can relate to, especially if I translate it into a system I am familiar with, such as TFT, where a GM can very easily make sucky orcs by giving them lower strength or dexterity, and/or by just having them make clumsy tactical slips more often. But if a TFT GM had a foe described as wearing perfectly good chainmail that only reduced 1 point of damage per hit rather than 3, the orcs being doofuses would not account for that kind of change, and if they were +2 to hit, that would also be weird and make me think the GM didn't know the rules well or at best was redesigning them without telling us about them, because practically no published foes give a + to hit in TFT unless they're facing the wrong way or lying on the ground.

The + to-hit might make sense as part of a brilliant GM redesigning TFT, but the reduced protection probably never would make much sense (unless it were part of a mechanic for aiming at gaps in armor or something). However even the brilliant GM should let the players know he's messing with stats and game mechanics so they aren't surprised, and can hopefully play the game they think they're playing.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009666Doesnt the fact that I reduced his AC make it sort of obvious I was making him an easier opponent? "I wanted this to be a weak orc." and "I arbitrarily changed the orc" is sort of the same thing... well actually its the exact same thing. Must I discuss the reasoning behind my encounter design with every player?

Clearly it was not clear to that player. He seems to have been surprised to learn what the foe's AC was, and also surprised to learn the orc was in chainmail. He might not have realized the orcs were supposed to be weak at all. And somehow you still haven't got that apparently some players of some versions of D&D expect AC never to vary by wearer, so it seems to them like an inappropriate/nonsense way for you to make it a weak orc. To them it seems to be like you made them weak by having their armor turn into cloth when they wear it, and saying it's because they aren't very skilled - i.e. it makes no sense to them for you to change that stat.

Look, after sleeping on it: the situation you're describing isn't an issue in every game. Take this one:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1977[/ATTACH]

Player: I attack; my melee+roll winds up with a 5
GM: You hit! You scythe through his chainmail with your mighty blow, and he falls dead!
Player: Wait, he's wearing chainmail? Shouldn't I miss, then? I'm wearing chainmail, and his attack of 5 missed me.
GM: That's because you tagged your "Wearing chainmail armor" aspect to boost your defense by +2, so he was short by 2.
Player: Why didn't he do that? His life was one the line!
GM: I'm out of fate points. I only get, what, four a scene? I used them to make the ogre tougher. You guys... You were here, you saw me do that.
Player: Oh, right. So it doesn't matter that we're wearing the same armor?
GM: Nope! It only "matters" in a rules-sense if we decide it matters; we express that by using free invokes and tagging or creating as an Aspect and then using our fate point economy to invoke it!
Player: My eyeballs are bleeding!
GM: MINE TOO!

This system is a better fit for you; you can be transparent about changing anything, anywhen, for no reason or any reason. I mean, it makes ME want to swallow my own body like the legendary Ouroboros, but I don't judge how someone else enjoys their elfgames.

Quote from: Azraele;1009676This system is a better fit for you;

I wouldn't go that far, but I do think 4e D&D "AC is determined by role and level" fits Grove's style much better than "AC X is a specific class of armour" games.

Quote from: Skarg;1009674Clearly it was not clear to that player. He seems to have been surprised to learn what the foe's AC was, and also surprised to learn the orc was in chainmail. He might not have realized the orcs were supposed to be weak at all. And somehow you still haven't got that apparently some players of some versions of D&D expect AC never to vary by wearer, so it seems to them like an inappropriate/nonsense way for you to make it a weak orc. To them it seems to be like you made them weak by having their armor turn into cloth when they wear it, and saying it's because they aren't very skilled - i.e. it makes no sense to them for you to change that stat.

No. Go back and read what Grove detailed. Its not a "'weak orc" its not 'poor armour". It is. "Because I wanted to be easier to hit so despite me saying chainmail it acts like leather today and tomorrow it might act like platemail. Because thats what I want."

This is the problem Grove cant seem to grasp and keeps trying to justify with his usual "Look see, you are all really doing the same thing Im doing so what I did was perfectly fine!" routine. Which is why half the forum keeps kicking him even when he has a good point in there somewhere or his style is valid. But its NOT how others are describing their playstyles. And we have to go through this just about every thread of his.

Then we have this little problem that he wants people here to say "Yes Yes you are right and did nothing wrong." and then pretty much ignores anyone who defends something he said and spends 10+ pages wondering why people are telling him NO and then he'll leave the thread in ANOTHER huff. And the people who defended or agreed with something he said are left realizing that its kinda pointless to try. Some of the more vitrolic responses are from those who are by now well past the patience limit.

Which is a damn shame because personally I like alot of Groves posts.

In this very thread hes been told by a surprisingly high number of posters. "Changing stuff is Ok." which he ignores. And when explained to that "Changing stuff with no in-game consistency or reason is not Ok." then either ignores that too. Or tries to claim that everyone is changing stuff on a whim with no in game consistency.

I think the problem is how he expressed his reasoning in changing the orc's AC to the player. The player was expecting an in game rationale for the AC differing from expectations set up by the description. What he got instead was "it's different because I made it different, and I'll do it again tomorrow if I feel like it".

The whole problem would probably have been avoided by saying "the orc is wearing crappy chainmail". Regular chainmail AC14, crappy chainmail AC11.  OK, it still boils down to "I made the orc easier to hit, because I wanted the or to be easier to hit," but it may be presented in a way that is more palatable to the player.

Quote from: S'mon;1009681I wouldn't go that far, but I do think 4e D&D "AC is determined by role and level" fits Grove's style much better than "AC X is a specific class of armour" games.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread. 4e D&D Gamma World is like that. The name of the armour or weapon is irrelevant. Its the weight class its in that matters. I assume that is the same in 4e itself?

Quote from: Omega;1009690I mentioned this earlier in the thread. 4e D&D Gamma World is like that. The name of the armour or weapon is irrelevant. Its the weight class its in that matters. I assume that is the same in 4e itself?

Yes, 4e D&D Gamma World is a reskinning of 4e D&D.

Quote from: S'mon;1009691Yes, 4e D&D Gamma World is a reskinning of 4e D&D.

I knew that. Alot of people say it does 4e right. But having allmost no exposure to 4e D&D I have no idea what they kept and what they jettisoned, streamlined, or overhauled. But in GW the whole ambiguity factor carries over into the monsters and encounters too.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009666Doesnt the fact that I reduced his AC make it sort of obvious I was making him an easier opponent?  

* snippity doo dah *

Dude, you have missed the point so far that the light from the point won't reach you for 10,000 years.

Look.  YOUR DESCRIPTION is the ONLY information players have about the world.

You just told a player that your description is irrelevant to reality.  "It doesn't matter how I describe it," end quote.

THEREFORE, you have just told the player that there is no such thing as reliable information to base a decision on.

IN the words of Miyamoto Musashi, "You must study this until you know it well."

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009653Guys its actually been a constructive thread for the most part, with a minimum of personal attacks, and around here that is a win. I actually do see your points in that a simple logical explanation for my modification of the rule would have avoided the confrontation. As it was I was a little hacked that this rules lawyer was getting his dander up over a very minor change that was put in place for his benefit no less. Points taken though, could have been handled better, definitely.

At the risk of extending this thread, which has run its useful course, I will add this however. What I reacted to with the player, and here in this thread, is the idea that the stats are somehow sacred. That Chainmail is AC14 by GOD unless there is a logical, in game, reason for it to be otherwise.

Somebody, somewhere, once upon a time, sat down with a spiral notebook and decided on what number to assign the armor types in the game they were developing. They decided, based on their perception and understanding of armor and the probability of achieving a damaging hit and how they wanted the armor to be represented in the game  on 14.  Great!

But Im playing MY game, and in performing the same mental process I came up with something different in this instance.  Perhaps its the number of hit points a gryphon has, or how long the poison lasts from a frog bite. Maybe its how strong the paralysis effect is from a ghoul, or even if it has that effect at all.

I respect that, rgrover:). It is your game, by all means, make it yours!
Just tell that to the players in advance. Because, you know, "those orcs have like AC14, a point more, a point less - we'd better avoid a fight/we can take them on" is a perfectly reasonable IC logic in most games, even if expressed in OOC terms. (IC, it would be "it takes time to kill a guy in chain, during which the rest can gang up on you", but that's the same cause and the same effect).

However, can I suggest that yes, you're NOT. WELL. SERVED. by sticking to D&D? And it's causing problems with your group, obviously?

Would you be interested in a game where your logic from above would be uncontestable, instead?

(https://www.burningwheel.com/store/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/d/u/dungeon_world_2nd_printing_cover_1.jpg)
Yes, I recommend taking Dungeon World (and removing the Discern Realities Move, because most people coming from traditional RPGs find it either useless, or actively harmful to their fun).
Why?

Well, here's how a fight in Dungeon World is supposed to go.
The 16 HP Dragon (that the party ran from). (//The%2016%20HP%20Dragon%20(that%20the%20party%20ran%20from).)

Same for the orcs in chainmail. How tough those orcs are depends on how the players describe what they're doing, when the GM asks for rolls, and for what kind of rolls.
For example, the players might describe trying to fight ogres in chainmail, with spears, by approaching and hitting through the chain with a mace.
The GM can allow them to just roll Hack and Slash move. That would make them easy orcs.
Or he might ask for a Dexterity saving roll, in order to avoid their spears' long reach. If the players do, they can roll hack and slash, presumably (or they can jump back and avoid any rolling - that's what the orcs were trying to do, after all.
That would make those some rather hard orcs.
Best part of it? You don't have to decide in advance. You call for rolls depending on what the players describe;)!

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009666Doesnt the fact that I reduced his AC make it sort of obvious I was making him an easier opponent? "I wanted this to be a weak orc." and "I arbitrarily changed the orc" is sort of the same thing... well actually its the exact same thing.

No, it's not the same thing.

Quote from: Azraele;1009676Look, after sleeping on it: the situation you're describing isn't an issue in every game. Take this one:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1977[/ATTACH]

(snipped)
This system is a better fit for you; you can be transparent about changing anything, anywhen, for no reason or any reason. I mean, it makes ME want to swallow my own body like the legendary Ouroboros, but I don't judge how someone else enjoys their elfgames.

I agree with you that he'd be better off taking a new game.
I disagree with the suggestion for Fate Core, though;).

Quote from: Omega;1009690I mentioned this earlier in the thread. 4e D&D Gamma World is like that. The name of the armour or weapon is irrelevant. Its the weight class its in that matters. I assume that is the same in 4e itself?

No, IIRC, the type of armour makes the AC of the PCs change, but the opponents have an armour class that depends on their role in the encounter: Brute, Soldier, Extras or whatever. Then the GM can describe them as orcs in chain for Eberron or Forgotten Realms, or as orcs in leather for Dark Sun, and their stats don't change one bit:D!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009697* snippity doo dah *

Dude, you have missed the point so far that the light from the point won't reach you for 10,000 years.

Look.  YOUR DESCRIPTION is the ONLY information players have about the world.

You just told a player that your description is irrelevant to reality.  "It doesn't matter how I describe it," end quote.

THEREFORE, you have just told the player that there is no such thing as reliable information to base a decision on.

I want to put you, 4e D&D and Fate in a room and see which one spontaneously combusts first. :cool:

Quote from: AsenRG;1009699No, IIRC, the type of armour makes the AC of the PCs change, but the opponents have an armour class that depends on their role in the encounter: Brute, Soldier, Extras or whatever. Then the GM can describe them as orcs in chain for Eberron or Forgotten Realms, or as orcs in leather for Dark Sun, and their stats don't change one bit:D!

I was more asking about the PCs in 4e. The monsters in the GW version arent using the same rules as the PCs for equipment either. In fact they barely seem to be following any equipment rules at all.

Quote from: Omega;1009704I was more asking about the PCs in 4e. The monsters in the GW version arent using the same rules as the PCs for equipment either. In fact they barely seem to be following any equipment rules at all.

4e PC AC is calculated as 10 + armour bonus + 1/2 level + any other mods.

The 4e DMG does actually suggest doing this for a special category of simplified quasi-PC-class NPCs, but this was never followed up; published NPCs are all Brute/Soldier/Skirmisher etc with 12/14/16+Level ACs.

4e is weird - last session my group were wary of taking on 5 hobgoblins with 3 PCs. But if there had been 20 hobgoblins they'd have thought "Minions!" and dived right in. :D It's definitely not high on the versimilitude and doesn't encourage outside-the-box thinking; thinking is for in-combat, not whether/how to engage.

Quote from: Omega;1009703I want to put you, 4e D&D and Fate in a room and see which one spontaneously combusts first. :cool:

Both those games define survivability in terms other than AC, so "not applicable."

In 4E as I understand it, Grover would say "That orc was a minion."

Quote from: Omega;1009704I was more asking about the PCs in 4e. The monsters in the GW version arent using the same rules as the PCs for equipment either. In fact they barely seem to be following any equipment rules at all.

It's similar in Pathfinder/Starfinder as well. CR/Level has more effect on AC than equipment. Sometimes it makes sense, as in a creature with natural armor, but most of the time it's an aspect of the level treadmill. PCs get tougher, monsters get tougher to match their power level, and the world scrolls by like a Flintstones cartoon.

[video=youtube;8LX7LOhiyHM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LX7LOhiyHM[/youtube]

It's... not unworkable, but the evaluation of how tough/difficult a monster is is detached from most of the descriptions, unless the GM is on the ball and introduces some contrived cues. "This ork is wearing Fel Plate..."

Thanks guys, more good stuff. As to not responding to those supporting part or all of my approach, thanks very much and I apologize if I have ignored you. One tends to address the dog biting his ass over the one waiting to be petted. My bad though, I appreciate all the comments, friendly and otherwise. I wouldnt frequent this forum if I thought you assholes didnt haven something to teach me.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009722you assholes

* Sally Fields *  "You like me!  You really like me!"

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009722Thanks guys, more good stuff. As to not responding to those supporting part or all of my approach, thanks very much and I apologize if I have ignored you. One tends to address the dog biting his ass over the one waiting to be petted. My bad though, I appreciate all the comments, friendly and otherwise. I wouldnt frequent this forum if I thought you assholes didnt haven something to teach me.

I'll give you this; you take your lumps and come back for more. Here's hoping to god that you learned something this time ;-)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009352Yeah, a 2 modifier to the AC has removed all consistency from the game. All is lost, all is lost.

I don't know how you can sleep at night after doing such a thing.

You bastard.

Quote from: saskganesh;1009344Well ya, if you make a mistake, you should own it. Game on. It happens. Convoluted explanations of a fuck up are just a dodge.

I certainly wouldn't fret and handwring about it, and start a thread online so that strangers could comment and try to solve mistakes of the past and the lost hope of wasted table time.

His mistake was answering with some version of "Because I said so."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009360But... seriously... why not just give him worse armor to make a lower AC?

But I repeat, I'm an armor fetishist.

You do realize that in D&D there are other factors in AC, right? Maybe that orc has cursed armor. Maybe it's an illusion. Maybe it's damaged/worn out/badly made chainmail. Maybe the PC is the beneficiary of a magical bonus he doesn't know about yet.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1009367Sure. I can think of lots of reasons to rationalize a lower AC. Damaged armor and/or low Dex off the top of my head. The important thing is to be consistent so the players could at least know that there is a reason.

The DM is under no obligation to explain WHY a creature has a certain AC during or immediately after combat. If a player is just dying to find out why what looked like a miss turned out to be a hit, let his character look into it. He can examine the armor, do an autopsy on the orc...

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1009576The other day, I invited some friends over for a party, where I served cake. I explained in the invitations that I would be serving a chocolate mudcake. After everyone had eaten, one of my guests pointed out that that it tasted a bit off. I explained to the guest that I had made the cake out of my own excrement, because it was my party and it doesn't matter how I describe the menu, I serve whatever I feel is best.

The guest was angry, because the accepted High Society Style Guides indicate that in November you should only serve white chocolate mudcake. These style guides are just pretentious twattery, and the guest was being completely unreasonable. Why should I be limited to serving only white chocolate in November?

Clearly, the only real issue here is the guest's insistence that the style guide be adhered to.

Because changing an orc's AC is the equivalent of shitting in someone's food. Drama queen much?

Quote from: Skarg;1009470What happened to all the D&D people who claim the rules are just suggestions and the DM can & should use rulings over rules?

Is there no mechanic for foes of different skill to be harder to hit than others, other than armor class which doesn't get adjustments?

If not, it sounds to like rgrove was just trying to improve the combat system, and in a way that sounds like an improvement to me, no?

Apparently, orcish armor is the one thing that must never be altered. For to give an orc low-quality chainmail is worse than crossing the streams plus letting gremlins eat after midnight, multiplied by looking into the Ark of the Covenant. I shake with fear just at the thought of it.

Quote from: Elfdart;1009732You do realize that in D&D there are other factors in AC, right? Maybe that orc has cursed armor. Maybe it's an illusion. Maybe it's damaged/worn out/badly made chainmail. Maybe the PC is the beneficiary of a magical bonus he doesn't know about yet. .

None of which he said.  He said "because."

DO try to keep up.

Of course Grove could always introduce this player to T&T. Monsters in that game are given a single number, their "Monster Rating". This serves as hit points, attack score, defense, the lot of it. No seperate armour or weapons to track. Just an MR score. Describe it as wearing plate armour and weilding a great sword, or dressed in rags and wielding a rusty table knife, both could be a MR 65 orc, rolling 8d6+33. Let the warrior in the party pick up that great sword after the fight is over and for him it's a great sword, maybe 5d6 or 7d6.  It's one game where for the monsters the "skin" has absolutely no bearing on the game stats.

I am pretty sure there is a spell that lets you know the MR of a foe so you can judge how tough a fight it will be. Good thing too. Just because the last orc was MR 65 doesn't mean the next one won't be MR 270 but look just the same.

[video=youtube;JizzeERcZjg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JizzeERcZjg[/youtube]

Oh, come on, Ravenswing. We're only on page 16, we're just getting started.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009722Thanks guys, more good stuff. As to not responding to those supporting part or all of my approach, thanks very much and I apologize if I have ignored you. One tends to address the dog biting his ass over the one waiting to be petted. My bad though, I appreciate all the comments, friendly and otherwise. I wouldnt frequent this forum if I thought you assholes didnt haven something to teach me.

One thing to consider here is that your overall style as you've explained it in various posts is more storygame or even storytelling than traditional RPGing. And from experience things like armour and weapons are not as important as the staging and drama of whats going on. Arbitrarily changing what the stats are on gear fits storytelling because gear doesnt have stats to begin with and might, or might not have stats in a storygame.

But when you do that in a standard EPG with defined rules with nothing to back it up. THEN you are alot more likely to either hit resistance or outright hostility as in these games the data you get from the DM is vital for determining what to do next. Whereas in a storytelling session its just short of irrelevant and may or may not be usefull in a storygame.

It sounds like your player thought, possibly rightly, that they were playing in a RPG rather than a storygame or storytelling. It sounds often like you usually end up just playing a storytelling game in the end no matter what the system you have. Which kinda makes your other thread a little weird. Its not a bad thing. As Ive said before. But you really should be up front with the players about it. And an actual reason instead of "because I wanted to" for the changes is the better approach. Otherwise you are not telling a good story. Internal consistency helps to reinforce the story and you wasted a great opportunity to play with that with your low AC orc for example.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009739I am pretty sure there is a spell that lets you know the MR of a foe so you can judge how tough a fight it will be. Good thing too. Just because the last orc was MR 65 doesn't mean the next one won't be MR 270 but look just the same.

Well its usually good form to describe the MR 270 as somehow better than the 65. The books tended to differentiate somehow when something was higher threat.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296A comment by Gronan on GM rulings reminded me of a strange conversation I had with a player a while back. It involved myself, as GM, altering the stats of an adversary and his response when he found out. Before I paraphrase it let me say the player is a great guy and an avid player but is somewhat of a stickler for the game/challenge/tactics/mechanics side of RPing.

GM: The orc goes down, a solid hit in the ribs yields a loud crack beneath his mail and he spits a gout of blood as he collapses.

Player: Awesome! Thats the last of them. We... wait...  Did you say mail?

GM: Huh? Oh, yeah... chainmail, he was wearing a chainmail hauberk, grieves... you know?

Player: But I rolled a 12 to hit. Chainmail is 14?

GM: Yeah, his AC was an 11.

Player: But thats not chainmal, thats like hardened leather or whatever. I should have missed.

GM: No you hit his AC of 11, fair and square. The orcs typically wear mail though, these do anyway, soldiers of the Black Duke and all. Doesnt matter how I describe it. I designed him with an AC of 11. Thats what you use when you fight him.

Player: So chainmail for me is 14 but for him is 11?  Do you make up other kinds of chaimails for other guys?

GM: No, well, yeah... they are monsters, adversaries, extras... whatever. They function differently. Yes as a character the armor should be consistent but for the monsters, who cares if his chainmail is AC11 or his broadsword only does 1d6 damage or whatever?

Player: WHA? They use different weapons too? So if I pick up an orc broadsword it only does a d6?

GM: No, it would probably do a d8 like normal, just not for him.

Player: So you have different rules for how much damage weapons do or armor stops based on who is using them?

GM: NO, I just rule it the way I see it. An orc grunt with a broadsword isnt as good as a hero. So I nerf them a little.

Player: So how the hell am I supposed to know what anything is, how good or challenging it will be? Chainmail isnt really chainmail, a broadsword really isnt a broadsword...

GM (Interrupting and a little hacked) ... yeah, thats right and a fireball may not do the same damage, a fall from the roof may do more, and they might take a saving throw differently too. So what? Its my world, those that live in it and arent under your control function as I see them, not based specifically on some freaking rulebook.

Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!


Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

Ha! I'm so glad I dodged that game mechanic.

Grove:

The thing you're missing is that the rules are more than rules, they are a syntax, a language of communication.  Whatever system you're using (unless it's one of the highly narrative or tactical systems people have suggested above), "An Orc in chainmail with a broadsword" means something.  It's different than "An Orc in leather armor with a shortsword" or "An Orc in platemail with a greatsword".

What you say to the players is the only means of information they have to understand the world their characters are in and make decisions.

I'll say it again because it's that important:

What you say to the players is the only means of information they have to understand the world their characters are in and make decisions.

The fact that you wanted to make a weak orc isn't the problem.
The fact that you wanted to make the orc weaker by giving him a lower AC isn't the problem.

The problem is: You think it doesn't matter at all how you make the orc weaker, and you think nothing of the terms "chainmail" or "broadsword" meaning something different every time they are used.

There are tons of ways you could have made the orc weaker, and many have been said, but here's the REAL problem...

You mentioned you wanted the visual effect of a chainmail-clad orc without the actual danger of a chainmail clad orc.

You see no actual value in the consistency between what the imagery you are imparting to the players is, and what the reality of what the characters are doing is.  You expect your players to trust you as MC, and allow you to alter the rules at will with no internal consistency, because the end result, if they let you do your thing, will be enjoyable.

When the players are strong, they will fight full HD, AC:14, D8 damage orcs and it will be a tough fight.
When the players are weak, they will fight half HD, AC:11, D6 damage orcs and it will be a tough fight.
They'll think they are fighting the same exact orcs by your descriptions.

Your style is HIGHLY Illusionist.   You will continue to keep having violent reactions from players until you...
1. Tell them in the beginning your GMing style is highly Illusionist, and they should expect Schrodinger's Ogre.
2. Never, EVER, tell them the reality of any GMing decision you make. This one I wouldn't recommend, because I'm not sure you can even identify the things you're doing that are Illusionist.

Quote from: S'mon;10097074e PC AC is calculated as 10 + armour bonus + 1/2 level + any other mods.

The 4e DMG does actually suggest doing this for a special category of simplified quasi-PC-class NPCs, but this was never followed up; published NPCs are all Brute/Soldier/Skirmisher etc with 12/14/16+Level ACs.

4e is weird - last session my group were wary of taking on 5 hobgoblins with 3 PCs. But if there had been 20 hobgoblins they'd have thought "Minions!" and dived right in. :D It's definitely not high on the versimilitude and doesn't encourage outside-the-box thinking; thinking is for in-combat, not whether/how to engage.

So, a version of D&D finally had combatants become harder to hit as they advanced. Wow, if they had left armor out of the calculation, and let it absorb damage instead, they would have reached what my system has been like since 1985. And why aren't NPCs just characters. Is a simple 4e character so difficult to create?

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009840Grove:

The thing you're missing is that the rules are more than rules, they are a syntax, a language of communication.  Whatever system you're using (unless it's one of the highly narrative or tactical systems people have suggested above), "An Orc in chainmail with a broadsword" means something.  It's different than "An Orc in leather armor with a shortsword" or "An Orc in platemail with a greatsword".

What you say to the players is the only means of information they have to understand the world their characters are in and make decisions.

I'll say it again because it's that important:

What you say to the players is the only means of information they have to understand the world their characters are in and make decisions.

The fact that you wanted to make a weak orc isn't the problem.
The fact that you wanted to make the orc weaker by giving him a lower AC isn't the problem.

The problem is: You think it doesn't matter at all how you make the orc weaker, and you think nothing of the terms "chainmail" or "broadsword" meaning something different every time they are used.

There are tons of ways you could have made the orc weaker, and many have been said, but here's the REAL problem...

You mentioned you wanted the visual effect of a chainmail-clad orc without the actual danger of a chainmail clad orc.

You see no actual value in the consistency between what the imagery you are imparting to the players is, and what the reality of what the characters are doing is.  You expect your players to trust you as MC, and allow you to alter the rules at will with no internal consistency, because the end result, if they let you do your thing, will be enjoyable.

When the players are strong, they will fight full HD, AC:14, D8 damage orcs and it will be a tough fight.
When the players are weak, they will fight half HD, AC:11, D6 damage orcs and it will be a tough fight.
They'll think they are fighting the same exact orcs by your descriptions.

Your style is HIGHLY Illusionist.   You will continue to keep having violent reactions from players until you...
1. Tell them in the beginning your GMing style is highly Illusionist, and they should expect Schrodinger's Ogre.
2. Never, EVER, tell them the reality of any GMing decision you make. This one I wouldn't recommend, because I'm not sure you can even identify the things you're doing that are Illusionist.

I hear what you are saying but, at the risk of bringing down another torrent of descent on my head, I think you perception is highly limited in this case.

From what you are saying my description must match their perception, and frankly the one by the designers of the game we are playing, exactly. If I describe a Minotaur it must have this AC, do this much damage, move this speed etc. You are robbing me the freedom as a GM to vary the threats, modify their traits and present them in the manner in which I view them as part of my world. Of course Im not talking about making a mosquito hit for 10d10 damage or something, the presentation has to match in a general respect the performance of the entity but variations are part of what makes life, and whatever we are simulating in the game, interesting.

If I am accosted by a street tough on my way to the store his appearance may give me an accurate assessment of how much of a threat he is, and then again it may not. There are hints perhaps, his bearing, his expression and so on but that knife in his hand could be a d4 weapon in the hands of a desperate but incompetent thug to a d20 lethal instrument in the hands of a career criminal.

The orc in chainmal does not have to reflect every other orc in chainmail in the world. He can, as many here have stated, be different in any of a number of ways. This is reflected by a change in his stats.

SURE, I ADMIT FREELY, I made a mistake by not simply explaining this difference when asked about it - instead I resented the player's probing and showed my ass. Lashing accepted. However, the act of making a suit of armor less effective on one individual for any number of reasons, especially in a system like D&D when AC and even weapon damage reflects any number of actual elements, is perfectly acceptable as far as Im concerned. Ill continue to do it in the future when appropriate, but I will have a clear reason available should the player ask and perhaps even drop a hint during the encounter that this specimen may not be the norm.

"Looks like a Black Pudding, but there is a slight shimmer of green youve never encountered or heard of before."

Personally in a world where the Monster Manual isnt available on newstands I think having to do the above is pretty silly, unless the characters happen to be specialists on puddings or something but in the interest of peace at the table, when most players are intimately familiar with most creatures, its probably a good idea top avoid misunderstandings. (Applies to suits of armor too of course)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009734None of which he said.  He said "because."

In other words, he did his own version of "Because FUCK YOU -that's what they eat!"

Are you just miffed that he's poaching on your turf now?

QuoteDO try to keep up.

Why keep up when I'm so far ahead?

Quote from: Elfdart;1009849In other words, he did his own version of "Because FUCK YOU -that's what they eat!"

Are you just miffed that he's poaching on your turf now?



Why keep up when I'm so far ahead?

If you read the actual description of the origin of the McDonald's, I noted that "had Phil had some plan or idea that depended on how the monsters got their food supply, I would have come up with something.  But he was just busting my ass."

I submit that Grover's player was not just busting his ass, but trying to understand how things worked.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009847SURE, I ADMIT FREELY, I made a mistake by not simply explaining this difference when asked about it - instead I resented the player's probing and showed my ass. Lashing accepted. However, the act of making a suit of armor less effective on one individual for any number of reasons, especially in a system like D&D when AC and even weapon damage reflects any number of actual elements, is perfectly acceptable as far as Im concerned. Ill continue to do it in the future when appropriate, but I will have a clear reason available should the player ask and perhaps even drop a hint during the encounter that this specimen may not be the norm.

Serious question.

The vast majority of posters in this thread are taking issue with your actions not because you changed something, but, as you stated above, because you gave the player no in game reason.  The overwhelming objection is your lack of giving a reason.

Why, throughout this thread, have you maintained that the majority complaint is that you changed something, rather than the clearly stated majority complaint that you failed to answer the player's questions in a suitable way?

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1009846So, a version of D&D finally had combatants become harder to hit as they advanced. Wow, if they had left armor out of the calculation, and let it absorb damage instead, they would have reached what my system has been like since 1985. And why aren't NPCs just characters. Is a simple 4e character so difficult to create?

Fate of the Norns: Ragnarok and OpenQuest to name at least two use exactly the same process to generate NPCs and monsters as they do to generate PCs. So in those games chainmail is chainmail is chainmail. If an orc in chainmail goes down easier than expected then if a PC puts on that chainmail it will protect less than expected. If the orc's broadsword does less damage than a broadsword usually does then it will do less damage in a PC's hands as well. At least in as much as the fault is in the equipment. If the orc has less combat skill or is weak and clumsy those will effect his combat ability in the same way as they would for a PC, but his equipment will still function normally, both for im and for the PC.

Again the issue is not than orc in chainmail with a broadsword was AC11 and did 1d6 damage when it "should" have been AC14 and done 1d8 damage.  We are all fine with that. The issue is that the only reason given was "because I said so, and by the way the sword will do its normal 1d8 for you."

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009847....
From what you are saying my description must match their perception, and frankly the one by the designers of the game we are playing, exactly. If I describe a Minotaur it must have this AC, do this much damage, move this speed etc....

No, I think he is saying exactly the opposite--the players' perceptions depend ENTIRELY on the Game Master description;  there is no other source about the world, and in the absence of evidence of change provided by the Game Master, then the players will fall back upon the rules as written.  So, if you in play call, "Oh look a Minotaur!" without more, the players will assume that it does indeed have a poor attitude, a given AC, a given weapon, which does a specific damage and move at a specific speed.  IF on the other hand if you in play call, "Oh look a Minotaur clad only in a cod piece with a feather duster," the players will assume something else about its intent and capabilities.

QuoteLooks like a Black Pudding, but there is a slight shimmer of green youve never encountered or heard of before."

If they have seen Black Puddings before, then yes, that is a significant detail of the sort described as it alerts the players to news about the world.

QuotePersonally in a world where the Monster Manual isnt available on newstands I think having to do the above is pretty silly, unless the characters happen to be specialists on puddings or something but in the interest of peace at the table, when most players are intimately familiar with most creatures, its probably a good idea top avoid misunderstandings. (Applies to suits of armor too of course)

No, I disagree about the silliness.  It is the way the players learn about the world the game master has created.

On reflection this situation points up one of the flaws in the internal logic of D&D and related games. For PCs AC and weapon damage vary according to what equipment the PC is using and what their Attributes are. For most monsters, including humanoid ones, an AC and attack damage is assigned, sometimes with optional "or by weapon type". This is not explicitly tied to the actual arms and armour the monster may be employing. So effectively an orc is Armour Class: Orc, 1 attack per round, Damage per Attack: Orc or by weapon type.

So my B/X D&D orc is "Armor Class:6, Attacks: 1 weapon, Damage 1-6 or by weapon" No where in the description does it state what armour and weapons these might be. Any and all orc armour gives them AC: 6, any and all orcish weapons can do 1-6 points of damage or the DM can check the weapons table.  Of course in early versions of the game variable damage by weapon type was an optional rule with the default being 1-6.

I would still give an explanation of rusted or poorly maintained armour for an AC worse than expected, and lack of skill or dull weapon for damage less than expected. But the rules as written do not require this.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1009846So, a version of D&D finally had combatants become harder to hit as they advanced. Wow, if they had left armor out of the calculation, and let it absorb damage instead, they would have reached what my system has been like since 1985.

So, "The Fantasy Trip," then.

Quote from: Elfdart;1009849In other words, he did his own version of "Because FUCK YOU -that's what they eat!"

Are you just miffed that he's poaching on your turf now?



Why keep up when I'm so far ahead?

That's actually a pretty good point. I was thinking along those lines when I mentioned others have admitted to screwing with the rules.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009867Serious question.

The vast majority of posters in this thread are taking issue with your actions not because you changed something, but, as you stated above, because you gave the player no in game reason.  The overwhelming objection is your lack of giving a reason.

Why, throughout this thread, have you maintained that the majority complaint is that you changed something, rather than the clearly stated majority complaint that you failed to answer the player's questions in a suitable way?

I've replied to both, several times now.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009876I've replied to both, several times now.

Answer it again for us slow ones in the audience.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1009846So, a version of D&D finally had combatants become harder to hit as they advanced. Wow, if they had left armor out of the calculation, and let it absorb damage instead, they would have reached what my system has been like since 1985. And why aren't NPCs just characters. Is a simple 4e character so difficult to create?

4e PCs are very complicated compared to NPCs (though arguably no worse than 3e/PF NPCs & PCs).
However the biggest problem is that 4e PCs compared to monsters have far fewer hp and do far more damage, so an NPC built that way will be an extreme glass cannon. 4e PCs & NPCs aren't really designed to be comparable at all. Without tweaking the healing surge rules you can't really even have a book NPC accompany PCs in their party. And Minions are utterly disposable with 1 hp - I changed that to 1/4 standard monster hp.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009847If I am accosted by a street tough on my way to the store his appearance may give me an accurate assessment of how much of a threat he is, and then again it may not. There are hints perhaps, his bearing, his expression and so on but that knife in his hand could be a d4 weapon in the hands of a desperate but incompetent thug to a d20 lethal instrument in the hands of a career criminal.

Well IRL it's always a lethal weapon, with an open-ended exploding damage die. :)
And I'd say appearance is an extremely good guide to danger. I'd say IRL I can assess threat a lot better than I can in an RPG, due to the limited descriptions I get from the GM. But this is compensated for in most games by monsters & NPCs being relatively much less dangerous/my PC being extremely competent.

There are unfortunately a lot of dick GMs out there. Also unimaginative ones.

It's funny. But Grove's admittance of being a dick was the perfect disclaimer. Had I been in his game, I would have left that day. And I would be grateful for his honesty so I could avoid him as a GM in the future. Most illusionary GMs are wonderful at coming up with lies about how they tweak the game to force an outcome. It's really hard to put your finger on it. I like it when the dick GM's are forthright in the dickness.

Dick GMs generally find themselves playing a game with 2 or 3 dick players. It's the natural cycle of the RPG community. Good players find dick GMs and leave. Dick players find Good GMs who won't put up with them and leave. Eventually trial and error sorts them into Good groups and Dick groups.

We have a GURPS GM here in Seattle that brags about his dickness with a proud smug demeanor. He's always looking for players. After talking with him for 15 minutes I realized that he was ruining GURPS for every person he touched. Super sad. But hey, a lot of people are in it for themselves. It should be no surprise to anyone when you find yourself at the business-end of a Dick GM.

I believe in player-centric play. I am a fan of the characters and a fan of my players. I strive to create an enjoyable experience. I don't coddle and I certainly don't pull my punches but I'm also not looking to edit the rules, on the fly, to reach my anticipated outcome. The story should fall out of play not be constructed by the GM.

Players seek out and or negotiate to play particular games because they WANT to play that system/setting. The majority of players do not want a free-for-all or freeform gaming experience. It cheapens the thrill. If you can't be bothered to create a consistent setting and be consistent in your rules, you're likely to be considered a dick GM. Now, maybe your players won't have the courage to tell that to your face. Instead, you will hemmorage players at a disconcerting rate as they seek out a better (and more consistent) play experience elsewhere.

Frankly, I'm good with that. My tables are full of your drop-outs and thier experience with you makes them more appreciative of what I'm bringing. Thanks!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009874So, "The Fantasy Trip," then.

When TFT was available at the local hobby shop, we had been playing Glory Road Roleplay for awhile but not for very long. If I had read it first, and especially if I had seen RuneQuest first, I would probably never done the work. But I'm glad I did.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009876I've replied to both, several times now.

You failed to answer my question, sir.

rgrove0172 seems to want to run a Fate style game using HarnMaster style rules. It's not surprising that players who show up to a game advertised as Harn aren't happy when the GM is running Fate, and then insists that the player is the one in the wrong. Clearly Fate is a much better fit for his style of running things, but rgrove0172 stated in another thread that he doesn't understand the Fate rules.

Quote from: trechriron;1009890There are unfortunately a lot of dick GMs out there. Also unimaginative ones.

It's funny. But Grove's admittance of being a dick was the perfect disclaimer. Had I been in his game, I would have left that day. And I would be grateful for his honesty so I could avoid him as a GM in the future. Most illusionary GMs are wonderful at coming up with lies about how they tweak the game to force an outcome. It's really hard to put your finger on it. I like it when the dick GM's are forthright in the dickness.

Dick GMs generally find themselves playing a game with 2 or 3 dick players. It's the natural cycle of the RPG community. Good players find dick GMs and leave. Dick players find Good GMs who won't put up with them and leave. Eventually trial and error sorts them into Good groups and Dick groups.

We have a GURPS GM here in Seattle that brags about his dickness with a proud smug demeanor. He's always looking for players. After talking with him for 15 minutes I realized that he was ruining GURPS for every person he touched. Super sad. But hey, a lot of people are in it for themselves. It should be no surprise to anyone when you find yourself at the business-end of a Dick GM.

I believe in player-centric play. I am a fan of the characters and a fan of my players. I strive to create an enjoyable experience. I don't coddle and I certainly don't pull my punches but I'm also not looking to edit the rules, on the fly, to reach my anticipated outcome. The story should fall out of play not be constructed by the GM.

Players seek out and or negotiate to play particular games because they WANT to play that system/setting. The majority of players do not want a free-for-all or freeform gaming experience. It cheapens the thrill. If you can't be bothered to create a consistent setting and be consistent in your rules, you're likely to be considered a dick GM. Now, maybe your players won't have the courage to tell that to your face. Instead, you will hemmorage players at a disconcerting rate as they seek out a better (and more consistent) play experience elsewhere.

Frankly, I'm good with that. My tables are full of your drop-outs and thier experience with you makes them more appreciative of what I'm bringing. Thanks!

Horseshit pure and simple. Self idolizing horseshit. Sorry, just how I read it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009900You failed to answer my question, sir.

Apologies, working. I'll respond when I can get to a keyboard. Phone texts are a pain in the ass.

As a player, I don't want to know and wouldn't question the AC issue.
It could be poor quality armor that might be typical of Orcs in his campaign world, or cursed, or the Orc has crap DEX or any number of things.
The DM has decided for whatever reason the Orc has AC 11, that's fine with me.

I would like to see consistency in a world, but even then, I don't know the reasoning behind the DMs choices and I don't want to second guess or pick holes in the DM really.

I'm not saying I'd NEVER have a problem with DM custom, rulings, but in general, I'm ok with it if it's not some dramatic effect or just really stupid.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009867Serious question.

The vast majority of posters in this thread are taking issue with your actions not because you changed something, but, as you stated above, because you gave the player no in game reason.  The overwhelming objection is your lack of giving a reason.

Why, throughout this thread, have you maintained that the majority complaint is that you changed something, rather than the clearly stated majority complaint that you failed to answer the player's questions in a suitable way?

Perhaps its my perception and I dont feel like re-reading the entire thread and taking a count, but several posts did question my making the change, or at least the way in which I made it. Those I responded defensively to as I believed, and still do, that modifying an element of even published game material is within a GMs right. To those that were ranting about my terse response, I admitted several times that it was a mistake and one I would probably not repeat. Not sure what I else I can say.

Fair enough, perception is always individual.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009873So my B/X D&D orc is "Armor Class:6, Attacks: 1 weapon, Damage 1-6 or by weapon" No where in the description does it state what armour and weapons these might be. Any and all orc armour gives them AC: 6, any and all orcish weapons can do 1-6 points of damage or the DM can check the weapons table.  Of course in early versions of the game variable damage by weapon type was an optional rule with the default being 1-6.

I would still give an explanation of rusted or poorly maintained armour for an AC worse than expected, and lack of skill or dull weapon for damage less than expected. But the rules as written do not require this.

With an AC of 6 orc could parse out that the orcs are wearing leather and using a shield. Or are wearing chain and have poor DEX knocking that 5 down to a 6. I allways leaned to leather+shield.

Quote from: Spellslinging Sellsword;1009914rgrove0172 seems to want to run a Fate style game using HarnMaster style rules. It's not surprising that players who show up to a game advertised as Harn aren't happy when the GM is running Fate, and then insists that the player is the one in the wrong. Clearly Fate is a much better fit for his style of running things, but rgrove0172 stated in another thread that he doesn't understand the Fate rules.

Possibly but your righr, don't get that wierd game at all.

Quote from: Omega;1009951With an AC of 6 orc could parse out that the orcs are wearing leather and using a shield. Or are wearing chain and have poor DEX knocking that 5 down to a 6. I allways leaned to leather+shield.

In TSR era D&D (that I'm familiar with) that's exactly how AC works.  Orcs are listed with AC 6 because default orcs are wearing leather and shield.  Their armor (and other humanoids) works just like human armor.  Non-humanoid monsters tend to have armor that roughly matches their natural hide to some sort of armor, though magical critters tend to get extra bonuses......and this tended to become more and more of a thing as the game moved along.  Damage works the same way.

If you look at the various leader orcs, they all have better armor which mirrors directly with their decreasing AC.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009546I cannot begin to recall all the times on this site Ive have heard GMs claim they ignore or change the rules as a matter of standard practice. They "Make RULINGS" not "Follow RULES". And yet that seems to be a travesty when I do it.

FYI, this isn't generally what's meant by the whole "rulings vs. rules" thing.  It isn't about arbitrarily changing things mid-game as you did in the OP.

Rather, it is about making consistent rulings at a given referee's table that are extensions of the handful of written rules, as opposed to having an extensive set of rules attempting to cover every possible situation (or at least a whole bunch of them!).  I may well make a different ruling on how to handle something at my table than another referee.  However, I will consistently apply that same ruling to other similar situations, and I'll even backtrack and consider when a player suggests I've been inconsistent.  It's my job to provide the players with a clear mental picture of what's going on in the world.  Anything that I do to obfuscate their view is a failure on my part as a referee.

I'll give an example here.  Suppose it comes up that a PC is attempting to ride a horse bareback in a particularly difficult chase.  A "rules" approach would be to expect the game to have specific rules on riding and a table with modifiers for riding bareback.  A "rulings" approach would be for me to make a basic ruling at the table about how we're going to handle the situation, most likely extrapolating from the same general resolution approach I use for other situations in game.  If I'm running OD&D (B/X or similar too) it'd be to roll 2d6 and apply any appropriate modifiers and we'd see what happens.  That's how I see the difference in rules vs. rulings.  If I'm running a game that has specific riding rules and a table of modifiers, I'd expect to either use it or I'd tell the players upfront that I wouldn't be bothering.*  If I simply started ignoring it without forewarning the players have every right to complain about the lack of clarity.

*I'm enough of a "system matters" guy to generally steer clear of such games if possible.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009958Possibly but your righr, don't get that wierd game at all.

One of the big things with it is that stuff doesn't matter unless you use a game mechanic to activate it and make it matter. Unless/until activated (in one of a few ways), it's inert.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1009846So, a version of D&D finally had combatants become harder to hit as they advanced. Wow, if they had left armor out of the calculation, and let it absorb damage instead, they would have reached what my system has been like since 1985. And why aren't NPCs just characters. Is a simple 4e character so difficult to create?

And then they quickly backtracked, IIRC:).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009874So, "The Fantasy Trip," then.

More or less, yes:D! Or the more modern Dragon Warriors, GURPS, Runequest and the like.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009958Possibly but your righr, don't get that wierd game at all.

How about Dungeon World, which I suggested;)?

Quote from: CRKrueger;10098402. Never, EVER, tell them the reality of any GMing decision you make. This one I wouldn't recommend, because I'm not sure you can even identify the things you're doing that are Illusionist.

That won't work unless rgrove also rolls attack dice for his players. This whole thread started with the example of one of rgrove's players who already figured out there was an illusion in there somewhere because the player

   A - listened to rgrove describe the orc as wearing chainmail;
B - knows the rules of the system* and hence the difficulty to hit AC 14 vs AC 11;
   and
C - can read and recall the numbers on the D20 he rolled to see if his character hit the orc.


* Even without knowing the exact rules of the system as long as players roll their own attack dice some players will notice that the number required to hit an orc in chainmail varies by 3 points on a D20, i.e. varies significantly, from scene to scene or week to week for no apparent reason.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009847If I am accosted by a street tough on my way to the store his appearance may give me an accurate assessment of how much of a threat he is, and then again it may not.

The difference between AC14 and AC11 is not a small difference nor an invisible difference. Unlike the deadliness of two toughs the armor is a readily visible difference. The situation is similar to the difference between wearing a leather motorcycle jacket and a Kevlar vest that says SWAT. If you describe the street tough as wearing a Kevlar SWAT vest I'm not going to expect bullets to go right through it the way they would a leather jacket and when you then have the bullets go through the vest as if it were Swiss cheese I'm going to say, "Hey Grove, WTF?"

When I play RPGs I pay attention to stuff like how difficult or easy it is for my character to damage opponents. (Some people don't, but I'm not talking about those people.) It's a significant part of how I figure out how good at hitting opponents my character is in the game universe. When the GM arbitrarily changes how difficult it is for my character to damage opponents for no discernible reason (discernible either before or after the combat) then I no longer know at all how tough my character is in the game world nor how much of a threat anything is and that, for me, makes for a crappy game experience leading to a crappy story.

Quote from: Bren;1010019If you describe the street tough as wearing a Kevlar SWAT vest I'm not going to expect bullets to go right through it the way they would a leather jacket and when you then have the bullets go through the vest as if it were Swiss cheese I'm going to say, "Hey Grove, WTF?"

Of course this 'cardboard armour' effect is a well established Hollywood trope (in fact even cardboard would be considerably more effective than most Hollywood armour - it's hard enough to pierce a cloth greatcoat IRL, never mind slashing through plate). I think if everyone is onboard for a 'Hollywood Physics' game it's not a problem, and I wouldn't object to easily dispatching the plate-armoured mooks in a game of Feng Shui. But most RPGs have at least a simulationist element.

Okay, something had been niggling at me.

This thread actually will answer a lot of questions for those of us who are not Grover.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35740-A-Calm-Converstation-(hopefully)-on-GM-Improv&p=936462&viewfull=1#post936462

The meat of it starts (imo) at Post 311, but the whole thread is actually about this.

Essentially, by his own admission, Grover uses words differently from most of the rest of us.

ME: " You want me to say "He's riding an Andalusian" even though you don't know what an Andalusian is?"
GROVER: "Your Andalusian comment is right on target!"

If you read on, the above thread elaborates on this a bit.  Concise nouns are, to him, simply metasyntactic variables.  It doesn't matter if I say the knight was riding an Andalusian or an Appaloosa or a Quarter Horse, even though neither of the latter two is even vaguely suitable as a warhorse.

So, "CHAINMAIL" to Grover doesn't mean what it means to the rest of us, it's just a flavor word.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936466When narrating, especially on the fly, I often insert 'apparent detail' to add color and depth, even without full understanding of that detail.

I will not characterize this as either good or bad; it just is.

What he has talked about in this thread is entirely consistent with what he has said earlier.  I wish I had remembered this earlier, it would have saved him and me both some aggravation, thereby making the world a better place.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010082Okay, something had been niggling at me.

This thread actually will answer a lot of questions for those of us who are not Grover.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35740-A-Calm-Converstation-(hopefully)-on-GM-Improv&p=936462&viewfull=1#post936462

The meat of it starts (imo) at Post 311, but the whole thread is actually about this.

Essentially, by his own admission, Grover uses words differently from most of the rest of us.

Huh. That does make the whole thread a bit easier to digest, even if I tend to still disagree.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1010083Huh. That does make the whole thread a bit easier to digest, even if I tend to still disagree.

I was aware and hence why I approach his threads as if they are all storygaming, maybee storytelling, sessions rather than something normal. Pretty much every thread of his backs this up too.

Everything described is irrelevant to anything other than setting the mood and drama of the set piece. Rules are kinda being used, but may get ignored for the sake of drama or plot.

The main problem is that apparently his players arent aware of this, or the extent of it and so occasionally he gets caught out and someone gets irked, or even mad. And Grove can not understand why this is a bad thing under certain circumstances because he has the adamant belief that what we are all really doing is the same thing as what he is doing. And you get a recipe for threads like this pretty much every time and why he keeps hitting resistance.

And yet he seems to want a traditional RPG with few to no ambiguities in rules. Which makes you wonder WHY? when the rules are just windowdressing subject to change at any moment?

Fate then is a bad suggestion as is even Universalis as the players have a hand in the story and could totally de-rail what Grove wants. Not even games like Mythic or FU will work as here the players also have a hand AND the very system may throw a wrench into the story. Though of course this depends alot on how little or how much wriggle room the players have to succeed or fail anything or effect the story.

All that said from all indicators. Groves players enjoy his sessions alot and come back for more. Are they as apt to come back once they realize the truth? Id bet most do because they either enjoy the ride alot. (possibly with a dash of "no other options for gaming). And that is the important thing. The players are enjoying themselves. (The problem is that they may well STOP enjoying themselves when they find out how things really work because apparently the players think they are playing a traditional RPG and not what ammounts to, or really is, a storygame.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010082Okay, something had been niggling at me.

This thread actually will answer a lot of questions for those of us who are not Grover.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35740-A-Calm-Converstation-(hopefully)-on-GM-Improv&p=936462&viewfull=1#post936462

The meat of it starts (imo) at Post 311, but the whole thread is actually about this.

Essentially, by his own admission, Grover uses words differently from most of the rest of us.

ME: " You want me to say "He's riding an Andalusian" even though you don't know what an Andalusian is?"
GROVER: "Your Andalusian comment is right on target!"

If you read on, the above thread elaborates on this a bit.  Concise nouns are, to him, simply metasyntactic variables.  It doesn't matter if I say the knight was riding an Andalusian or an Appaloosa or a Quarter Horse, even though neither of the latter two is even vaguely suitable as a warhorse.

So, "CHAINMAIL" to Grover doesn't mean what it means to the rest of us, it's just a flavor word.



I will not characterize this as either good or bad; it just is.

What he has talked about in this thread is entirely consistent with what he has said earlier.  I wish I had remembered this earlier, it would have saved him and me both some aggravation, thereby making the world a better place.

There is some relevance there alright, maybe not to the degree you believe but Ill concede its there. That thread was pretty eye opening (save for Black Vulmea's usual snide bullshit).

Quote from: Omega;1010090I was aware and hence why I approach his threads as if they are all storygaming, maybee storytelling, sessions rather than something normal. Pretty much every thread of his backs this up too.

Everything described is irrelevant to anything other than setting the mood and drama of the set piece. Rules are kinda being used, but may get ignored for the sake of drama or plot.

The main problem is that apparently his players arent aware of this, or the extent of it and so occasionally he gets caught out and someone gets irked, or even mad. And Grove can not understand why this is a bad thing under certain circumstances because he has the adamant belief that what we are all really doing is the same thing as what he is doing. And you get a recipe for threads like this pretty much every time and why he keeps hitting resistance.

And yet he seems to want a traditional RPG with few to no ambiguities in rules. Which makes you wonder WHY? when the rules are just windowdressing subject to change at any moment?

Fate then is a bad suggestion as is even Universalis as the players have a hand in the story and could totally de-rail what Grove wants. Not even games like Mythic or FU will work as here the players also have a hand AND the very system may throw a wrench into the story. Though of course this depends alot on how little or how much wriggle room the players have to succeed or fail anything or effect the story.

All that said from all indicators. Groves players enjoy his sessions alot and come back for more. Are they as apt to come back once they realize the truth? Id bet most do because they either enjoy the ride alot. (possibly with a dash of "no other options for gaming). And that is the important thing. The players are enjoying themselves. (The problem is that they may well STOP enjoying themselves when they find out how things really work because apparently the players think they are playing a traditional RPG and not what ammounts to, or really is, a storygame.)

What you guys have witnessed recently (the last year or so) is the result of my long time gaming buddies literally dying off. Ive found a couple new friends interested in playing but they are from an entirely different gaming background. My old players, guys I had known for years, understood completely my style and approach to gaming and supported it fully. There was no 'hiding' or 'disguising' necessary. Now Im confronted with a different type of gamer and finding many of my gaming habits creating tension where frankly I have no forewarning until it appears. As Ive said before several times, I admit to being somewhat naive to the gaming community at large and uninformed in areas most of you might consider obvious.

I will have to admit however that as I am becoming more educated and indoctrinated into this gaming world you guys call home, Im less attracted to the hobby as a whole. Much of what is stressed here as important in a game simply doesnt interest me and I have no use whatsoever for game table politics, metagaming fantatics or tempermental rules lawyers. I havent had to deal with them for over 30 years, I dont really care to now. Sadly its that annoyance that caused me to respond the way I did when challenged by a disillusioned player.

Im learning a lot from you guys but to be honest I dont much like what Im learning. The priorities in the games you describe are quite different from those I have always held. Ill adjust, or not, I guess.

You don't have to adjust. Just get your players on board with what you want and then it's all good. The problem is people feeling tricked.

Quote from: RMS;1009959In TSR era D&D (that I'm familiar with) that's exactly how AC works.  Orcs are listed with AC 6 because default orcs are wearing leather and shield.  Their armor (and other humanoids) works just like human armor.  Non-humanoid monsters tend to have armor that roughly matches their natural hide to some sort of armor, though magical critters tend to get extra bonuses......and this tended to become more and more of a thing as the game moved along.  Damage works the same way.

If you look at the various leader orcs, they all have better armor which mirrors directly with their decreasing AC.

But is not outright stated as such. And is not self-consistent with " roughly matches their natural hide to some sort of armor". So the orc might be wearing leather and shield, might be wearing chain with a poor Dex, or might just be thick skinned and dodge well, all are equally valid under RAW.  "
The Armor Class (AC) of each monster is given as a number similar to the AC of characters. The number is based on both the toughness of a monster's skin or clothing and on the monster's speed and dexterity." Is the full text of what the Moldvay Basic has to say on monster AC.  

Nothing about orcs wearing any particular armour, although th eentry does list that they favour "swords, spears, axes, and clubs for weapons". further orc leaders get better Hit Dice but no change to AC.

The following text is give for changing the strength of a monster: " The monsters in this section and their abilities are of the strength and type most com- monly encountered. The DM may wish to make these monsters stronger or weaker to suit the needs of the campaign. When adjust- ing the strength of a monster, the DM must also adjust the other abilities, such as Armor Class, Move, Damage, and Saves so that they balance with the monster's adjusted hit dice."  Again nothing about changing the armour or weapons the monster may be wearing.

NB: The solution for RGrove in all of this is that the reason the orc has AC 11 not the expected AC 14 is nothing more or less than "I wanted a weaker orc". But if you are going to describe what armour the orc is wearing it should match the expected game mechanics of that armour or an in game descriptive reason for why something is not performing as exected should be ready.

Especially as games have developed more extensive written rules players have developed greater expectations of those rules being followed as rules.  "Rulings not rules" developed out of a time and a design style when rules were much shorter and less detailed than they are today, so rulings was often all there was.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1010099You don't have to adjust. Just get your players on board with what you want and then it's all good. The problem is people feeling tricked.

In a word, that.
Also, warn them before the campaign begins, not after.

I have said the same thing more than once in this thread. Tell the players what to expect upfront, and don't make them feel tricked.  All they have are the game rules and what you tell them to judge the game world by.If the game rules are not going to apply they need to know that going in.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1010095What you guys have witnessed recently (the last year or so) is the result of my long time gaming buddies literally dying off. Ive found a couple new friends interested in playing but they are from an entirely different gaming background. My old players, guys I had known for years, understood completely my style and approach to gaming and supported it fully. There was no 'hiding' or 'disguising' necessary.

Now Im confronted with a different type of gamer and finding many of my gaming habits creating tension where frankly I have no forewarning until it appears. As Ive said before several times, I admit to being somewhat naive to the gaming community at large and uninformed in areas most of you might consider obvious.

I will have to admit however that as I am becoming more educated and indoctrinated into this gaming world you guys call home, Im less attracted to the hobby as a whole. Much of what is stressed here as important in a game simply doesnt interest me and I have no use whatsoever for game table politics, metagaming fantatics or tempermental rules lawyers. I havent had to deal with them for over 30 years, I dont really care to now. Sadly its that annoyance that caused me to respond the way I did when challenged by a disillusioned player.

Im learning a lot from you guys but to be honest I dont much like what Im learning. The priorities in the games you describe are quite different from those I have always held. Ill adjust, or not, I guess.

1: So the original players were aware and on board for that style? Then Absolutely Nothing Wrong With That. Which some of us have stated previously.

2: Right. Heres were you either need to adapt to their style or tell them yours and see if they are ok with adapting to yours. If you are up front about it then some will get on board. Otherwise you are just begging for the wheels to come off at some point. Its not an uncommon mistake to make either. I think quite a few DMs and even more players get this idea that how they played is how everyone plays. Look at Chris' posts here for a stellar example of that. The difference is you are more willing to try and learn and look at new angles or see that the broader stage is different.

3: Alot of the problems you cite are not as prevalent as they are sometimes made out to be. And what instead you are oft seeing is when side A sits down thinking they are playing D&D and side B is really running Runequest or Gurps. Asking for the rules to be consistent is NOT rules lawyering. Your disillusioned player just wanted some consistency to the rules they thought they were playing or at least a reason why things were as they were and "because felt like it." is never a good excuse. See the myriad comments in this thread about that. and some of us have pointed out that you missed an opportunity to embellish and breath life into such a simple thing.

4: I think part of your problem is that you are reading alot of the honestly helpful advice in a hostile light and its slanting things more than otherwise. And its not helped by your own tone used on how you present things. As Ive noted before, you often use terms and backhanded comments straight from the worst of the storygamer playbook and that is bound to set people on absolute edge. And Im pretty sure you aren't aware of it.

X: instead of trying to play a style that in all honesty you probably wont ever like. Instead just be upfront with new players about your style. Sure you are going to lose people. But you will loose them under possibly hostile terms if you don't. As Ive noted before. Id probably sit down and enjoy any of your sessions. Would I be irked if I sat down to say what was presented as Runequest and then find out its not really? Or that my actions or at least the perceived chances of failure and challenge weren't as real as I thought? I would be a bit disgruntled simply because it wasn't stated up front. It comes across as bait-n-switch. Deception even when none was intended.

Id still love to get you as a player in one of my D&D or Star Frontiers sessions so you can see a different style in action.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1010095I will have to admit however that as I am becoming more educated and indoctrinated into this gaming world you guys call home, Im less attracted to the hobby as a whole. Much of what is stressed here as important in a game simply doesnt interest me and I have no use whatsoever for game table politics, metagaming fantatics or tempermental rules lawyers. I havent had to deal with them for over 30 years, I dont really care to now. Sadly its that annoyance that caused me to respond the way I did when challenged by a disillusioned player.

In the friendliest way possible... do you wonder why people around here tend to tell you to pack it up your ass?  You were doing well up until then.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1010095What you guys have witnessed recently (the last year or so) is the result of my long time gaming buddies literally dying off. Ive found a couple new friends interested in playing but they are from an entirely different gaming background. My old players, guys I had known for years, understood completely my style and approach to gaming and supported it fully. There was no 'hiding' or 'disguising' necessary. Now Im confronted with a different type of gamer and finding many of my gaming habits creating tension where frankly I have no forewarning until it appears. As Ive said before several times, I admit to being somewhat naive to the gaming community at large and uninformed in areas most of you might consider obvious.

With no snark intended, you should look at a game called Wushu.

http://danielbayn.com/wushu/

I know Kiero at least used to be a big Wushu fan.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010082Essentially, by his own admission, Grover uses words differently from most of the rest of us.

ME: " You want me to say "He's riding an Andalusian" even though you don't know what an Andalusian is?"
GROVER: "Your Andalusian comment is right on target!"

If you read on, the above thread elaborates on this a bit.  Concise nouns are, to him, simply metasyntactic variables.  It doesn't matter if I say the knight was riding an Andalusian or an Appaloosa or a Quarter Horse, even though neither of the latter two is even vaguely suitable as a warhorse.

Thanks for pointing this out. As a player I would find those sorts of descriptions very confusing and distracting as I tried to envision whether the knight on the Appaloosa was a midget in armor or a normal size man who was not wearing any armor. I'd also then expect the Appaloosa to be white with dark patches of color such that if I was later told that the Appaloosa was all black (or silver or purple) I'd again be confused and distracted. I have the same issue reading fiction with authors who consistently use the wrong terminology.

The way rgrove is sometimes using description is so alien to my thought processes that it's pretty difficult for me to remember, so thanks again Gronan for reminding me.

Quote from: Omega;1010090Everything described is irrelevant to anything other than setting the mood and drama of the set piece.

But specific nouns evoke specific sights, sounds, smells, weights etc. The wrong description will evoke a mood and drama (or lack of drama) other than what the GM intended. The midget knight on the Appaloosa is just one example.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010108In the friendliest way possible... do you wonder why people around here tend to tell you to pack it up your ass?  You were doing well up until then.

Apologies, how is that statement offensive in any way? I admitted in one fell swoop why I am at odds with some of what you are saying and that Its difficult to make the changes as I dont appreciate where your suggestions would take my game. There is nothing offensive there in the least.

Quote from: Bren;1010114Thanks for pointing this out. As a player I would find those sorts of descriptions very confusing and distracting as I tried to envision whether the knight on the Appaloosa was a midget in armor or a normal size man who was not wearing any armor. I'd also then expect the Appaloosa to be white with dark patches of color such that if I was later told that the Appaloosa was all black (or silver or purple) I'd again be confused and distracted. I have the same issue reading fiction with authors who consistently use the wrong terminology.

The way rgrove is sometimes using description is so alien to my thought processes that it's pretty difficult for me to remember, so thanks again Gronan for reminding me.

But specific nouns evoke specific sights, sounds, smells, weights etc. The wrong description will evoke a mood and drama (or lack of drama) other than what the GM intended. The midget knight on the Appaloosa is just one example.

You have a good point here but your making me out to be an idiot. I wouldnt describe a particular vehicle when its actually a banana. Give me an ounce of credit please. Most of the time what you are talking about appears in fantasy games where the term I am using (ie. a Werthatal Stallion) doesnt exist, until I make it up.

Thinking about specific nouns used for atmosphere more than for specific description, I recall reading H.P. Lovecraft and noticing his description of some houses as having a gambrel roof. The first few times I read that I didn't have any idea what a gambrel roof was or what it looked like. But the word gambrel sounded old and a bit spooky to me like something an old haunted house might have. Later on I got curious and looked up the word. Here's an example of a building with a gambrel roof.

Spoiler

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Appletons%27_Harvard_John_-_Harvard_hall.jpg)

The six A-shaped projecting dormer windows are the distinctive feature here.

So before I knew what the word meant a GM might be safe using the word gambrel to evoke a New England haunted house to my mind. After I looked the word up, I'd be expecting a distinctive roof line or structure with dormer windows that someone could look out from or climb out onto the roof from. If the GM had some totally different image in mind our impressions are then going to clash, possibly significantly clash.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010082ME: " You want me to say "He's riding an Andalusian" even though you don't know what an Andalusian is?"
GROVER: "Your Andalusian comment is right on target!"

If you read on, the above thread elaborates on this a bit.  Concise nouns are, to him, simply metasyntactic variables.  It doesn't matter if I say the knight was riding an Andalusian or an Appaloosa or a Quarter Horse, even though neither of the latter two is even vaguely suitable as a warhorse.

A lot of cod swords & sorcery/trash fantasy does this; I was reading one of the Raven books recently and it's absolutely packed with it. In some cases the author clearly has no idea what the words even mean*, in others they are vaguely appropriate flavour. Sometimes they use fictional words and references with no backing behind it - "the Ul'ta juice of the Qahzoum stained his verdant tabard..." - where the author himself has no idea what Ul'ta and Qahzoum are other than he just made up the words and thinks they sound cool.

It's a cheap trick but it can work well to evoke a certain sort of pulp novella feel.

*"...a wind that set the pennants and falchions mounted above the gaily coloured canvas to fluttering..." - Raven 5 pg 25.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1010116You have a good point here but your making me out to be an idiot.

I'm not doing that.

QuoteI wouldnt describe a particular vehicle when its actually a banana.

I never said anything remotely like this. Please re-read what I did say.

QuoteGive me an ounce of credit please.

The example I referred to was describing a knight riding an Appaloosa which is a specific breed of horse in the real world, a breed which is smaller, wiry, and spotted and thus not a good mount for a knight in armor. When you treat that as if I said that a Packard = a banana what credit does your statement deserve?

QuoteMost of the time what you are talking about appears in fantasy games where the term I am using (ie. a Werthatal Stallion) doesnt exist, until I make it up.

Which means that unless you explain to the player what a Werthatal stallion is using the name conveys nothing specific. Without some explanation, as a player I'd conclude that a Werthatal stallion is probably an unaltered male of some breed of horse and that it might be particularly difficult to manage around a mare in estrus but I'd have no clue whether the bred is suitable for a knight in armor, a desert nomad chief, or Viggo Mortensen in a long distance horse race. And since it's a fantasy game and if it came with no description or explanation a Werthatal might be a breed of alticamel.

Must have been quite a gale to set "falchions" fluttering, never mind why someone would mount them, presumably on some sort of pole, above a canvas awning or tent.

Quote from: S'mon;1010119"...a wind that set the pennants and falchions mounted above the gaily coloured canvas to fluttering..." - Raven 5 pg 25.

That's the sort of stuff that can make me stop reading as I say to myself, WTF? If he thought "flags" was too mundane he could have said banners, standards, or gonfalons to pick three words off the top of my head. Though the use of falchion makes me think it was possibly a careless copy/paste error and a brain dead or missing author and editor.

Robert E Howard is quite the master of using flavour owrds in his writing. He freely mixes historical eras and styles, sometimes in ways that make no sense at all, but at least he never uses the word "pauldron" to refer to leg armour.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010122Must have been quite a gale to set "falchions" fluttering, never mind why someone would mount them, presumably on some sort of pole, above a canvas awning or tent.

One might mount victory trophies on a pole or standard. Perhaps they were tied by the hilt to a crossbar on a pole, but "fluttering" still doesn't work as descriptor for the falchions. Fluttering pennants and clashing trophy falchions scans a bit better though.

Quote from: Bren;1010123That's the sort of stuff that can make me stop reading as I say to myself, WTF? If he thought "flags" was too mundane he could have said banners, standards, or gonfalons to pick three words off the top of my head. Though the use of falchion makes me think it was possibly a careless copy/paste error and a brain dead or missing author and editor.

It was egregious enough that it got me to stop reading at the time. And it stuck in my head so I was able to pick up Raven 5 just now and find the book opened at that very phrase. :D It was a real "OK, I've cut you a lot of slack Mr Pseudonymous Richard Kirk, but W.T.F. - a falchion is a weapon not a flag!!!" :D

Edit: BTW there then follows an entire page describing the different fluttering flags. Nearly all of which is meaningless word salad.

I wonder if it's some bird/sword thing. The 1980s Falcon series (https://www.thriftbooks.com/series/falcon/48093/) had the hero's sidekick armed with a falchion (the author mentioned that the guy had a falchion a lot).

Quote from: Bren;1010129I wonder if it's some bird/sword thing. The 1980s Falcon series (https://www.thriftbooks.com/series/falcon/48093/) had the hero's sidekick armed with a falchion (the author mentioned that the guy had a falchion a lot).

He thought a Falchion was a type of flag (it's even more obvious in context). Either that, or he had no idea what the word meant & didn't care.

Quote from: Bren;1010123That's the sort of stuff that can make me stop reading as I say to myself, WTF? If he thought "flags" was too mundane he could have said banners, standards, or gonfalons to pick three words off the top of my head. Though the use of falchion makes me think it was possibly a careless copy/paste error and a brain dead or missing author and editor.

Pennants are little flags. Its fairly common useage. Where I grew up wimpel was used too for small flags/pennants. (No relation to the wimple hat. :cool:)

Falchions are... what in this context? I think you are right in that they probably meant gonfalcons or whatever.

I had to google falchion just to make sure there wasn't some obscure meaning I was unaware of. Nope, just a kind of sword.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009866If you read the actual description of the origin of the McDonald's, I noted that "had Phil had some plan or idea that depended on how the monsters got their food supply, I would have come up with something.  But he was just busting my ass."

I submit that Grover's player was not just busting his ass, but trying to understand how things worked.

Grover's player was being a twat. He demanded to know why a particular orc was easier to hit DURING COMBAT. Under those conditions, no DM is under any obligation to explain why. If the player wasn't a twat, he could have tried to satisfy his curiosity by having his PC look into it when the fighting was over. He pulled the fucking emergency break over the fact that his PC was given an easier kill.

Of course Grover compounded matters by giving a dumb answer rather than saying "Well, you hit him anyway". Hell, I've known DMs who won't even bother with having the player roll when it's a reasonably powerful PC against a lowly enemy ("Don't bother rolling, he's toast.).

Quote from: S'mon;1010119*"...a wind that set the pennants and falchions mounted above the gaily coloured canvas to fluttering..." - Raven 5 pg 25.

As I said in the other thread...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936556And then there is the "using words wrong" issue.  "Riders in silks and leathers" is a favorite among third rate fantasy authors and it absolutely grates on me.  "Silks" are what a jockey wears.  "Leathers" are what attaches stirrups to the saddle.  SO a bunch of people ride up wearing jockey suits with inch wide straps hanging off them?

Quote from: Elfdart;1010147Grover's player ... demanded to know why a particular orc was easier to hit DURING COMBAT.

From the original post, the discussion started after the last orc died; the description of the death blow referenced mail, and the player asked if he should have missed, because chainmail would be a better AC. Perfect opportunity to say "the armor appears rusty and badly made", because the character is standing over the dead orc, surprised that he got through its armor; or to ask "how are you going to investigate this surprising circumstance?".

There were some issues with the player's reaction, but the poor GM responses were the worse issue. And we're hearing the GM's version of the conversation; the player might tell it differently.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010100But is not outright stated as such. And is not self-consistent with " roughly matches their natural hide to some sort of armor".

Sure, D&D is rather infamous for not outright saying things that Gygax assumed everyone understood.  It's perfectly consistent the quote you took from me.  Monsters have AC that's roughly equivalent to how tough their natural hide is in comparison to the various armors.  Humanoids, demihumans, humans, etc. all just use the AC of whatever armor they happen to be wearing.

QuoteNothing about orcs wearing any particular armour, although th eentry does list that they favour "swords, spears, axes, and clubs for weapons". further orc leaders get better Hit Dice but no change to AC.

Orcs have AC6, which can only be achieved by wearing leather and shield (talking OD&D - gets murkier later with Dex bonuses).  It seems pretty straight-forward to my eyes.  If you want to have orcs with chain and shield, they get AC4.  After all, AC is just the number on the table that corresponds to the specific armor.  I get that it all gets a bit more convoluted once you introduce standard Dex bonuses and that's a perfect excuse to manipulate things, but I think the underlying logic is pretty self-evident.  Also, remember that TSR D&D doesn't actually have attributes for individual critters running around, so generally they don't get bonuses/penalties to anything.  That's something you can certainly choose to do, but it isn't really assumed to be figured in.

QuoteThe following text is give for changing the strength of a monster: " The monsters in this section and their abilities are of the strength and type most com- monly encountered. The DM may wish to make these monsters stronger or weaker to suit the needs of the campaign. When adjust- ing the strength of a monster, the DM must also adjust the other abilities, such as Armor Class, Move, Damage, and Saves so that they balance with the monster's adjusted hit dice."  Again nothing about changing the armour or weapons the monster may be wearing.

Sure, change whatever you want.  That's perfectly fair, but changing AC to be something completely artificial just obfuscates the situation for the players.  Let AC represent something tangible so they can react accordingly.   If you're making a tougher orc, let them wear better armor to account for their AC.  Hell, their leaders get full character classes, so make them a fighter with all the benefits thereof, or a magic user, or a cleric, or whatever. Making different creatures is perfectly fine.  I just don't understand trying to make AC something intangible when it's one of the few actually hard-defined things in the damn game.  Obfuscation for the sake of obfuscation simple confuses me as to the point of doing it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010159And then there is the "using words wrong" issue. "Riders in silks and leathers" is a favorite among third rate fantasy authors and it absolutely grates on me. "Silks" are what a jockey wears. "Leathers" are what attaches stirrups to the saddle. SO a bunch of people ride up wearing jockey suits with inch wide straps hanging off them?

Dude, it was the 80's! ;)  Also, there was spandex under the silks and leathers.

I'm pretty sure I saw some bands prancing around in strips of silk and leather BDSM gear a few times......just saying....

If the player had come here to complain about the game-master, I wouldn't have given him the time of day.

But the image I'll take from this friend is my high-school girlfriend on her quarter-horse laughing at a knight who is trying to follow her around a barrel-racing course  as his huge destrier falls over sideways.

And now I"m reminded of the old Gazebo story.

http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/98/Jul/gazebo.html

Quote from: RMS;1010163Monsters have AC that's roughly equivalent to how tough their natural hide is in comparison to the various armors.  Humanoids, demihumans, humans, etc. all just use the AC of whatever armor they happen to be wearing.

That is not however exactly what the rules say. The rules make no differentiation between humanoid and non-humanoid monsters as far as determining their armour class. The armour class by armour type worn table is for PCs. Again here is the rule in its entirety: "The Armor Class (AC) of each monster is given as a number similar to the AC of characters. The number is based on both the toughness of a monster's skin or clothing and on the monster's speed and dexterity." (emphasis mine) Monster AC is similar to the AC of Characters, it is not however defined as being exactly the same.

Or are you seriously arguing the Ghouls (an AC 6 monster) are corpse feeding undead wearing chainmail and shield? Because that is how you get AC6. I'd like to know how they get two claw attacks while holding a shield.  Ghouls, by the way are defined as being human, so without armour they would be AC 9. "Ghouls are undead creatures. They are hideous, beast-like humans who will attack anything living. "

Gnolls must then be AC 8 without their chainmail and shield as they are AC 5.

NPC Elves must all have a minimum Dexterity of 13, as without the -1 AC adjustment and Chainmail and shield (or the silly alternative of all Elves wearing +1 chainmail) they could not achieve their AC 5 status, as we know from character generation that an unarmoured elf with Dex 12 or lower is AC 9 and chainmail and shield is AC 6. There simply is no other way for a humanoid creature to achieve AC 5.

Be sure you never give dwarves in an enciounter a two-handed weapon, which they are not allowed to use in any case, without adjusting their AC to reflect the fact that they would have to put down the shield they must be carrying with their chainmail.

Armour Points like RuneQuest uses are hardly-defined. They function the exact same way if it is a warrior's armour, a giant slug's slime or a wolf's pelt, 2 points of armour absorb 2 points of damage. In D&D AC is an abstract number. It is not in actuality hard-defined by what armour a creature is wearing.  Q.E.D.  The D&D paradigm of "Armour Class is  always defined by physical Armour Type" is a fallacy and breaks down even for humanoid monsters given in the game.  The example of the ghoul alone is proof of this, unless they really are wearing chainmail, carrying shields, and still managing to get two claw attacks and a bite attack every round, all while being defined as "human" and "undead"  The argument being that

Quote from: RMS;1010163Humanoids, demihumans, humans, etc. all just use the AC of whatever armor they happen to be wearing.

Ghouls are human, ghouls are AC 6, AC 6 for a human is wearing chainmail and shield, there for ghouls wear chainmail and shield. QED  No obfuscation, just applying the rules as clearly written.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010194That is not however exactly what the rules say. The rules make no differentiation between humanoid and non-humanoid monsters as far as determining their armour class. The armour class by armour type worn table is for PCs. Again here is the rule in its entirety: "The Armor Class (AC) of each monster is given as a number similar to the AC of characters. The number is based on both the toughness of a monster's skin or clothing and on the monster's speed and dexterity." (emphasis mine) Monster AC is similar to the AC of Characters, it is not however defined as being exactly the same.

Or are you seriously arguing the Ghouls (an AC 6 monster) are corpse feeding undead wearing chainmail and shield? Because that is how you get AC6. I'd like to know how they get two claw attacks while holding a shield.  Ghouls, by the way are defined as being human, so without armour they would be AC 9. "Ghouls are undead creatures. They are hideous, beast-like humans who will attack anything living. "

Gnolls must then be AC 8 without their chainmail and shield as they are AC 5.

NPC Elves must all have a minimum Dexterity of 13, as without the -1 AC adjustment and Chainmail and shield (or the silly alternative of all Elves wearing +1 chainmail) they could not achieve their AC 5 status, as we know from character generation that an unarmoured elf with Dex 12 or lower is AC 9 and chainmail and shield is AC 6. There simply is no other way for a humanoid creature to achieve AC 5.

Be sure you never give dwarves in an enciounter a two-handed weapon, which they are not allowed to use in any case, without adjusting their AC to reflect the fact that they would have to put down the shield they must be carrying with their chainmail.

Armour Points like RuneQuest uses are hardly-defined. They function the exact same way if it is a warrior's armour, a giant slug's slime or a wolf's pelt, 2 points of armour absorb 2 points of damage. In D&D AC is an abstract number. It is not in actuality hard-defined by what armour a creature is wearing.  Q.E.D.  The D&D paradigm of "Armour Class is  always defined by physical Armour Type" is a fallacy and breaks down even for humanoid monsters given in the game.  The example of the ghoul alone is proof of this, unless they really are wearing chainmail, carrying shields, and still managing to get two claw attacks and a bite attack every round, all while being defined as "human" and "undead"  The argument being that  Ghouls are human, ghouls are AC 6, AC 6 for a human is wearing chainmail and shield, there for ghouls wear chainmail and shield. QED  No obfuscation, just applying the rules as clearly written.

I think your numbers are all wrong? In pre-AD&D:

Unarmoured AC 9
Leather AC 7
Chain AC 5
Plate AC 3
-1 for shield

So Orc AC 6 = leather + shield, Elf AC 5 = chain, etc.

Though I always wondered why Elves & Dwarves wore Chain when Plate was cheap & better.

Quote from: Elfdart;1010147Grover's player was being a twat. He demanded to know why a particular orc was easier to hit DURING COMBAT. Under those conditions, no DM is under any obligation to explain why. If the player wasn't a twat, he could have tried to satisfy his curiosity by having his PC look into it when the fighting was over. He pulled the fucking emergency break over the fact that his PC was given an easier kill.

Read the OP again:)! The player asked the question after dropping the last orc.

Quote from: S'mon;1010197I think your numbers are all wrong? In pre-AD&D:

Unarmoured AC 9
Leather AC 7
Chain AC 5
Plate AC 3
-1 for shield

So Orc AC 6 = leather + shield, Elf AC 5 = chain, etc.

Though I always wondered why Elves & Dwarves wore Chain when Plate was cheap & better.

Numbers are from Moldvay D&D 1981

You are right my AC calculations are off. Elves in chain, Ghouls in Leather and shield.  It's 3AM and I'm adding when I should be subtracting. Ghouls are still an interesting case as they are described as "human" but also "undead" and AC 6.

Yes, when plate is cheap, better than chain, and first level NPC clerics, cf "Acolyte" monster entry, wear plate and shield, why don't elves and dwarves?

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010203Ghouls are still an interesting case as they are described as "human" but also "undead" and AC 6.

I guess being undead makes them hard to hurt; I doubt they're in leather + shield. Funny how MM Flesh Golem is AC 9 though, implying they have a human circulatory system & vulnerabilities (if you have a magic weapon).

I guess Elves & Dwarves lack the human ability to manufacture plate armour. Or else they have tons of 500 year old chain lying around & use it to outfit their mooks. :D

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010194That is not however exactly what the rules say.

The rules don't actually say anything about it as AC is simply a number that happens to correspond to a specific set of armor on pair of tables under the heading "Alternative Combat System".  Armor on the table is labeled as Leather, Leather and Shield, etc.  I'm not certain how much more blatant things can be.  Yes, by the time of Moldvay this had been abstracted somewhat, but then that was the point of this discussion - how AC was pretty clearly mapped to armor and morphed over time to mean something else which confused people into thinking things like "all orcs have AC 6" rather than realizing that "typical orcs have AC 6 because typical orcs are assumed to be quipped with leather armor and shield because that's what medium infantry wear, which is also what orcs are classified as" or similar.

QuoteOr are you seriously arguing the Ghouls (an AC 6 monster) are corpse feeding undead wearing chainmail and shield?

Ghouls are undead and grouped under the undead heading.  They're monsters.  All undead have elevated AC.  All monsters get AC determined differently than humanoid sorts.  Orcs and other humanoids are listed along with humans for a reason, I'd say, and undead in their own section for a reason also.  

I'm not really seeing why you assume they're human.  They aren't.  Have they ever been described that way in D&D?  I know other RPG's have sometimes made them more of a humanesque race that feeds on the living, rather than straight up undead critters.

QuoteGnolls must then be AC 8 without their chainmail and shield as they are AC 5.

Gnolls are a good edge case here as they're specifically listed as a hybrid between trolls and gnomes, so one would assume have naturally tough hide from their troll ancestry.  They and bugbears exist right on that nice line between being humanoid and being grouped more as a monster.  

Yes, elves and dwarves as written are assumed to be in chain.  I'd adjust AC to match any difference.  This is the first time I've ever seen anyone suggest that there's any reason for them to have AC that's different than what they're wearing or believe that the rules implied otherwise.

QuoteArmour Points like RuneQuest uses are hardly-defined.

That's the thing.  All of these AC's carry through to B/X that you're referencing directly from OD&D wherein there's exactly one way to have AC 4:  chainmail and shield.  There is no other way.  In fact, it's explicitly listed in the attack tables as Chainmail and Shield with a number 4 next to it.  (Recall that Dex doesn't affect AC for anyone in LLB OD&D and then only for Fighters up until the AD&D PHB, so that's not it.)  Monster AC's tend to roughly mirror that in terms of toughness.

Quote from: S'mon;1010208Funny how MM Flesh Golem is AC 9 though, implying they have a human circulatory system & vulnerabilities (if you have a magic weapon).

I think it's more about how tough their skin-hide is than anything else there.  They're immune to normal weapons, but if you can overcome that bit, the rest is just normal human squishy flesh.  Extra toughness is handled through elevated hit points.

QuoteI guess Elves & Dwarves lack the human ability to manufacture plate armour. Or else they have tons of 500 year old chain lying around & use it to outfit their mooks. :D

From the beginning D&D has some silliness built into armor assumptions, one of which is that chain will be more common than plate because it's cheaper and faster to make, or something.   Of course, you're also faster in chain than plate by a pretty decent margin.  I think Gygax was working off some Victorian-era understanding of armor when he wrote up both Chainmail and then D&D, and we've tended to live with the consequences of that through pretty much all RPGs since.  It always bugged me, so I always tended to handle armor as a light, medium, and heavy in the game and steer clear of the descriptions.

Yeah, I always have thought of elves running around in elfin chain, but dwarves kind of bug me.  I'd probably put them in armies equipped with plate and shield in my own game.  I always figured they manufactured the stuff in bulk.  Back to the general thread premise, IMO it's perfectly fine for me to give all my dwarves AC 2 and put them in plate and shield if I want.  I certainly would describe them as being equipped that way if I upped their armor as it'd only be fair to the players to have a consistent description that fits how I'm handling them mechanically.

The description of Ghouls that I quoted explicitly states that they are human and undead. So they are strange for that.

By Moldvay Gnolls are hyena-headed humanoids, and have nothing to do with a fusion of gnome and troll.

My copies of 0D&D are currently in storage, so I was using Moldvay which is currently to hand.

I suppose all the human-derived undead are derived from humans (generally, at least):  skeletons and zombies are typically the remains of humans.  I suppose it's not a huge jump to think of ghouls in a similar manner.

I actually have a copy of Moldvay around here.  Re-read the gnolls.  The final sentence actually mentioned the troll-gnome thing.  In general, Moldvay greatly expands descriptions of everything. That's mostly a good thing, and I think is the best realized version of the rules, but it perhaps clouds the specific issue we've been discussing.  

Moldvay is the only version of D&D I can see running RAW, though OD&D is what I'd choose as the chassis to build my own game from that works off the D&D engine, if that makes sense.  By the time of AD&D, the game seemed to lose it's way and become a tangled mess of rules that served no real purpose beyond being more rules IMO.  OK, technically the OD&D supplements did that, but somehow I never encountered them until years later.

Quote from: RMS;1010221From the beginning D&D has some silliness built into armor assumptions, one of which is that chain will be more common than plate because it's cheaper and faster to make, or something.   Of course, you're also faster in chain than plate by a pretty decent margin.  I think Gygax was working off some Victorian-era understanding of armor when he wrote up both Chainmail and then D&D, and we've tended to live with the consequences of that through pretty much all RPGs since.

A lot of people work under similar misunderstandings.  Certainly reenactors have amply disproved the old canard about plate being so much more encumbering than mail.

Quote from: Bren;1010125One might mount victory trophies on a pole or standard. Perhaps they were tied by the hilt to a crossbar on a pole, but "fluttering" still doesn't work as descriptor for the falchions. Fluttering pennants and clashing trophy falchions scans a bit better though.

I was thinking the same thing. Ive read where many things were suspended or mounted atop poles or spears as standards (Im recalling the Romans having all sorts of totems until they settled on the eagle) but yeah, this is obviously a mistake or something.

Quote from: RMS;1010163Sure, D&D is rather infamous for not outright saying things that Gygax assumed everyone understood.

I could not agree with you more. As a teenager in the 1970s I thought the AC for humanoids like orcs and elves being derived from the armor they wore was an obvious assumption. I still think that today.

In most cases it is a pretty safe bet.  Where the AC thing starts to get wonky is with non-humanoid monsters. A mosquito might be AC2 because it is hard to hit, but only have one hit point because it is easy to kill. Certainly I don't think the argument would be that the mosquito is physically as tough as a man in plate and shield. But for a Fighter, his hit points as much as his armour class are supposed to be a measure in part of how difficult it is to land an actually injurious blow. Most of the hit points representing near misses, glanced off the armour, etc.

Like I said though, this is a thought that just came to me last night.  For years I had just played that AC is AC. It is armour worn by foes that wear armour, and thickness of hide and dodging ability for those that don't. I don't think we ever cared much exactly what armour that AC 7 orc was wearing, we just wanted to know it was AC 7 not AC 2.

I hadn't given a thought as to why ghouls would be AC 6, it was to make them tougher monsters of course.

Consider this whole side track a thought experiment.

Quote from: RMS;1010221I think Gygax was working off some Victorian-era understanding of armor when he wrote up both Chainmail and then D&D, and we've tended to live with the consequences of that through pretty much all RPGs since.

Yes, although recent editions have been moving away somewhat from a 1903 understanding of armour - these days in 5e a Fighter in AC 18 Plate can move as fast as unarmoured (speed 30'), whereas in 1e speed was halved.

Mind you, I was just rereading the 1e DMG descriptions of armour, they are not nearly as bad as popular misconceptions. Banded & splint mail as described are really quite close to historical brigandines as we currently understand it (ie nothing like lorica segmentata), and are correctly slotted in between mail & plate. The only really big problem I think is that studded leather's description is a coat of plates, a real armour type, but is statted inferior to mail, which makes little sense if the plates overlap. And if they don't overlap it's silly Hollywood costume armour.

I appreciate the topic of medieval weapons and armor. But I'm hardly an expert and neither, I imagine, were the kids who bought D&D out of the Sears Wishbook in the 80's.

I remember reading a period account of a coat of "jack", plates of horn sandwiched between leather, that so frustrated the attackers by its effectiveness that when they finally killed the wearer they hacked the suit to pieces! I have never been quite sure where to place that armour in the D&D armour class system, it doesn't quite fit any of the listed types. It is easy in BRQ/RuneQuest, just assign it an AP value.

Quote from: S'mon;1010119"...a wind that set the pennants and falchions mounted above the gaily coloured canvas to fluttering..." - Raven 5 pg 25.

Gah! My eyes!

... I'm getting extreme deja-vu reading this thread.

So circumstances have dragged you into following advice given from that previous shit-show of a thread Gronan linked. Now you have some new players with new perspectives tossed into your pot and you don't like it? Growing pains!!!

I don't understand your dilemma in your example, frankly. I believe Big Green gave you the the exact example I'd have done to get your SAME results you wanted: if wanted your orcs to wear chainmail but not have the mechanical benefit of having chainmail why not give them some other mechanical flaw that made up for that? They could have been - old/wounded/clumsy and had dex-penalties due to low dex-scores? Half drunk? Diseased? Starving to death? High on shrooms? Anything! And that should have satisfied your rules lawyer.

Not to mention that would have given you some potential other fodder detail for your game: Why are these orcs eating magic mushrooms? Why are they starving? Why are they diseased?  - you could have made any of these potential game-relevant issues for the PC's to deal with (or not).

But you, instead, clung to the surface of appearances for your own self-appeasement rather than digging a little deeper for the benefit of your players (and ultimately it would have been benefiting you by benefiting them).

If you're going to make shit up - and the players are interested in it - then you should be prepared to give depth to it. Otherwise don't bother.

Let me give you an example:

MANY years ago... (in a galaxy - err..) I was running a D&D game and my PC's were about 7th-lvl and pretty badass. They were in these woods on a new continent and they knew these forests had these evil elves that were total forest guerillas. I didn't want to make them "just evil elves" per se, I wanted to make them have their own take on weaponry and armor etc. So I described their style of armor liked scalloped scales of flexible leather unlike what they had ever seen (which was really light armor and AC7) . And their curved serrated blades did d8+1. Well my rule-lawyering players were very interested in why the gear from these elves had these properties. The weapons were good steel but nothing more, so said it was due to the way their swordsmiths created the serrations on the blade, and that immediately prompted one of my players who was a weaponsmith to say "Ooo!! Can I learn this technique by studying their weaponry?" My casters asked since the armor was light, could it be worn by casters? So they immediately accepted these things I introduced (though I'd done so painfully through guerrilla combat that killed a PC) - but the questions brought up the larger point: deeper context.

This is the point where you as the GM have to commit to your own shit. You can describe all the flowery crap all you want - the moment mechanics matter is where the rubber hits the road. Since I introduced a new mechanical option, I had to be consistent. So rather than say no to them - I said yes. To the serration question I told him it would take several dozen swords he'd have to collect and a few months of trial-and-error at the forge to learn the technique, but I had to commit to allowing this into the game. And for the armor - yes, as well, but that leather came off these dangerous pack-hunting reptilian-wolf creatures deeper in the woods (which I had to summarily create before next game session). This went over perfectly for everyone.

1) I was able to serve my own needs by creating some cultural artifacts to distinguish these wild-elves from "other elves" without creating new sub-racial stat-blocs
2) I was able to make them more dangerous and justify their existence by the use of the cultural weapons and armor in a very dangerous locale sufficient for 6th level murder-hobos to be careful.
3) I was able to justify the special qualities of these weapons by making them available for the PC's to use without creating drastic bloat by limiting the production of such rare goods.
4) It made my players mechanically happy because it engaged their own personal PC's pursuits outside of adventuring. Those that could not gain value by creating the armor and weapons, collected them to bring back home for sale. Gold is always a worthy pursuit.
5) It allowed me to deepen the issues of the locale by introducing a new monster outside of the normal Monster Manual fare that turned out to be an interesting setting-issue that I got a LOT of mileage out of. My PC's came to fear those bastard raptor-wolves. FEAR THEM. Needless to say the PC's weren't collecting a lot of hides.

So the point is: make the cosmetic changes mechanically relevant for a consistent reason and you'll never have these issues.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1010225A lot of people work under similar misunderstandings.  Certainly reenactors have amply disproved the old canard about plate being so much more encumbering than mail.

I think in reality, plate is actually lighter and is certainly less encumbering as weight distribution is superior and it doesn't "hang" on a person.  It strikes me as the difference in a 70's hiking backpack and a modern one which distributes the weight far better.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1010258I appreciate the topic of medieval weapons and armor. But I'm hardly an expert and neither, I imagine, were the kids who bought D&D out of the Sears Wishbook in the 80's.

Sure.  Really this bit is a sidelight to the general discussion.  You don't need to be an expert.  You just need everyone at the table to be on the same page.  If both the ref and the players think plate=superior protection=slow movement, you're all good.  In practice, Chainmail is a very good set of rules and functions quite well, regardless of the fact that is assumes that knights in plate are half the speed of unarmored peasant levies.  It might not do a perfect recreation of a historical battle due to this, but it plays perfectly fine for a fun game of pushing mini's around a sandtable with some pretty good strategy.  The same thing works perfectly fine in D&D.  In fact, I've noted before that we commonly had fighters in OD&D choose chain over plate giving up 2 AC in exchange for 3" of movement/round.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010240Where the AC thing starts to get wonky is with non-humanoid monsters. A mosquito might be AC2 because it is hard to hit, but only have one hit point because it is easy to kill.

Agreed.  IMO really small things like that simply don't work for D&D.  I've read about the deadly house cat in D&D and noted that IMO it's simply too small of a creature to attempt to represent in the D&D mechanics.  Insects are represented as swarms in early D&D that are distracting, require a save, or similar, not as actual combatants.  Otherwise though, I think AC being primarily about how hard it is to strike something for some damage is the way to go.  Let hp represent the toughness of the creature.

Quote from: S'mon;1010252Yes, although recent editions have been moving away somewhat from a 1903 understanding of armour - these days in 5e a Fighter in AC 18 Plate can move as fast as unarmoured (speed 30'), whereas in 1e speed was halved.

5e does a pretty nice job with mixing a lot of newer D&D concepts with some of the roots concepts, which is probably why it's been so well received (as far as I can see).  It's not my favorite, but I'll sit down and play it unlike anything else post-1980.

Quote from: RMS;1010273I think in reality, plate is actually lighter and is certainly less encumbering as weight distribution is superior and it doesn't "hang" on a person.  It strikes me as the difference in a 70's hiking backpack and a modern one which distributes the weight far better.

It's certainly not lighter or all that less encumbering.  It's just the difference is far less onerous than most gamers think, or for which systems make allowance.  I remember seeing a reenactor going through a series of gymnastics tumbles in full plate, just to prove he could.

Here is a fun video of plate armor vs. firefighter gear vs. modern military gear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw

Quote from: RMS;1010273I think in reality, plate is actually lighter and is certainly less encumbering as weight distribution is superior and it doesn't "hang" on a person.  It strikes me as the difference in a 70's hiking backpack and a modern one which distributes the weight far better.

Depends.  When I personally think "mail is AC5" I'm thinking an haubergeon that reaches to the elbows and mid-thigh, not full 13th century knights' cap-a-pie mail.

In fact in CHAINMAIL the Teutonic knight in full mail on mail barded horses count as Heavy Horse.

Quote from: Spellslinging Sellsword;1010304Here is a fun video of plate armor vs. firefighter gear vs. modern military gear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw

Thank you kindly, most instructive.  Pity they didn't have a guy in shorts and track shoes do it just by way of comparison.

Quote from: RMS;1010221From the beginning D&D has some silliness built into armor assumptions, one of which is that chain will be more common than plate because it's cheaper and faster to make, or something.   Of course, you're also faster in chain than plate by a pretty decent margin.  I think Gygax was working off some Victorian-era understanding of armor when he wrote up both Chainmail and then D&D, and we've tended to live with the consequences of that through pretty much all RPGs since.

In D&D I assumed part of the reason for the movement rates by armor class is a that trading off protection for speed makes for a more interesting game at low levels. Looks like you noticed the same thing...

Quote from: RMS;1010273In fact, I've noted before that we commonly had fighters in OD&D choose chain over plate giving up 2 AC in exchange for 3" of movement/round.

Quote from: AsenRG;1010198Read the OP again:)! The player asked the question after dropping the last orc.

He killed the orc, then asked if that was the last one, and the DM said yes. It's not much of a difference. The point is that the player demanded to know the specifics of a monster that had just been dropped. He didn't have his PC look at the monster to see why this one went down easier. He started bitching that chainmail should always have an AC of X. So he wasn't just a twat, but a dumb, entitled twat.

I had a similar experience with dumb, entitled twat who started calling bullshit because he did 10 points of damage to a hobgoblin but didn't kill it, and according to this genius the monster could only have 9 or fewer hit points. Like Grover's resident twat, he didn't bother to ask if this particular hobgoblin was a leader-type, or maybe some sort of magic was in play. No, he just raised a fuss and tried throwing part of the Monster Manual in the DM's face.

A monster's stats are not written in stone. Many of the old published adventures altered them freely, changing AC, Hit Dice, Damage, movement and other attributes. Any player who bitches about that is a twat.

Quote from: Spellslinging Sellsword;1010304Here is a fun video of plate armor vs. firefighter gear vs. modern military gear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw

This makes me want to see an obstacle course run with guys in leather, chain and plate. (I did look on youtube. Nothing yet.)

Quote from: RMS;1010221From the beginning D&D has some silliness built into armor assumptions, one of which is that chain will be more common than plate because it's cheaper and faster to make, or something.   Of course, you're also faster in chain than plate by a pretty decent margin.  I think Gygax was working off some Victorian-era understanding of armor when he wrote up both Chainmail and then D&D, and we've tended to live with the consequences of that through pretty much all RPGs since.  It always bugged me, so I always tended to handle armor as a light, medium, and heavy in the game and steer clear of the descriptions.

I've gotten into the habit of describing a set of armor and assigning it an AC. Most of the time it matches what's in the rulebooks, but sometimes a non-magical armor will have an AC that's better or worse because of materials, craftsmanship or whatever. For example, I'll write:

Padded -AC7 (tougher fabric w/silk lining)

or

Chainmail -AC6 (byrnie -legs/arms exposed)

While most padded will be AC8 and most chainmail AC5, some won't be and that can make things interesting from time to time.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1010316Thank you kindly, most instructive.  Pity they didn't have a guy in shorts and track shoes do it just by way of comparison.

Where the guy with shorts and track shoes would really pull away would be after the first few minutes.

Yeah, probably, but the issue that it would help to settle is this: our game systems often penalize characters who are heavily armored/encumbered in terms of movement, DEX, combat efficiency and the like.  But by how much should they be penalized?  Obviously knights in plate aren't half as fast as unarmored peasants; what's the real number?

In terms of combat DEX, I couldn't say.  With many years of observation of SCA fighting, there's not much difference between guys in mail and guys in plate, with the caveat that few SCA fighters don't wear plate.  Lighter armors such as the newbie "carpet armor" of early days have long been banned for safety reasons, and it's not as if we're going to get full out combat between armored and unarmored folk.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1010359Yeah, probably, but the issue that it would help to settle is this: our game systems often penalize characters who are heavily armored/encumbered in terms of movement, DEX, combat efficiency and the like.  But by how much should they be penalized?  Obviously knights in plate aren't half as fast as unarmored peasants; what's the real number?

I suspect the reality is that speed isn't so different over short distances, but rather than armor is very fatiguing to wear.  My experience of RPGs attempting emulate this in play suggests it's tedious and not all that fun.  See RuneQuest 3 for a good example.  I don't think anyone kept using the system, despite the fact that it actually felt pretty reasonable in application.  It was simply tedious and dull in actual play.

Quote from: RMS;1010367I suspect the reality is that speed isn't so different over short distances, but rather than armor is very fatiguing to wear.

Probable.  Truth be told, I'm astonished that the SCA's annual Pennsic War -- the society's largest annual gig, in which a lot of middle-aged men otherwise semi-retired from combat pour themselves into their armor for one of the few times in a year to go and beat on one another in blazing summer heat for a week -- doesn't have a much higher mortality rate than it does.

HIGHER mortality rate?  People have DIED?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010375HIGHER mortality rate?  People have DIED?

A couple, over the years.

For those of you who don't know what Pennsic is, as I said, it's the SCA's largest annual event.  It's held in midsummer in western Pennsylvania, and gets around ten thousand attendees a year.  It's a war between the SCA's East and Middle Kingdoms, with various allies and hangers-on pitching in.  (The premise is that the war is fought over ownership of Pittsburgh; the loser gets it.)  There are numerous battles, with up to a few thousand taking the field.  (Go look up "Pennsic War field battle" on YouTube to see what it looks like.)

By the nature of things, the SCA being over fifty years old now, you've got a lot of 50-60 somethings who don't much fight any more, except for annual "qualification" bouts to keep eligibility to participate in combat arts.  And a lot of these fellows loosen the straps on the old armor and saunter out there for Pennsic to fight for Crown and Kingdom.  Now when I was active in the Society, I saw breathtakingly few injuries, let alone fatalities, the safety measures being pretty sound and having tightened considerably over the years.  But it's a basic athletic paradigm that this is just the sort of thing that causes out-of-shape ex-athletes to keel over, and I'm astonished it's happened as rarely as it has.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010375HIGHER mortality rate?  People have DIED?

I talked with a jousting re-enactor whos been perforated with a lance twice. Once where the pole broke and came up under the chestpiece somehow and under the ribs. And saw another guy get perforated through the thigh. I suspect if theres ever been fatalities then its the jousting thats done em in.

Quote from: Omega;1010388I talked with a jousting re-enactor whos been perforated with a lance twice. Once where the pole broke and came up under the chestpiece somehow and under the ribs. And saw another guy get perforated through the thigh. I suspect if theres ever been fatalities then its the jousting thats done em in.

I suspect coronary problems are the major killer.

SCA does very little, if any, equestrian combat. The jousting reenactors are a different game.  The most common injury at Pensic is heatstroke, which can be life threatening. Sprains and strains are common, severe bruises, and the rare broken bone.  They work hard to make it a safe sport.

Volleyball is iirc the most dangerous amateur sport in terms of time lost from work. That or football.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010404Volleyball is iirc the most dangerous amateur sport in terms of time lost from work. That or football.

Just to try to head off the potential idiot circus of back-and-forths on this sub-subject, are you referring to Association, Gridiron, or Rugby football (or I suppose Australian or Gaelic)?

And to Gronan's point, yes, dangerous can be counted in terms of mortality rate or in terms of casualty rate. Casualty rate is hopefully a more relevant question for reenactment.

Pick-up weekend football, strictly amateur.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1010411Just to try to head off the potential idiot circus of back-and-forths on this sub-subject, are you referring to Association, Gridiron, or Rugby football (or I suppose Australian or Gaelic)?

I'm almost certain he means association, or soccer, just reading his other responses to this thread.  Nobody really plays American football at a pickup-amateur level.  You simply can't do that with sustaining serious injury.

Pickup soccer/football exists everywhere and certainly leads to plenty of injuries.  I played in a an over-40 league where we had someone collapse on die on the field one game.  He was in great shape, played his entire life, ran miles per day, etc. and just dropped dead at 44 on a soccer field. Most of the serious injuries I've seen have been on old man league games where everyone gets a bit too serious for their age, but pickup certainly has it's injuries.....never missed work for it, but limped around the following day at work plenty of times due to it.  If I had a physically demanding job, I probably would have missed days.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1010358Where the guy with shorts and track shoes would really pull away would be after the first few minutes.

Only if they don't allow the guys in armor to hack him down first!

Goodby thread, weee misss youuu... :(

Quote from: Elfdart;1010346He killed the orc, then asked if that was the last one, and the DM said yes. It's not much of a difference.

The difference is, he didn't ask during combat, which is what you said;).
And after the GM told him the stats are different because the GM decides, there wasn't any point in looking for in-setting reasons.

Quote from: RMS;1010422I'm almost certain he means association, or soccer, just reading his other responses to this thread.  Nobody really plays American football at a pickup-amateur level.  You simply can't do that with sustaining serious injury.

Pickup soccer/football exists everywhere and certainly leads to plenty of injuries.  I played in a an over-40 league where we had someone collapse on die on the field one game.  He was in great shape, played his entire life, ran miles per day, etc. and just dropped dead at 44 on a soccer field. Most of the serious injuries I've seen have been on old man league games where everyone gets a bit too serious for their age, but pickup certainly has it's injuries.....never missed work for it, but limped around the following day at work plenty of times due to it.  If I had a physically demanding job, I probably would have missed days.

I last played pickup tackle football on the New Haven green in the 1990's, so I was 45 or older. I played rugby for another couple of years but that wasn't pickup; it was in a league (although we played Union) The only person who died in a game I was playing in was in a game of Omaha hi-lo at Foxwoods.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1010099You don't have to adjust. Just get your players on board with what you want and then it's all good. The problem is people feeling tricked.

The main problem is people on the internet overeacting, as usual.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296GM: NO, I just rule it the way I see it. An orc grunt with a broadsword isnt as good as a hero. So I nerf them a little.

This? This was the moment you failed. You decided that the PCs were "heroes", and that this entitled them to special superpowers that protected them compared to ordinary mortals, because to you this is a novel or a story, rather than a world.

You killed emulation, and thus ruined the player's immersion, because you didn't understand its not your job to 'create story'.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1011645This? This was the moment you failed. You decided that the PCs were "heroes", and that this entitled them to special superpowers that protected them compared to ordinary mortals, because to you this is a novel or a story, rather than a world.

You killed emulation, and thus ruined the player's immersion, because you didn't understand its not your job to 'create story'.

Except that is pretty much Grove's style and by all accounts, aside from the occasional hitch, the players seem to be ok with that. The hitch occurred because he failed to inform one or more players. Partially due to Grove not knowing this isnt the norm it seems.

I think this is in part because by his own admission he doesnt improv well. One of our local DMs is much the same and he spends alot of time on prep and uses modules alot or occasionally plots things out.

Quote from: Omega;1011808Except that is pretty much Grove's style and by all accounts, aside from the occasional hitch, the players seem to be ok with that. The hitch occurred because he failed to inform one or more players. Partially due to Grove not knowing this isnt the norm it seems.

This is pretty much it in a nutshell. No wrong way to play except for failing to set up shared expectations with those you are creating a shared experience with. Player thought he was using Grove's descriptions as signposts to find his way through the game, and found that they were instead window dressing.

Once again, use a set of rules that works as you desire!  Grover really should be playing Wushu or Dungeon World.  I've lost track of the number of us who have told him he is trying to fry eggs on a screwdriver.  Or paint a house with a hammer or whatever other metaphor you want for using the wrong tool.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1011645This? This was the moment you failed. You decided that the PCs were "heroes", and that this entitled them to special superpowers that protected them compared to ordinary mortals, because to you this is a novel or a story, rather than a world.

You killed emulation, and thus ruined the player's immersion, because you didn't understand its not your job to 'create story'.

That's one opinion sure.

Yeah, true, but in this pub a lot of the locals have that opinion.  So don't be surprised when things like this thread happen.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1011856That's one opinion sure.

I refer you to this:

Quote from: rgrove0172;1011856Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

Quote from: soltakss;1010697the main problem is people on the internet overeacting, as usual.

no we're not!!!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011840Once again, use a set of rules that works as you desire!  Grover really should be playing Wushu or Dungeon World.  I've lost track of the number of us who have told him he is trying to fry eggs on a screwdriver.  Or paint a house with a hammer or whatever other metaphor you want for using the wrong tool.

I'll save you the metaphor. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37844-You-HIT-for-a-miss&p=1000229&viewfull=1#post1000229)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1011856That's one opinion sure.

Apparently that's more than one person's opinion. Your own PLAYERS are telling you this, nevermind the fact we've been telling you this now... for many many threads.

Do these opinions have any value outside of your perspective? After dozens of threads where you ask the same questions stemming from the exact same problem after literally hundreds of pages - I'm thinking those opinions should have more value than is warranted for a casual dismissal, if indeed you're asking in good faith.

I don't think you are.

Here's the thing.

You want to do X.  Your player says they like !X.

It doesn't matter what X and !X are, so long as they're not matters of fact that can be disprove (I want to play a game where 10 is 20!).  "Can I adjust stats" is a clear example of something that is not an objective truth of falsehood.

Your players don't want you to do it.  You do.  Trying to "prove them wrong" is pointless.

You've got three options.

1) "Okay, you don't like that.  I won't do it."
2) "Well, this is how I'm going to run my game, and that's the way it is.  You're welcome to play, or not."
3) "Okay, let's find a compromise."

That's it.  You get one of those three.  You're not going to prove the other person wrong and you right.  You're not going to convince them to like the thing they don't like.  You don't even have to agree with them.  You do have to decide whether it's worth losing players to do something they obviously don't like.  And that's your call.  And it's their call to stay or not.  And if they won't stay if you do this, you have to decide whether you're willing to quit if you can't.

There's no right answers here.  This is "Other People Are Actually People 101".

Quote from: tenbones;1011944Apparently that's more than one person's opinion. Your own PLAYERS are telling you this, nevermind the fact we've been telling you this now... for many many threads.

Do these opinions have any value outside of your perspective? After dozens of threads where you ask the same questions stemming from the exact same problem after literally hundreds of pages - I'm thinking those opinions should have more value than is warranted for a casual dismissal, if indeed you're asking in good faith.

I don't think you are.

I value all opinions and invite them. I only raise my eyebrows when they are stated as fact instead of opinion.

Quote from: tenbones;1011944Apparently that's more than one person's opinion. Your own PLAYERS are telling you this, nevermind the fact we've been telling you this now... for many many threads.

Do these opinions have any value outside of your perspective? After dozens of threads where you ask the same questions stemming from the exact same problem after literally hundreds of pages - I'm thinking those opinions should have more value than is warranted for a casual dismissal, if indeed you're asking in good faith.

I don't think you are.

Pretty much the same conclusion that I came to.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1011957I value all opinions and invite them. I only raise my eyebrows when they are stated as fact instead of opinion.

Most of us are stating from experience. And as you've noticed. Some of us have had near diametrically opposed experiences on the exact same thing using the exact same style or whatever.

Discarding the insults and such. Which, hate to say it, you yourself have pushed members to. What you have are some sound sets of advice. Some you can use to your specific style. Some you cant.

Possibly one problem in your OP was you appear to have assumed that the player was used to the same style of play as you. This is a very common mistake people make. Whereas very early on I learned that theres wildly different styles from table to table, player to player. Anyone who does alot of convention RPGing learns this fairly quickly too usually.

Quote from: Omega;1012011Most of us are stating from experience. And as you've noticed. Some of us have had near diametrically opposed experiences on the exact same thing using the exact same style or whatever.

Discarding the insults and such. Which, hate to say it, you yourself have pushed members to. What you have are some sound sets of advice. Some you can use to your specific style. Some you cant.

Possibly one problem in your OP was you appear to have assumed that the player was used to the same style of play as you. This is a very common mistake people make. Whereas very early on I learned that theres wildly different styles from table to table, player to player. Anyone who does alot of convention RPGing learns this fairly quickly too usually.

Your right on target there. I've been pretty sheltered.

Quote from: Omega;1011808Except that is pretty much Grove's style and by all accounts, aside from the occasional hitch, the players seem to be ok with that. The hitch occurred because he failed to inform one or more players. Partially due to Grove not knowing this isnt the norm it seems.

I think this is in part because by his own admission he doesnt improv well. One of our local DMs is much the same and he spends alot of time on prep and uses modules alot or occasionally plots things out.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1011809This is pretty much it in a nutshell. No wrong way to play except for failing to set up shared expectations with those you are creating a shared experience with. Player thought he was using Grove's descriptions as signposts to find his way through the game, and found that they were instead window dressing.

Yes, that's pretty much my conclusion as well:).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011840Once again, use a set of rules that works as you desire!  Grover really should be playing Wushu or Dungeon World.  I've lost track of the number of us who have told him he is trying to fry eggs on a screwdriver.  Or paint a house with a hammer or whatever other metaphor you want for using the wrong tool.

Indeed, I'd recently joined that chorus. Though I generally don't recommend Dungeon Worlds.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1011957I value all opinions and invite them. I only raise my eyebrows when they are stated as fact instead of opinion.

We've seen similar cases to you, Rgrover. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we're betting it's a duck.
And as you say, you haven't seen them, because...

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012043Your right on target there. I've been pretty sheltered.

Yeah, this;).

Quote from: rgrove0172;1011957I value all opinions and invite them. I only raise my eyebrows when they are stated as fact instead of opinion.

The only "facts" are the words you present to us in the form of your own posts, which we assume are in good faith. Our opinions are based on the context of those words with the presumption your premises are FACTUAL in approximation to you. Our responses are based on subjective criteria based on our collective objective experiences - otherwise why are you even asking?

So either your "facts" are misleading in their premise. OR you don't understand how to weigh evidence and opinion and discern probable fact from opinion. OR you have unspoken claims. OR you're trolling.

OR all of the above. <---I'm putting my chip on this one.

There IS the slight chance (at this point) that you're emotionally blind to your own perspective that anything that doesn't mesh with your view is deemed wrong. At which point we have to back to your ability to discern and weigh truth-claims. If you reduce everything down to "just an opinion" which you do pretty consistently without feedback - it forces many of us to ask the question of why you even bother asking?

I can go at length of why I answer these questions (but there's a good chance you won't want to hear them).

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012043Your right on target there. I've been pretty sheltered.

I do recall saying this to you a while back and you being pretty terse with me about it.

Are we still piling on Grover because we don't like his GM style?

Quote from: Dumarest;1012192Are we still piling on Grover because we don't like his GM style?

No. I'm not. I'm just stating at this point I think his questions are not in good faith. I don't care about his GMing style - or anyone else's for that matter, unless I'm playing in their game.

But if we're talking about "best practices" in relation to a specific - I answer for the benefit of everyone who might read it to the best of my ability based on experience. Take that with whatever seasoning you wish. But if you're going to be dismissive - why ask the question when you know the answer already? And this is how we arrive at the bad-faith part. I'm actually giving Grove credit for trying to be self-aware. Just passive-aggressively deceptive.

I've gone over what I think of his style in *many* threads. I don't think it's wrong. I think it's "unrefined" - a stage we've all gone through.

Edit: I usually pop into his threads to check on his progress. And frankly his threads are good for other new GM's that have the same issues and a lot of the advice given here (outside of the insults that go back and forth) are GOOD for those GM's that are new. I contribute accordingly.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1011856That's one opinion sure.

Look.  You have to understand.  People that agree with Pundit's opinion, should probably not play with a GM who disagrees with Pundit's opinion.

You are a GM who disagrees with Pundit's opinion, and you have had a few players now who apparently agree with Pundit's opinion...things haven't ended well whenever they see behind the curtain.

You say you don't care about "story", but if you consider the players the "heroes", and it's your job to adjust the rules of the game on the fly to make sure things turn out a particular way (and you have admitted to doing this), then you are enforcing your will on the happenings of the setting, you are AUTHORING what happens.  That's storytelling.  Simple fact.

Reread what robiswrong said:

Quote from: robiswrong;1011949Here's the thing.

You want to do X.  Your player says they like !X.

It doesn't matter what X and !X are, so long as they're not matters of fact that can be disprove (I want to play a game where 10 is 20!).  "Can I adjust stats" is a clear example of something that is not an objective truth of falsehood.

Your players don't want you to do it.  You do.  Trying to "prove them wrong" is pointless.

You've got three options.

1) "Okay, you don't like that.  I won't do it."
2) "Well, this is how I'm going to run my game, and that's the way it is.  You're welcome to play, or not."
3) "Okay, let's find a compromise."

That's it.  You get one of those three.  You're not going to prove the other person wrong and you right.  You're not going to convince them to like the thing they don't like.  You don't even have to agree with them.  You do have to decide whether it's worth losing players to do something they obviously don't like.  And that's your call.  And it's their call to stay or not.  And if they won't stay if you do this, you have to decide whether you're willing to quit if you can't.

There's no right answers here.  This is "Other People Are Actually People 101".

In this case RobisRight.

Although he forgot a 4th:
Just keep doing what you're doing, only be smart about it and for God's Sake, keep your piehole shut about how you do things.

I admit I just read the first page, so excuse me if this was already written by someone. I might mistake the system too, but I assume it is something like D&D 3.5 or such (just palyed 4th edition once, 5th never)

QuoteGM: The orc goes down, a solid hit in the ribs yields a loud crack beneath his mail and he spits a gout of blood as he collapses.

Player: Awesome! Thats the last of them. We... wait... Did you say mail?

GM: Huh? Oh, yeah... chainmail, he was wearing a chainmail hauberk, grieves... you know?

Player: But I rolled a 12 to hit. Chainmail is 14?

GM: Yeah, his AC was an 11.

Player: But thats not chainmal, thats like hardened leather or whatever. I should have missed.

/snip

I would've said something like "This is a very clumsy orc" (as I assume negative dex modifier changes AC)
In any case, something that fits the setting, system, situation, and doesn't start an argument with players while being easy to accept and plausible. Might also add humor to the scene.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012043Your right on target there. I've been pretty sheltered.

Welcome to the club.

From the opposite end of the problem, as I've mentioned before, I picked up a group of players when I moved whos apparently only experience with RPGs was a textbook example of a Killer DM. They came to the table thinking this was how all DMs were and I had a hell of a time weaning them off the mindset and bad habits they had developed.

And as a DM I had to realize that a DM character was a really bad idea. And a few other screwups like being way too generous with magic items and treasure. As a player I bounced from one group to another before settling more or less as mostly a DM. It wasnt till later that I saw that things like mapping, negotiating, and avoiding combats unless necessary were not a thing at every table.

Your particular style isnt bad. You just made a simple mistake in your OP and gave the player the absolutely worst possible answer when questioned. And missed the opportunity to flesh out why that armour was functioning poorly compared to the PCs. Little details like this can help better ground your events in the players mind and possibly clue them in to something is different here.

Quote from: Dumarest;1012192Are we still piling on Grover because we don't like his GM style?

No. I'm honestly trying to help him understand why he has the problems he has. His GM style obviously works for many of his players, he reports that they have fun.

Quote from: AsenRG;1010453The difference is, he didn't ask during combat, which is what you said;).
And after the GM told him the stats are different because the GM decides, there wasn't any point in looking for in-setting reasons.

I don't dispute that he handled it badly, but let's not pretend for a millisecond that DMs of many stripes have, when frustrated with a know-it-all player, busted out with "Because I fucking said so!".

I suspect that much of the hostility in this thread has more to do with a distaste for Grover's habit of pretending to ask questions, request input or seek others' opinions when more often than not, he's already made his decision and is looking for approval after the fact than anything else.

Quote from: Elfdart;1012279I suspect that much of the hostility in this thread has more to do with a distaste for Grover's habit of pretending to ask questions, request input or seek others' opinions when more often than not, he's already made his decision and is looking for approval after the fact than anything else.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/2gtoSIzdrSMFO/giphy.gif)

Quote from: CRKrueger;1012214Reread what robiswrong said:


In this case RobisRight.

Although he forgot a 4th:
Just keep doing what you're doing, only be smart about it and for God's Sake, keep your piehole shut about how you do things.

That option never works for long, though, especially with traditional systems. Just see the OP:).
"OK, why were those orks of a lower AC than they should be?"
"Because...uh...I said so?"
"...just how many things did you manipulate behind the scenes last week, when we miraculously survived?"
"What does it matter?"
(Cue the sound of players feeling like they're being robbed of their accomplishments in the game).

Any system where you know the Ork's AC due to his armour, and you see your own to hit and damage rolls, would reveal as much;).
Which is why we keep telling him to change systems. In DW, it wouldn't matter, because the presence of a chainmail means nothing, mechanically.

Quote from: AsenRG;1012317That option never works for long, though, especially with traditional systems. Just see the OP:).

Yeah, and on principle, I'd rather be honest with the players about what I'm doing.

Same reason that if you're gonna railroad, you should be honest about it up front.  "Yup.  Adventure path.  We're gonna follow the path.  Some deviation may be allowed, but you're gonna be nudged back onto the rails."

Quote from: robiswrong;1012347Yeah, and on principle, I'd rather be honest with the players about what I'm doing.

Same reason that if you're gonna railroad, you should be honest about it up front.  "Yup.  Adventure path.  We're gonna follow the path.  Some deviation may be allowed, but you're gonna be nudged back onto the rails."

That, too, but I prefer pointing impossibilities before the ethical considerations;).

Quote from: Elfdart;1012279I suspect that much of the hostility in this thread has more to do with a distaste for Grover's habit of pretending to ask questions, request input or seek others' opinions when more often than not, he's already made his decision and is looking for approval after the fact than anything else.

That, and I think we've all noticed that the accusations of opinions being stated as facts coincide directly with Grover being told something that he does not want to hear.

I am truly blessed in this season of giving to be amid  such greatness.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012386I am truly blessed in this season of giving to be amid  such greatness.

You don't do yourself any favors with your behavior.

And this sounds like a pretty fair assessment:

Quote from: Elfdart;1012279I suspect that much of the hostility in this thread has more to do with a distaste for Grover's habit of pretending to ask questions, request input or seek others' opinions when more often than not, he's already made his decision and is looking for approval after the fact than anything else.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012386I am truly blessed in this season of giving to be amid  such greatness.

You can send money to my PayPal account. No small bills or microtransactions.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012386I am truly blessed in this season of giving to be amid  such greatness.

Yes.  Yes, you are.  In fact, I am so generous that if we meet in person, I will allow you to buy me a beer.

No, no, no need to thank me, that's just the sort of overwhelmingly awesome man I am.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012386I am truly blessed in this season of giving to be amid  such greatness.

Glad that we can all be of service ...

Who is this Grover everyone talks about and why does it seem like everyone hates him?

Quote from: joriandrake;1012473Who is this Grover everyone talks about and why does it seem like everyone hates him?

Grover is Rgrove0172 because Grover has fewer letters.

For the second part of your question see post 297 and 302.  This is not the first tango.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012484Grover is Rgrove0172 because Grover has fewer letters.

ah, now the whole thread actually makes more sense

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012386I am truly blessed in this season of giving to be amid  such greatness.

I know! Now if only the others could be as great as I. :cool:

But really. Now you have a new DM tool that meshes perfectly with your stated style. Embellish and give reason to changes rather than "because I felt like it.". Im rather surprised you didnt jump at the opportunity. I consider it one of the cornerstones of good DMing. If you change something, back it up with in game mechanics and/or at least an explanation why.

Why are these skeletons have more HP or are harder to hit? The necromancer raising them is using an artifact that gives any undead he raises an extra die of HD. The harder to hit ones are simply wearing armour. Or say they have fewer HP or are easier to hit? These are really old and brittle skeletons. The skeletons are those of heroes and their spirits have taken notice and are trying to counter the spell from the etherial. etc.

Quote from: Omega;1012520I know! Now if only the others could be as great as I. :cool:

But really. Now you have a new DM tool that meshes perfectly with your stated style. Embellish and give reason to changes rather than "because I felt like it.". Im rather surprised you didnt jump at the opportunity. I consider it one of the cornerstones of good DMing. If you change something, back it up with in game mechanics and/or at least an explanation why.

Why are these skeletons have more HP or are harder to hit? The necromancer raising them is using an artifact that gives any undead he raises an extra die of HD. The harder to hit ones are simply wearing armour. Or say they have fewer HP or are easier to hit? These are really old and brittle skeletons. The skeletons are those of heroes and their spirits have taken notice and are trying to counter the spell from the etherial. etc.

Oh, and my "greatness" comment was tongue in cheek, Im glad to see it was received that way.

btw, do you use the username Rugrove on other forums?

Quote from: joriandrake;1012532btw, do you use the username Rugrove on other forums?

Nope, not me.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1011856That's one opinion sure.

Yep, but you have to realize that's going to be the prevailing opinion here. Personally, I don't think you did anything wrong except perhaps not being clear enough to your players how you did things but others around here are going to disagree.

Quote from: AsenRG;1012317Any system where you know the Ork's AC due to his armour, and you see your own to hit and damage rolls, would reveal as much;).
Which is why we keep telling him to change systems. In DW, it wouldn't matter, because the presence of a chainmail means nothing, mechanically.

Or any game where things don't have fixed stats that the players can memorize,

Still don't see the need to use those memorized stats. The GM should be able to make whatever changes he sees aporopriate, and those stats are now the Norm in his world. No need to explain anything any more than a DM explaining why a certain stat is what it is in a published rule. But hey. Point taken. All points taken. I won't try and defend it anymore.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012484Grover is Rgrove0172 because Grover has fewer letters.

And the name Grover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover) is also just a bit derisive and patronizing. Though perhaps that's just an unhappy  coincidence.

Quote from: Nexus;1012548Yep, but you have to realize that's going to be the prevailing opinion here. Personally, I don't think you did anything wrong except perhaps not being clear enough to your players how you did things but others around here are going to disagree.

Despite a lot of people being pretty vocal about not liking rgrove's style of GMing, I think that "it's not for me, but it's OK so long as you are clear to your players about your style" is actually the consensus opinion here.

Quote from: Bren;1012556And the name Grover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover) is also just a bit derisive and patronizing. Though perhaps that's just an unhappy  coincidence.

Despite a lot of people being pretty vocal about not liking rgrove's style of GMing, I think that "it's not for me, but it's OK so long as you are clear to your players about your style" is actually the consensus opinion here.

I didnt take the nickname that way at first until I noticed hardly anyone else has a nickname. But hey, Im no princess... if they want to use Grover, its cool. I kind of liked that blue muppet with the angel's voice!

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012555Still don't see the need to use those memorized stats. The GM should be able to make whatever changes he sees aporopriate, and those stats are now the Norm in his world. No need to explain anything any more than a DM explaining why a certain stat is what it is in a published rule. But hey. Point taken. All points taken. I won't try and defend it anymore.

You don't 'have' to but some players expect it for various reasons and finding out that's not what you're doing can be jarring, even upsetting.

Quote from: Bren;1012556And the name Grover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover) is also just a bit derisive and patronizing. Though perhaps that's just an unhappy  coincidence.

Call me cynical but I doubt its a coincidence.

QuoteDespite a lot of people being pretty vocal about not liking rgrove's style of GMing, I think that "it's not for me, but it's OK so long as you are clear to your players about your style" is actually the consensus opinion here.

From the other side of the fence, there seems to be more "You're doing it wrong, but whatever if you're into that" view about different preferences on here and that's the most charitable particular about some subjects (like Sandbox vs  anything else) across the board though perhaps not in this thread.

But my statement above was referring to how most posters here, at most of the vocal ones, would agree with what Pundit said.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012555Still don't see the need to use those memorized stats. The GM should be able to make whatever changes he sees aporopriate, and those stats are now the Norm in his world. No need to explain anything any more than a DM explaining why a certain stat is what it is in a published rule. But hey. Point taken. All points taken. I won't try and defend it anymore.

So are you going to have future orcs in chainmail be a different armor class from the present case just because you feel like it? I have no objection at all to changing anything in the Monster Manual or whatever, but if you change it back and forth all the time the players have no basis for judging what's going on in any given encounter.

I'm also not a big fan of NPCs following very different rules than PCs; that's one of the things that bothers me a bit about 5e (although I like that ability score bonuses apply pretty uniformly to all creatures). Part of it is, how would the other NPCs know that, say, a PC fighter will probably have Action Surge, if none of the NPC fighter types have it? So the NPCs shouldn't use strategies that would be effective against PCs unless they've encountered a lot of PCs, who are relatively rare. Where I can, I tend to make NPCs with character classes match what a PC of the class can be.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012558I kind of liked that blue muppet with the angel's voice!

Good. I'm glad you are cool with it. I think some folks here refer to some other people by shortened versions of their username. Or maybe I'm thinking of another forum altogether. And of course you can call Nexus "cynical."

Quote from: Nexus;1012562Call me cynical but I doubt its a coincidence.

Hi cynical.

Quote from: Nexus;1012562From the other side of the fence, there seems to be more "You're doing it wrong, but whatever if you're into that" view about different preferences on here

I interpret a lot of the statements as  "You're doing it wrong for me and for how most players I know like to play, but whatever if you're into that" but I'll admit many people don't include the qualifiers I added. And to be fair, in other threads rgrove has made a lot of unqualified categorical statements about how other people play and GM. Unqualified categorical statements tend to attract contradictory unqualified categorical statements in response. It's one of the typical escalation patterns in discourse. It's often difficult to avoid since adding in all the qualifiers makes it difficult if not impossible to succinctly state anything substantive. And most people don't want to read (and seldom respond to) really long posts.

Quote from: Bren;1012556And the name Grover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover) is also just a bit derisive and patronizing. Though perhaps that's just an unhappy  coincidence.

Grover is a big friendly happy Muppet!

Quote from: Bren;1012556Despite a lot of people being pretty vocal about not liking rgrove's style of GMing, I think that "it's not for me, but it's OK so long as you are clear to your players about your style" is actually the consensus opinion here.

Pretty much.  I think we more are vocal about not liking Grover ignoring what we actually say or focusing on a corner of it.

Quote from: Bren;1012579And of course you can call Nexus "cynical."

No, because "cynical" has more letters than "Nexus".  That's why Pundy gets called Pundy.  Nicknames are almost always shorter.

OK Groan.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012582No, because "cynical" has more letters than "Nexus".  That's why Pundy gets called Pundy.  Nicknames are almost always shorter.

Exactly,  like Mickey for Michael and Jack for John and Sadie for Sarah and Joanie for Joan and Davy for David and Jimmy for James.

If its about shortening his screen name why not call him rgrove? There aren't 171 other rgroves to mix him up with and it has the same number of letters as Grover, the same ones even and no need to capitalize. :D

Mickey and Davy are shorter than Micheal and David and Grover and rgrove have the same letters and you guys are making me feel like Count von Count.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012555Still don't see the need to use those memorized stats. The GM should be able to make whatever changes he sees aporopriate, and those stats are now the Norm in his world. No need to explain anything any more than a DM explaining why a certain stat is what it is in a published rule. But hey. Point taken. All points taken. I won't try and defend it anymore.

Are those stats the norm? Because that's not what you told your player in the OP. What you told your player was that this particular orc had those stats "because I'm the DM" and that you freely change the stats and mechanical effects for anything and everything on a whim, irrespective of how the thing has been described. IE, you've said "there is no norm".

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012555Still don't see the need to use those memorized stats. The GM should be able to make whatever changes he sees aporopriate, and those stats are now the Norm in his world.

No need to explain anything any more than a DM explaining why a certain stat is what it is in a published rule.

But hey. Point taken. All points taken. I won't try and defend it anymore.

1: You dont have to use the established stats. In fact alot of RPGs, including D&D at points either suggest to tweak things as needed, or they do it themselves. Just a glance at Keep on the Borderlands shows kobold guards with better AC than their fellows and it notes they are wearing armour. Though its not explained why the leaders battleaxe does 2d4 instead of 1d8. (Probably a typo). Later it spells out exactly why one of the orc leaders is so tough. Hes wearing chain, uses a +1 shield and is strong and skilled enough that he gets a +2 damage bonus. A goblin leader is described much the same later on. Wearing better armour and stronger and more skilled than average hence dealing more damage. and so on.

2: Yes there is a need otherwise you can and likely will come across as totally arbitrary and make the player wonder why you are using rules at all if everything is mutable with no rhyme or reason?

3: Obviously point not taken otherwise you wouldnt have stated #2.

Quote from: Omega;10126001: You dont have to use the established stats. In fact alot of RPGs, including D&D at points either suggest to tweak things as needed, or they do it themselves. Just a glance at Keep on the Borderlands shows kobold guards with better AC than their fellows and it notes they are wearing armour. Though its not explained why the leaders battleaxe does 2d4 instead of 1d8. (Probably a typo). Later it spells out exactly why one of the orc leaders is so tough. Hes wearing chain, uses a +1 shield and is strong and skilled enough that he gets a +2 damage bonus. A goblin leader is described much the same later on. Wearing better armour and stronger and more skilled than average hence dealing more damage. and so on.

2: Yes there is a need otherwise you can and likely will come across as totally arbitrary and make the player wonder why you are using rules at all if everything is mutable with no rhyme or reason?

3: Obviously point not taken otherwise you wouldnt have stated #2.

"Point taken" implies I respect your point, not necessarily that I agree with it.

I think if you wanted to institute a house rule that Heroic characters including PCs get a +3 AC bump (ie use RAW) whereas mundane/Mook NPCs get a 3 pt AC penalty compared to RAW, most players would be ok with that. They could then play their PCs accordingly.

Quote from: Nexus;1012589If its about shortening his screen name why not call him rgrove? There aren't 171 other rgroves to mix him up with and it has the same number of letters as Grover, the same ones even and no need to capitalize. :D

It makes as much sense as this thread.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012555Still don't see the need to use those memorized stats. The GM should be able to make whatever changes he sees aporopriate, and those stats are now the Norm in his world. No need to explain anything any more than a DM explaining why a certain stat is what it is in a published rule. But hey. Point taken. All points taken. I won't try and defend it anymore.

You don't have to, actually.  But to my way of thinking, a GM has to give fair play to both his players and their characters and to his NPC characters.  There are many different ways to do that, I suppose, but in the absence of the GM explaining his idea up front, all the players will assume that this comes from following the rules consistently, following any deviation consistently, and explaining any deviation from the rules up front or at least providing a cue that all is not as it appears.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012555Still don't see the need to use those memorized stats. The GM should be able to make whatever changes he sees aporopriate, and those stats are now the Norm in his world. No need to explain anything any more than a DM explaining why a certain stat is what it is in a published rule. But hey. Point taken. All points taken. I won't try and defend it anymore.

I hope you realize what you're indirectly telling your players - and this is not opinion, this is FACT.  I'll let Rawma say it for me...

Quote from: rawma;1012570I have no objection at all to changing anything in the Monster Manual or whatever, but if you change it back and forth all the time the players have no basis for judging what's going on in any given encounter.

Bada boom bada BINGO.

You're training your players that what you say means NOTHING.  The thief sneaks up and sees 4 goblins wearing leather or 4 orcs wearing chainmail or 4 bugbears wearing plate - what difference does it make?  Nothing about those words means anything, because those meanings change on the fly as you want them to based on your desire to not have the image of what's happening match what's actually happening.  Why bother scouting?  There's no sense in realizing 4 bugbears in plate are a tough fight, so let's parley or go around or try to split them up, they may actually be not that tough.

You mentioned in another thread that you believe in having encounters in your world that aren't tailored to the players, that aren't meant to be overcome, or at least not yet.  That's cool, but that's a terrible idea if all the "possible to be overcome" encounters have no way of being discerned as one or the other.

Now I'm sure you're gonna say "I changed one number, what difference does it make?"  It's not that you changed a number.  It's that you changed the definition of the word "chainmail" within your setting for no setting reason at all, and furthermore told the player you do it all the time and see no need for any term the GM uses to be consistent or mean the same thing.

In other words, you did something that good GM's do all the time, vary things up a bit and designed an encounter to meet your goals.  You just did it wrong.

Where you failed was not first making sure you and your player were playing the same type of roleplaying game, and secondly not understanding that for any type of RPG GM, consistency is something you have to have, both in your rulings and in your setting.  Third, you are an Illusionist GM and you violated the first law of Illusionism: never tell them how the trick works.

And the thread continues to run in circles.

Since post 3 people have been telling him that he fucked up because he denied the need to give his players information to make decisions on, and since then Grover has continued to maintain "What I did is GOOD and RIGHT and CORRECT because REASONS!!!!!"

Lather, rinse, repeat ad flatularum.

Never made any such claim. But whatever.

* PFRAAAAAAFFTTT!! *

sorry...

Why do I get the feeling someone soon is going to post a Rickroll video?

Okay, late to the party (which seems to be winding down), but what the DM did in the opening post would seriously annoy me.  More importantly, it would completely undermine my ability to believe in their game world, and to make meaningful decisions as a character in that setting.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1012689You're training your players that what you say means NOTHING.  The thief sneaks up and sees 4 goblins wearing leather or 4 orcs wearing chainmail or 4 bugbears wearing plate - what difference does it make?  Nothing about those words means anything, because those meanings change on the fly as you want them to based on your desire to not have the image of what's happening match what's actually happening.  Why bother scouting?  There's no sense in realizing 4 bugbears in plate are a tough fight, so let's parley or go around or try to split them up, they may actually be not that tough.

Yeah, what they said.

Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1012752Okay, late to the party

Never late to a party, only too early. :)
I myself only posted on this first at page 30 and the OP commented since then so it's not a dead thread yet.

Quote from: joriandrake;1012753... it's not a dead thread yet.

Sadly...

@Tulpa - welcome to TheRPGsite!

Quote from: S'mon;1012754@Tulpa - welcome to TheRPGsite!

Thanks!

I just recently got back into gaming after a long hiatus, and I didn't do gaming message boards back in the day, so this is all kinda new to me (and I'll probably screw up along the way).

Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1012756Thanks!

I just recently got back into gaming after a long hiatus, and I didn't do gaming message boards back in the day, so this is all kinda new to me (and I'll probably screw up along the way).

The different RPG boards have different cultures - on TheRPGSite  there's a free speech policy (but no Politics except in the Pundit's Own Forum) & moderation here is mostly very light, so the measure of success is not getting into a 50 page flame war. :D Re RPGs, there's a lot of support for older games here and the post-2005 D&D Old School Renaissance is mostly well regarded, but it's not doctrinaire here like some of the D&D Grognard sites.

It seems I was the only one who assumed that people simply moved the "r" at the end, because it's easier to pronounce...

Anyway, Tulpa, welcome on the site!

Quote from: CRKrueger;1012689I hope you realize what you're indirectly telling your players - and this is not opinion, this is FACT.  I'll let Rawma say it for me...

Bada boom bada BINGO.

You're training your players that what you say means NOTHING.  The thief sneaks up and sees 4 goblins wearing leather or 4 orcs wearing chainmail or 4 bugbears wearing plate - what difference does it make?  Nothing about those words means anything, because those meanings change on the fly as you want them to based on your desire to not have the image of what's happening match what's actually happening.  Why bother scouting?  There's no sense in realizing 4 bugbears in plate are a tough fight, so let's parley or go around or try to split them up, they may actually be not that tough.

You mentioned in another thread that you believe in having encounters in your world that aren't tailored to the players, that aren't meant to be overcome, or at least not yet.  That's cool, but that's a terrible idea if all the "possible to be overcome" encounters have no way of being discerned as one or the other.

Now I'm sure you're gonna say "I changed one number, what difference does it make?"  It's not that you changed a number.  It's that you changed the definition of the word "chainmail" within your setting for no setting reason at all, and furthermore told the player you do it all the time and see no need for any term the GM uses to be consistent or mean the same thing.

In other words, you did something that good GM's do all the time, vary things up a bit and designed an encounter to meet your goals.  You just did it wrong.

Where you failed was not first making sure you and your player were playing the same type of roleplaying game, and secondly not understanding that for any type of RPG GM, consistency is something you have to have, both in your rulings and in your setting.  Third, you are an Illusionist GM and you violated the first law of Illusionism: never tell them how the trick works.

Ill try this again, probably against my own better judgement but here we go.

I have admitted that I got snarky with the player and handled his question wrong. I was bad, a terrible GM and should be flogged. There... nuff said on that.

However, statements like the one above are laughable and have no bearing on my situation at all. In no way would a minor adjustment of armor class and weapon damage make it hard to distinguish the difference between the examples listed above. I certainly wouldnt introduce an element into my game wherein its apparent threat level was vastly different from the actual one (Plate armor becomes leather or whatever), unless there was a clear setting-based reason for it. What you guys seem to keep glazing over, or perhaps just feel strongly against, is the possibility that a single in-game factor - like an orc, or a sword, or a suit of armor - may not, and indeed should not, be exactly the same in every case it is encountered. Ill grant you a on magical dagger shouldnt be changed to deliver Battle Axe damage without good reason but thats not what I did, not at all.

Now some of you have made it clear that you agree in this regard but just take issue with the way I defended a change from the Orc in a book or whatever. Kudos to you guys, I get it, your right! But comments like this one above show that some are somehow slave to the dang game as writtin and feel that deviating is somehow unfair to the players because it might present things as different than their preconceptions. Tough beans! I make it clear during session 0 in my game that we are using my own homegrown setting. Some things will be familiar, some are very much not so. (Like Orcs and Goblins and various other minions of evil suffering in sunlight, the inability of the races to interbreed, magic having a very nasty downside if attempted and failed etc.) I cant possibly mention every little difference from the rules we are using so I try to bring them up as we go along IF THEY ARE IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO BRING UP, and frankly, for something as menial as a change in a point or two of Armor Class, I shouldnt have to.

ITs not that my transgression has changed the effectiveness of chainmail across the face of my entire game world, only that in this case it wasnt as effective as you might expect.

So please, continue to bash me for being a mean, smart-assed, and tactless GM if you like, Ill take it like a man. This crap about somehow disillusioning my players by changing stats from what they may be used to is just bunk, pure bunk. Ill let the damn thread die anytime anyone is ready but I cant let it end on that ridiculous notion.

Oh, and if anyone seriously believes I seem to NOT understand something being said here... feel free to PM me and lets work it out. I am not opposed to anyone's opinion and welcome their input. I think I have responded honestly and civilly to even the harshest critics here and am always open to helpful criticism. No more about my less than commendable response to my player though, I totally get it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012774I have admitted that I got snarky with the player and handled his question wrong.

OK, that's a good attitude.

QuoteSo please, continue to bash me for being a mean, smart-assed, and tactless GM if you like, Ill take it like a man. This crap about somehow disillusioning my players by changing stats from what they may be used to is just bunk, pure bunk. Ill let the damn thread die anytime anyone is ready but I cant let it end on that ridiculous notion.

I think you still don't understand that the complaint is not making a change from the usual stats, but making change after change solely from your own fluctuating whims.

Changes might happen for game world reasons (the Wizard Hoozit is supplying his orc minions with better equipment and arcane enhancement, or the orc nation has a shortage of suitable metal for armor or armorers because a fire giant chief has seized up both metal and armorers for some ambitious project) and the players may only find that out by encountering the changed orcs, but it's maybe a red flag that you have a reputation for changes by whim alone if the players' first reaction is not to speculate on in-game reasons for it - and that in-character speculation is the sort of thing anyone should encourage, regardless of game style. Almost any change of this sort is going to result in some clue to incorporate into your descriptions, and the players won't keep up if such changes happen at too fast a pace.

If you just change the stats one time at the start of a campaign, it doesn't need any in-game justification but you should probably clue the players not to expect the usual, and perhaps give them a rough idea of some of the major changes in the form of rumors and stories their characters have heard.

Well, I suppose the test will be if and when you post your surprise about another player reacting the same way to the same sort of thing.

You might want to read this article http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/37571/roleplaying-games/gm-dont-list-1-morphing-reality GM Don't Morphing Reality
and also this: http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/29/same-description-same-rule/ Same Description Same Rule

This is what you did to the player in the OP.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012740Never made any such claim. But whatever.

Very true. You have never said "because reasons!" :D

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012774This crap about somehow disillusioning my players by changing stats from what they may be used to is just bunk, pure bunk. Ill let the damn thread die anytime anyone is ready but I cant let it end on that ridiculous notion.

How do you think your player felt when she rolled a very good success, you rolled a terrible failure...and she still didn't catch the person watching her because you didn't want to reveal that was her brother yet?  You didn't pull the curtain back on that one, so I don't know if you ever found that out.  Might it be somewhat disillusioned that the game didn't seem to be working the way she thought it did?

No one gives a shit about 2pt AC difference on an Orc.  If your description was "Reality A" and the fight was "Reality B", I'd just assumed you fucked up, whatever, if I even noticed it or cared.  But...I'd probably remember it if I saw something similar again.  Illusionism creates anomalies.  You know that old saw about "He who tells the truth never has to remember what he said?"  The Illusionist GM has to remember.

You keep attempting to misdirect criticism against you by claiming some form of extreme gamism/stat obsession.  That won't work because you're not on The Gaming Den, you're here.

You are the one who started this thread with your "Gee golly willickers guys, I had another player go crazy on me, I was totally in the right, wasn't I?" routine.  Again, you're getting the same answer, from damn near everyone, even people who butt heads here on just about everything else.  That should tell you something.

You want to alter stuff on the fly to fit your desired result, fine, BUT BE COMPETENT ABOUT IT AND STOP SUCKING.  Pretend your setting has some consistency.

You didn't fail because you didn't keep slavishly to a number.  Please stop embarrassing yourself with that dodge.
You didn't fail because you drew back the curtain - yes that was very stupid, but it was a symptom, not the disease.

You failed, and will keep failing if you do not understand the concept that you and your setting must have consistency.  That is your sin.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1012812How do you think your player felt when she rolled a very good success, you rolled a terrible failure...and she still didn't catch the person watching her because you didn't want to reveal that was her brother yet?  You didn't pull the curtain back on that one, so I don't know if you ever found that out.  Might it be somewhat disillusioned that the game didn't seem to be working the way she thought it did?

No one gives a shit about 2pt AC difference on an Orc.  If your description was "Reality A" and the fight was "Reality B", I'd just assumed you fucked up, whatever, if I even noticed it or cared.  But...I'd probably remember it if I saw something similar again.  Illusionism creates anomalies.  You know that old saw about "He who tells the truth never has to remember what he said?"  The Illusionist GM has to remember.

You keep attempting to misdirect criticism against you by claiming some form of extreme gamism/stat obsession.  That won't work because you're not on The Gaming Den, you're here.

You are the one who started this thread with your "Gee golly willickers guys, I had another player go crazy on me, I was totally in the right, wasn't I?" routine.  Again, you're getting the same answer, from damn near everyone, even people who butt heads here on just about everything else.  That should tell you something.

You want to alter stuff on the fly to fit your desired result, fine, BUT BE COMPETENT ABOUT IT AND STOP SUCKING.  Pretend your setting has some consistency.

You didn't fail because you didn't keep slavishly to a number.  Please stop embarrassing yourself with that dodge.
You didn't fail because you drew back the curtain - yes that was very stupid, but it was a symptom, not the disease.

You failed, and will keep failing if you do not understand the concept that you and your setting must have consistency.  That is your sin.

When an Orc has an AC of 6, it has an AC of 6. If the players meet another Orc with an AC of 6, it will have an AC of 6 again.  Perfectly consistent. If they meet instead a tougher Orc with an AC that is better, it will have a better AC. There is no such thing as a standard Orc, or a standard suit of mail or a 'normal' longsword, unless you abide by the Rulebook is the bible rule. If you want to interpret the AC of a creature as strictly the actual type of armor its wearing, and not another element... thats fine, there are then many, many different variations of any type of armor you care to bring up. If you instead want to attribute the variation to some other attribute, thats good too, there are all kinds of variations in nature. If you instead wish to stand and thrust your fist in the air and scream that every notion in a setting has to be identical to any other that is similar according to the rules otherwise the setting lacks consistensy... thats your prerogative too but dont expect me to get all teary eyed about it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012774In no way would a minor adjustment of armor class and weapon damage make it hard to distinguish the difference between the examples listed above. I certainly wouldnt introduce an element into my game wherein its apparent threat level was vastly different from the actual one (Plate armor becomes leather or whatever)...

Plate is AC 16 and Leather is AC 12. That's a 4 point difference. In your original example you adjusted AC 14 to AC 11. That is a 3 point difference. Your change was 75% of the way to something even you agree is obvious.

So the hill you want to die on says that a 4 point difference is obviously too much, but a 3 point difference is always fine? Really?

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012818When an Orc has an AC of 6, it has an AC of 6. If the players meet another Orc with an AC of 6, it will have an AC of 6 again.  Perfectly consistent. If they meet instead a tougher Orc with an AC that is better, it will have a better AC. There is no such thing as a standard Orc, or a standard suit of mail or a 'normal' longsword, unless you abide by the Rulebook is the bible rule. If you want to interpret the AC of a creature as strictly the actual type of armor its wearing, and not another element... thats fine, there are then many, many different variations of any type of armor you care to bring up. If you instead want to attribute the variation to some other attribute, thats good too, there are all kinds of variations in nature. If you instead wish to stand and thrust your fist in the air and scream that every notion in a setting has to be identical to any other that is similar according to the rules otherwise the setting lacks consistensy... thats your prerogative too but dont expect me to get all teary eyed about it.

How many players were upset by this incident, serious question.

BRAAAAAFFFTT!

SPLAAAAAAAAAAAACKT!!!!!

FABARRRRT!!

PROOOOOOOOOOOPPTLTLTLTLT!!!!

...sorry

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012818There is no such thing as a standard Orc, or a standard suit of mail or a 'normal' longsword, unless you abide by the Rulebook is the bible rule.

Horseshit, dogshit, cowshit, pigshit, and above all, chicken shit.  I've been studying armor and weapons seriously for forty five years.  Mail shirts are more similar than they are different simply because things that don't work don't get used.  A saddle is a saddle, a sword is a sword, a horse is a horse.

Your continued insistence on "Schroedinger's world" only makes you look like, in the words of Sacharrisa Crisplock, a "complete muffin."

Quote from: Bren;1012819Plate is AC 16 and Leather is AC 12. That's a 4 point difference. In your original example you adjusted AC 14 to AC 11. That is a 3 point difference. Your change was 75% of the way to something even you agree is obvious.

So the hill you want to die on says that a 4 point difference is obviously too much, but a 3 point difference is always fine? Really?

Shit if I remember what the damn AC was exactly, I was expressing an example. So yeah, Really!

Quote from: Nexus;1012820How many players were upset by this incident, serious question.

One, new guy with a history of college boy D&D where every rule is law, a character is an abstract combination of min-maxed details and the GM is there only to run the bad guys for the player's combat enjoyment. He's gone now, voted out by the players, not me.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012824Horseshit, dogshit, cowshit, pigshit, and above all, chicken shit.  I've been studying armor and weapons seriously for forty five years.  Mail shirts are more similar than they are different simply because things that don't work don't get used.  A saddle is a saddle, a sword is a sword, a horse is a horse.

Your continued insistence on "Schroedinger's world" only makes you look like, in the words of Sacharrisa Crisplock, a "complete muffin."

And yours makes you look like a simpleton, despite all your high brow claims. You seriously want to take a look around at any number of supposedly similar suits of armor and claim they all have the exact same arbitrary value of protection? Really? I mean, Really. If you assigned three in a row a value of 3 and I gave the first one a 2.8, the middle one 3.1 and the last one 3.34... who would be right? Nobody.. cuz its a fucking ARBITRARY and incredibly abstract principle. Only some of the morons on this site dont seem to get it. Because Jesus Gygax Christ proclaimed it a fucking AC 11 or whatever thats gotta be right unless its magical or well made or whatever the fuck. Please... give me a break.

Now look what you did, I lost my shit and vented all over my screen......

Crom's hairy nutsack.  You are so far from "getting it" that the light from "getting it" will not reach you until a quadrillion eternities after the heat death of the universe.

I pity you; it must take a lot of time and energy to distort your perceptions of the world so thoroughly.

When everyone disagrees with you you might be Galileo.  However, smart money bets on you being Harold Camping.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012828One, new guy with a history of college boy D&D where every rule is law, a character is an abstract combination of min-maxed details and the GM is there only to run the bad guys for the player's combat enjoyment. He's gone now, voted out by the players, not me.

Then why give a fuck? He didn't mesh with how you run your games, the other players apparently do and enjoy it enough to keep coming and he's gone on hopefully to find a game he will enjoy more. It happens. A player not enjoying your style isn't a failure, its an illustration of how you can't please everyone.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012827Shit if I remember what the damn AC was exactly, I was expressing an example. So yeah, Really!

You came up with the example of a -3 AC adjustment. When people in this thread objected to the ad hoc, unexplained change, with no in-game rationale as something likely to confuse players you said it was only a "minor adjustment of armor class" (your words). That such an adjustment was something hard to distinguish, something no one would even notice. Now, 30+ pages later, you try to claim with a straight face that a -4  AC adjustment is vastly different than a -3 AC adjustment and you certainly wouldn't introduce such an element in play. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Bren;1012834You came up with the example of a -3 AC adjustment. When people in this thread objected to the ad hoc, unexplained change, with no in-game rationale as something likely to confuse players you said it was only a "minor adjustment of armor class" (your words). That such an adjustment was something hard to distinguish, something no one would even notice. Now, 30+ pages later, you try to claim with a straight face that a -4  AC adjustment is vastly different than a -3 AC adjustment and you certainly wouldn't introduce such an element in play. :rolleyes:

"Camping.  HAROLD Camping."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012839"Camping.  HAROLD Camping."

I wonder, did he ever pick the world ending on December 15, 2013? Because then he would at least have been subjectively correct.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012818When an Orc has an AC of 6, it has an AC of 6. If the players meet another Orc with an AC of 6, it will have an AC of 6 again.  Perfectly consistent. If they meet instead a tougher Orc with an AC that is better, it will have a better AC. There is no such thing as a standard Orc, or a standard suit of mail or a 'normal' longsword, unless you abide by the Rulebook is the bible rule.

If you want to interpret the AC of a creature as strictly the actual type of armor its wearing, and not another element... thats fine, there are then many, many different variations of any type of armor you care to bring up. If you instead want to attribute the variation to some other attribute, thats good too, there are all kinds of variations in nature. If you instead wish to stand and thrust your fist in the air and scream that every notion in a setting has to be identical to any other that is similar according to the rules otherwise the setting lacks consistensy... thats your prerogative too but dont expect me to get all teary eyed about it.

1: Except thats not at all what you told the player. You told them that a suit of chainmail could change its stats possibly radically simply because you wanted the fight to be harder or easier but for some unfathomable reason dont want to actually describe the difference or have a reason why chain A and chain B are functioning so differently.

2: uh... Just about no one has said that you must adhere to the rules slavishly. In fact I and many others have again and again and again pointed out that tweaking things is pretty much the norm. AGAIN. The difference is that we give reason for these tweaks. The Orc in Chain is worse AC than it should have not "Because!" but rather has some explanation. Its poorly made chain, its a clumsy orc, its cursed chain or even "Its not chain at all. Its some sort of string netting shirt painted silver???" etc.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012818When an Orc has an AC of 6, it has an AC of 6. If the players meet another Orc with an AC of 6, it will have an AC of 6 again.  Perfectly consistent. If they meet instead a tougher Orc with an AC that is better, it will have a better AC. There is no such thing as a standard Orc, or a standard suit of mail or a 'normal' longsword, unless you abide by the Rulebook is the bible rule. If you want to interpret the AC of a creature as strictly the actual type of armor its wearing, and not another element... thats fine, there are then many, many different variations of any type of armor you care to bring up. If you instead want to attribute the variation to some other attribute, thats good too, there are all kinds of variations in nature. If you instead wish to stand and thrust your fist in the air and scream that every notion in a setting has to be identical to any other that is similar according to the rules otherwise the setting lacks consistensy... thats your prerogative too but dont expect me to get all teary eyed about it.

The fucking consistentcy we want has FUCK ALL to do with having an AC6 orc being AC6.  We don't give a shit what AC the orc is.
We want chainmail to be chainmail, a sword to be a sword. Especially we want a sword to be the same SAME fucking sword no matter who is holding it.

"To use an example from M&M, the players encounter one machine gun that uses a normal attack roll, and then later they encounter another machine gun that uses an Area attack instead (automatic hit, Reflex save to reduce damage). Conceptually the two machine guns are identical -- one is bigger but otherwise the same.

A player sees the second machine gun before it fires and says "a ha, I will dodge to increase my Defense, which will make me harder to hit!" Logical but completely incorrect, because that player doesn't know that the second machine gun uses a rule mechanic that has nothing to do with Defense."

"There's a simple fix for this:

The same description should never be modeled with two different rules. If you want to use a different rule, there should be a different description.
"

Regarding armors, two of the most underrated armor types in RPGs are the gambeson and hauberk (especially gambeson) which are fine on their own but can also be part of half/full plate mails.


As for this thread? I think it lost any chance of redemption about the time Gronan started his pink warcry.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012839"Camping.  HAROLD Camping."

He was my grandfather, so what?

Quote from: joriandrake;1012890Regarding armors, two of the most underrated armor types in RPGs are the gambeson and hauberk (especially gambeson) which are fine on their own but can also be part of half/full plate mails.


As for this thread? I think it lost any chance of redemption about the time Gronan started his pink warcry.

Your right, and that's fine. In between all the wailing and gnashing of teeth I got the information I sought. I couldn't fathom this player's ire but now I do, and learned some valuable info that will serve me in the future. The rest is just guys screaming at each other over their keybiards. Harmless fun.

Quote from: Omega;10128691: Except thats not at all what you told the player. You told them that a suit of chainmail could change its stats possibly radically simply because you wanted the fight to be harder or easier but for some unfathomable reason dont want to actually describe the difference or have a reason why chain A and chain B are functioning so differently.

2: uh... Just about no one has said that you must adhere to the rules slavishly. In fact I and many others have again and again and again pointed out that tweaking things is pretty much the norm. AGAIN. The difference is that we give reason for these tweaks. The Orc in Chain is worse AC than it should have not "Because!" but rather has some explanation. Its poorly made chain, its a clumsy orc, its cursed chain or even "Its not chain at all. Its some sort of string netting shirt painted silver???" etc.

EXACTLY.

That's because this slavish adherence to the number is a strawman Grove is using because he knows the real problem is what you said, that he told the Player his setting changes on the fly according to his whims and his setting has no consistency.

Grove, someone linked an essay to try and help you, I don't know if you read it, but here's the key as it relates to this topic:

Quote from: Justin AlexanderI think it can be argued that maintaining the integrity of the game world is, in fact, the GM's most fundamental task. Everything else flows from that singular, unifying vision. And without that integrity, meaningful choice, (the defining characteristic of the roleplaying game) becomes impossible.

Yes, what you did was minor, but if you're going to adjust a small thing "just because", at what point does it stop?  Deadly trap becomes non-deadly?  Encounter with a Giant becomes encounter with an Ogre?  The player should trust that you'll only change the most minor stuff and all the other challenges are real?

The setting has to have integrity, because, to reiterate from above, without that integrity, meaningful choice becomes impossible.

So, here's what you should learn from this, if nothing else:

If you're going to put your thumb on the scale next time, and decide that this Ogre has a weak AC "just because you want it to", make the Ogre a tad lame, or something, anything the player's can see or somehow find out so it makes sense.  You know, what people have been telling you for 38 pages.

Where have I seen this pattern of responses before?

Grove you seem to be in denial that there is some strong baseline structure in RPG's. This is precisely why I accuse you of not GMing but engaging in Storytime. I mean, sure you're rolling dice, and using numbers, but you're boldface admitting they have no relevance, and you double-down on it by arguing that they don't for purely arbitrary reasons.

You completely GLOSS OVER good solid solutions as to why your orcs might have fluctuating AC.- Stat increases/decreases are powerful levers for this an Orc can be wearing Chainmail but have increased/lower Dex. For example. They're old, or wounded, could cause a lower-dex (and other potential stat shifts). The chainmail can be made of some special alloy which increases it's AC value, your PC's discover after a hard fight? (which springs forth a whole lot of possible other questions and potential adventures: where is it coming from? who makes it? etc.) This is basic stuff.

Instead you want to defend your position as if consistency of rules don't matter. Of course they matter. Just like if you asked me to play chess with you and you tell me your pawns are all rooks after the fact.

It's a game. Games have rules - that's the essence of cooperative game-playing. Storytime doesn't.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1012887"To use an example from M&M, the players encounter one machine gun that uses a normal attack roll, and then later they encounter another machine gun that uses an Area attack instead (automatic hit, Reflex save to reduce damage). Conceptually the two machine guns are identical -- one is bigger but otherwise the same.

A player sees the second machine gun before it fires and says "a ha, I will dodge to increase my Defense, which will make me harder to hit!" Logical but completely incorrect, because that player doesn't know that the second machine gun uses a rule mechanic that has nothing to do with Defense."

"There's a simple fix for this:

The same description should never be modeled with two different rules. If you want to use a different rule, there should be a different description.
"

Um... Id think that "You see a machinegun up ahead somewhat like the last one you dealt with, only this one is bigger." would clue the players that maybe they should be cautious until they know what it does.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1012912EXACTLY.

That's because this slavish adherence to the number is a strawman Grove is using because he knows the real problem is what you said, that he told the Player his setting changes on the fly according to his whims and his setting has no consistency.

I disagree here on a point. Far as we've seen so far Grove's settings have consistency. In fact that is one of the problems. They seem to have too much consistency. A specific, or semi-specific, plot that will play out.

It is parts of the rules that do not have consistency because those may be altered or thrown out for dramatic effect.

And lets be honest here. Most of us do this too. The difference is we give a mechanical or descriptive reason WHY. Which is the step Grove apparently thinks isnt needed. Which to me is weird because its something Id expect to be part of Groves particular style.

Quote from: Omega;1012923Um... Id think that "You see a machinegun up ahead somewhat like the last one you dealt with, only this one is bigger." would clue the players that maybe they should be cautious until they know what it does.

I think dodging  machine gun fire is so silly that my suspension of disbelief would go out the window, screaming with laughter. .
But I've been shot at and shot.
Which may be why there are no firearms in my core rules.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1012926I think dodging  machine gun fire is so silly that my suspension of disbelief would go out the window, screaming with laughter. .
But I've been shot at and shot.
Which may be why there are no firearms in my core rules.

Why? You can see the thing turning your way. The idea is to get out of the line of fire somehow.

Also, the machine gun example is from Mutants and Masterminds, a supers game. If anyone thinks Superman shouldn't be dodging bullets, they need to read more comics.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1012926I think dodging  machine gun fire is so silly...

:D

[video=youtube;c9z8xbpa1OY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9z8xbpa1OY[/youtube]

[video=youtube;2qY0DA7DG9s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qY0DA7DG9s[/youtube]

[video=youtube;9tkMYoOLAhk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkMYoOLAhk[/youtube]


Throw out your idea of realism and sue Mythbusters because it can happen, especially when the target is nimble and the shooter aims like a stormtrooper. It's also more likely to dodge the closer you stand, as the case of Mythbusters show you kinda need distance to have the advantage of using ranged weapons.

bonus video:

The two guys here are russian soldiers, I assume GRU
[video=youtube;HQTeeNX7VME]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQTeeNX7VME[/youtube]
(edit: altho this is more disarming than dodging)

Recently the Rohingya were also reported to scramble for safety after dodging mortar and gunfire as they fled, of course there were a lot of casualties but your chances are better if the shooter doesn't know where you are, where you will come into range / direction from. The mythbuster case isn't a natural situation because the target was already standing right ahead instead of something like between ruined buildings and with a chance to jump dive behind a wreck.

In any case, sci-fi or fantasy gaming is not realism, you can have inhuman reaction time, magic, or force fields. I don't see a reason to fully remove firearms, considering that most systems don't even make them as deadly as they are in reality.

PS: yes the first video was meant as a joke

The quote about the machine guns in M&M is from one of the blog articles I suggested Rgrove read to see where he was going wrong.

Quote from: Omega;1012869Just about no one has said that you must adhere to the rules slavishly. In fact I and many others have again and again and again pointed out that tweaking things is pretty much the norm. AGAIN. The difference is that we give reason for these tweaks. The Orc in Chain is worse AC than it should have not "Because!" but rather has some explanation. Its poorly made chain, its a clumsy orc, its cursed chain or even "Its not chain at all. Its some sort of string netting shirt painted silver???" etc.

I felt that your point could use some more bold and bigger letters;).
As pretty much except Nexus said, even "those NPCs have a free, NPC-only feat, called SucksAtFighting that reduces their AC by however much the GM wants" would have been better. Because at least it's an attempt at a joke, and it at least hints at an in-universe explanation:).

(BTW, rgrove, I agree. Fighting skill definitely impacts how often you get hit, and D&D doesn't reflect that, as a general rule. Your change merely addressed that, which is normally something I'd congratulate you about:D!
Your failure, and failure it was, was in implying it was due to GM fiat, and not an in-universe reason. A Referee has got to communicate with the players).

Now that I mention that, I remembered another game (apart from Dungeon World) that would be pretty much perfect for your style. I should have mentioned it earlier;).
Amusingly enough, I also like it, because it works. (The difference is that to me, the way it works is a roundabout justification of setting reality. To you, it would be how you do stuff anyway. But I digress).
The game is called Feng Shui 2, and no, I'm not joking. (It's basically a hidden "universal game engine", too, since if you restrict what junctures you visit, you can do pretty much all genres). But basically, everything the GM does, after deciding how tough a particular opponent is, is giving him numbers, and maybe a single "special ability". You want an enemy to be tougher? Give him better numbers.
Armour and weapons basically don't matter much. (Admittedly, it has no rules for armour, but if it had, they would be something like "+1 Toughness when having a light armour, +2 for mail and other non-rigid armour, +3 for rigid armour. A very good armour might also grant a Special Ability to ignore the wounds from one attack, then the armour is damaged, and needs to be repaired to use the ability again).
And yet, it works like a charm.

Come to think of it, it's rather similar to Wushu:D!

Quote from: Omega;1012925I disagree here on a point. Far as we've seen so far Grove's settings have consistency. In fact that is one of the problems. They seem to have too much consistency. A specific, or semi-specific, plot that will play out.

It is parts of the rules that do not have consistency because those may be altered or thrown out for dramatic effect.

And lets be honest here. Most of us do this too. The difference is we give a mechanical or descriptive reason WHY. Which is the step Grove apparently thinks isnt needed. Which to me is weird because its something Id expect to be part of Groves particular style.

Its is, when such a thing occurs.. which is not all the time. I mean a rational explanation for something, of course. But when confronted on it by some ass hat player I would have thought the notion of modifying the rules to better present a suitable challenge reason enough. I totally misinterpreted what I thought i would receive the tough, take no prisoners, "Its my fucking game", GMs here. But again, I learned something.

Ive played literally thousands of hours as GM and actually sticking my big GM Dong in the rules to 'get my story' is fairly rare. Yes, Im heavy on descriptive narrative. Yes, I push certain plot angles and Yes, I bend the rules now and then in the interest of what I believe to be a better, more fun, experience for my players and I. I do not crouch behind my GM screen and tell a story and pretend to be playing an RPG, despite what seems to be the common belief here.

It IS your game, it's also the game of every player, but you as GM can paint the world in whatever colors and patterns you want, and thus you only have to be careful of which paintbrush you use. Better reasoning for causes is all it takes. You may not even have realized the issue yourself as a longterm GM. :)

Remember Bob Ross: "We don't make mistakes, just happy little accidents" & "This is your world. You're the creator. Find freedom on this canvas."

Just make sure the world you paint creates happy little players while also making you happy.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012955. I do not crouch behind my GM screen and tell a story and pretend to be playing an RPG, despite what seems to be the common belief here.

We have only what you tell us to judge by. You tell us of NPCs fumbling their evasion rolls while PCs achieve critical success, but escaping anyway because you are not ready for the "big reveal" of capture to screw up your plot. You tell us that "Doesnt matter how I describe it."

Then you come to us telling tales of woe that another game session didn't work out and what do we think?

Well, tell you up front and honestly what we think based on what you tell us. The same as do for every other poster.

Quote from: Brand55;1012942Also, the machine gun example is from Mutants and Masterminds, a supers game. If anyone thinks Superman shouldn't be dodging bullets, they need to read more comics.

Superman doesn't dodge bullets. Bullets bounce off his chest. The gun though... (https://i.imgur.com/TJLEEJd.gif)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012830And yours makes you look like a simpleton, despite all your high brow claims. You seriously want to take a look around at any number of supposedly similar suits of armor and claim they all have the exact same arbitrary value of protection? Really? I mean, Really.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9DPzhNGA8MKjxwFG/giphy.gif)


"High brow"! Perfect!  

Yup, it's totally "high brow" to play a game by its rules. Oh my...


I really enjoy these threads. I'd never ever want to game with rgrove, but these threads do generate some interesting discussions and informative replies from other people.

Interesting, my reaction is the opposite, I would like to play a game under Grove especially because nothing in the threads is the same as experiencing events personally during a campaign.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012830You seriously want to take a look around at any number of supposedly similar suits of armor and claim they all have the exact same arbitrary value of protection? Really? I mean, Really. If you assigned three in a row a value of 3 and I gave the first one a 2.8, the middle one 3.1 and the last one 3.34...

Both would be effectively a 3. Doesn't fucking matter if that 3 is 2.8 or 3.4. The scale is 9 or 10 whole number (integer) steps to cover all the different types of armour and divide them into "classes" of protection. So, yes, I will look at a number of similar suits of armour and assign them all the same arbitray value of protection. It is a very coarse grained scale.

If no protective gear is AC10 and the heaviest available protective gear is AC20 and only whole number steps are available, there is going to be a lot of lumping. You have ten steps to assignall possible combinations of protective gear to.  Want 2.8, 3.1, and 3.4 to matter? Play a different game. One in which the steps between armour classes are smaller.

There is no difference between AC2.5  and AC3.4 in D&D type games, they, and everything in between them are all AC3.  That is just the way the game mechanics work. there is no mechanism for fractional AC increments.

Quote from: joriandrake;1012949:D

[video=youtube;c9z8xbpa1OY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9z8xbpa1OY[/youtube]

[video=youtube;2qY0DA7DG9s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qY0DA7DG9s[/youtube]

[video=youtube;9tkMYoOLAhk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkMYoOLAhk[/youtube]


Throw out your idea of realism and sue Mythbusters because it can happen, especially when the target is nimble and the shooter aims like a stormtrooper. It's also more likely to dodge the closer you stand, as the case of Mythbusters show you kinda need distance to have the advantage of using ranged weapons.

bonus video:

The two guys here are russian soldiers, I assume GRU
[video=youtube;HQTeeNX7VME]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQTeeNX7VME[/youtube]
(edit: altho this is more disarming than dodging)

Recently the Rohingya were also reported to scramble for safety after dodging mortar and gunfire as they fled, of course there were a lot of casualties but your chances are better if the shooter doesn't know where you are, where you will come into range / direction from. The mythbuster case isn't a natural situation because the target was already standing right ahead instead of something like between ruined buildings and with a chance to jump dive behind a wreck.

In any case, sci-fi or fantasy gaming is not realism, you can have inhuman reaction time, magic, or force fields. I don't see a reason to fully remove firearms, considering that most systems don't even make them as deadly as they are in reality.

PS: yes the first video was meant as a joke

Barring the character having superhuman powers I envision 'dodging' bullets more of dodging the shooter's aim rather than literally sidestepped the projectile.

Quote from: Nexus;1013009Barring the character having superhuman powers I envision 'dodging' bullets more of dodging the shooter's aim rather than literally sidestepped the projectile.

It's the same basically, just as dodging arrows is also more or less dodging the archer's aim (although due to slower ammo it has a higher chance)

Quote from: joriandrake;1013012It's the same basically, just as dodging arrows is also more or less dodging the archer's aim (although due to slower ammo it has a higher chance)

Sure, but some people think the idea of dodging a bullet is impossible as they picture it like shooter fires and target pulls a Neo move and evades that bullet. Maybe it would be better in in games with Defensive rolls for characters to roll before firearms attacks so it would be seen more as creating Target number than stepping out of the way of a bullet...

Quote from: Nexus;1013016Maybe it would be better in in games with Defensive rolls for characters to roll before firearms attacks so it would be seen more as creating Target number than stepping out of the way of a bullet...

But that would require more die rolls than only rolling a defensive roll if the character is targeted (or if the character is hit without a defense). Some games trade off better simulation for less die rolling in the name of ease and speed of play.

Quote from: Nexus;1012832Then why give a fuck? He didn't mesh with how you run your games, the other players apparently do and enjoy it enough to keep coming and he's gone on hopefully to find a game he will enjoy more. It happens. A player not enjoying your style isn't a failure, its an illustration of how you can't please everyone.

^^^^
This! This is the primary point of value from this whole thing! If you and the people you care about playing at your side are having fun, then literally nothing else matters. Gronan back when he was feeling charitable suggested Dungeon World and I think that's pretty good advice as a potential system which might better conform to your apparent playstyle*, but even that is irrelevant if you all are having fun.
*yes I did see later on how you said this was a small part of your playstyle

The only thing we can do is bring up why said players who have had a problem with the status quo might have had a problem, and what you might want to do in the future to address this potential problem... if it is ever needed.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012818When an Orc has an AC of 6, it has an AC of 6. If the players meet another Orc with an AC of 6, it will have an AC of 6 again.  Perfectly consistent. If they meet instead a tougher Orc with an AC that is better, it will have a better AC. There is no such thing as a standard Orc, or a standard suit of mail or a 'normal' longsword, unless you abide by the Rulebook is the bible rule. If you want to interpret the AC of a creature as strictly the actual type of armor its wearing, and not another element... thats fine, there are then many, many different variations of any type of armor you care to bring up. If you instead want to attribute the variation to some other attribute, thats good too, there are all kinds of variations in nature. If you instead wish to stand and thrust your fist in the air and scream that every notion in a setting has to be identical to any other that is similar according to the rules otherwise the setting lacks consistensy... thats your prerogative too but dont expect me to get all teary eyed about it.

I really wish I had the words that could explain to you how this makes you look like you would rather fight valiantly (and with flowery language about fist in the air, etc.) against the arguments you wish people were making against you, instead of the ones they actually are. No one but you thinks that this is the argument people are making.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012774So please, continue to bash me for being a mean, smart-assed, and tactless GM if you like, Ill take it like a man. This crap about somehow disillusioning my players by changing stats from what they may be used to is just bunk, pure bunk. Ill let the damn thread die anytime anyone is ready but I cant let it end on that ridiculous notion.

And yet it is your mischaracterization of their arguments that is keeping others from letting the thread die. So it seems like plenty of people are at a stalemate.

Quote from: joriandrake;1012990Interesting, my reaction is the opposite, I would like to play a game under Grove especially because nothing in the threads is the same as experiencing events personally during a campaign.

I've said it before-- for all the online jabbering about various broad principles or various foci or the huge gulf supposedly between this edition and that, or this game and that, or this playstyle and that... most people in real life just want to play an elfgame where they get to adventure and maybe it matters why our characters are exploring this valley/tomb/haunted mansion, but maybe not, and pass the chips, and did anyone search for traps on that door up ahead? The differences are mostly an artifact of being online and talking about gaming, rather than doing actual gaming.

Which is not to say that people don't have real strong opinions about autonomy or character decision or whether this or that is better managed through roleplay or dice rolls or how many decision points should happen before combat vs. during combat, etc. etc. etc.-- it's just that these can normally get hammered out within gaming groups without trouble (with at most the occasional person leaving because the game just doesn't suit them).

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012955Its is, when such a thing occurs.. which is not all the time. I mean a rational explanation for something, of course. But when confronted on it by some ass hat player I would have thought the notion of modifying the rules to better present a suitable challenge reason enough. I totally misinterpreted what I thought i would receive the tough, take no prisoners, "Its my fucking game", GMs here. But again, I learned something.

Ive played literally thousands of hours as GM and actually sticking my big GM Dong in the rules to 'get my story' is fairly rare. Yes, Im heavy on descriptive narrative. Yes, I push certain plot angles and Yes, I bend the rules now and then in the interest of what I believe to be a better, more fun, experience for my players and I. I do not crouch behind my GM screen and tell a story and pretend to be playing an RPG, despite what seems to be the common belief here.

When you are "push certain plot angles" and "bend the rules now and again in the be interest of what you believe to be a better, more fun, experience" is pretty close to "crouch behind my GM screen and tell a story and pretend to be playing an RPG".

'If one knows not what is a 'GM dong', one should understand what is DONG is before one speaks or one may find ones dong in ones own mouth.'

D.O.N.G. bylaw

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013054Gronan back when he was feeling charitable suggested Dungeon World and I think that's pretty good advice as a potential system which might better conform to your apparent playstyle*

Dungeon World allows the creation of story/setting elements by players. As a mutual story-creation game it's not suitable for Grove's style, which appears to be Illusionist Storytelling with pre-written sequences of events.

I'm not sure Grove realises that Illusionist Storytelling is a very unpopular style with most posters here. If we toughass GMs are tyrant-kings at our tables, it is in order to give players a genuine challenge, which means genuine choice and genuine consequences for their actions. So we tend to like the game systems which facilitate that style - and most of those systems give fixed stats for stuff, to better enable players to understand and manipulate the in-game environment. 4e D&D is an exception, the reason I've suggested it.

(There are lots of other places though where Illusionist Storytelling is the paradigmatic style - the Gnome Stew/Newbie GM/Angry DM nexus is one such nest I'm aware of, though it may be dormant now. Their campaigns never seemed much fun to me - lots of comments about exhausted GMs and failed games - but YMMV).

Quote from: tenbones;1013071When you are "push certain plot angles" and "bend the rules now and again in the be interest of what you believe to be a better, more fun, experience" is pretty close to "crouch behind my GM screen and tell a story and pretend to be playing an RPG".

'If one knows not what is a 'GM dong', one should understand what is DONG is before one speaks or one may find ones dong in ones own mouth.'

D.O.N.G. bylaw

Or perhaps it is because he knows his players far better then random poster 113?
I made this living breathing world that strangely enough happens to be things that some of the players like to dig into and root around in.  Mere coincidence?
How dare I as a person make something that several other people would want to spend time doing.  WTF do I think I'm doing?

Quote from: S'mon;1013127Dungeon World allows the creation of story/setting elements by players. As a mutual story-creation game it's not suitable for Grove's style, which appears to be Illusionist Storytelling with pre-written sequences of events.

I'm not sure Grove realises that Illusionist Storytelling is a very unpopular style with most posters here. If we toughass GMs are tyrant-kings at our tables, it is in order to give players a genuine challenge, which means genuine choice and genuine consequences for their actions. So we tend to like the game systems which facilitate that style - and most of those systems give fixed stats for stuff, to better enable players to understand and manipulate the in-game environment. 4e D&D is an exception, the reason I've suggested it.

(There are lots of other places though where Illusionist Storytelling is the paradigmatic style - the Gnome Stew/Newbie GM/Angry DM nexus is one such nest I'm aware of, though it may be dormant now. Their campaigns never seemed much fun to me - lots of comments about exhausted GMs and failed games - but YMMV).

Bless your heart.

rgrove0172, I have to ask why do you start these threads? The preferred gaming style seems to be almost the polar opposite of yours, the site isn't exactly welcome to different preferences (at least many of the vocal posters aren't) and you don't seem to be having allot of issues with youe games.

These threads are entirely predictable. They're not even interesting discussions of different play styles and how to handle things, just exchanges of insults and snark, Why bother? You just end up being the subject of derision and pointless arguing.  I understand feeling puzzled or curious about how others play. I don't get the appeal of much of what is discussed here but generally its better to just lurk.

As a recent arrival for me all this is fascinating, although if this is repetition for others I can see why it would get boring.

The clinical term is "Help Rejecting Complainer".  It is a pattern.

Quote from: joriandrake;1013146As a recent arrival for me all this is fascinating, although if this is repetition for others I can see why it would get boring.

That's pretty much where I'm at.  This thread has a certain train-wreck quality that I can't turn away from.

Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1013150That's pretty much where I'm at.  This thread has a certain train-wreck quality that I can't turn away from.

May I ask you where your Avatar is from; its look so familiar but I can't place it.

It's from the trailer for Deadpool 2.

Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1013155It's from the trailer for Deadpool 2.

Thank you, :)

 I don't think I've that trailer yet but it looks so dang familiar...

Quote from: Nexus;1013156Thank you, :)

 I don't think I've that trailer yet but it looks so dang familiar...

The character was in the first Deadpool too.

Yeah, Negasonic Teenage Warhead had more of a military buzzcut in the first movie.

But we're getting off-topic, and should try to get back to the business of how rgrove0172 is bad, and why he should feel bad... ;-)

Quote from: S'mon;1013127Dungeon World allows the creation of story/setting elements by players. As a mutual story-creation game it's not suitable for Grove's style, which appears to be Illusionist Storytelling with pre-written sequences of events.

I'm not sure Grove realises that Illusionist Storytelling is a very unpopular style with most posters here. If we toughass GMs are tyrant-kings at our tables, it is in order to give players a genuine challenge, which means genuine choice and genuine consequences for their actions. So we tend to like the game systems which facilitate that style - and most of those systems give fixed stats for stuff, to better enable players to understand and manipulate the in-game environment. 4e D&D is an exception, the reason I've suggested it.

(There are lots of other places though where Illusionist Storytelling is the paradigmatic style - the Gnome Stew/Newbie GM/Angry DM nexus is one such nest I'm aware of, though it may be dormant now. Their campaigns never seemed much fun to me - lots of comments about exhausted GMs and failed games - but YMMV).

I appreciate your support but your off base. "Illusionist storytelling with pre-written sequences" is not my thing at all. I may dabble a bit in each of those from time to time but the vast majority of my games are as freeform and sandbox as any other. I do however place setting above published rules and often deviate from the "Standard".

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013166I do however place setting above published rules and often deviate from the "Standard".

Has anyone at all in either thread said they never (or even hardly ever) deviate from what is written in a monster manual, list of creatures, or bestiary?

What you do that is different than what many of us, probably most of us, do is that after you have decided to make a variation you don't seem to feel any need to connect the variation to anything actually present (and thus potentially discover-able) in the setting like the type and quality of arms and armor used by the creature; the stats, skill, or level of the creature; and the personality, morale, and motivations of the creature. Nor do you seem to feel any need to maintain the consistency of those variations on a go forward basis.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012955Its is, when such a thing occurs.. which is not all the time. I mean a rational explanation for something, of course. But when confronted on it by some ass hat player I would have thought the notion of modifying the rules to better present a suitable challenge reason enough.

I totally misinterpreted what I thought i would receive the tough, take no prisoners, "Its my fucking game", GMs here. But again, I learned something.

Ive played literally thousands of hours as GM and actually sticking my big GM Dong in the rules to 'get my story' is fairly rare. Yes, Im heavy on descriptive narrative. Yes, I push certain plot angles and Yes, I bend the rules now and then in the interest of what I believe to be a better, more fun, experience for my players and I. I do not crouch behind my GM screen and tell a story and pretend to be playing an RPG, despite what seems to be the common belief here.

1: Its not reason enough. Its allmost never reason enough. Yes there are some players more interested in the story more than the mechanics backing it. And there are even some who DEMAND this. Some dont even want to roll dice. But the great majority of RPG players need something more than "for drama".

2: This is probably one of the few of your threads where the majority are honestly trying to be helpful rather than the usual knee-jerk reactions.

3: Thank you for clarifying that. Alot of your posts have painted a somewhat different picture. Especially your early threads.

Quote from: joriandrake;1013146As a recent arrival for me all this is fascinating, although if this is repetition for others I can see why it would get boring.

Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1013150That's pretty much where I'm at.  This thread has a certain train-wreck quality that I can't turn away from.

This is actually the tail end and a much more mellow and downright friendly thread compared to some of the early stuff rgrove was posting. As I noted before he created a sort of negative feedback loop and members have gotten progressively tired of either being offhanded backhanded for their styles of play, or "look look!  what you are doing is really what I am doing so what I am doing is perfectly fine!" or... nearly consistently ignoring people who agree with or at least support some of his ideas and instead going after the detractors for 30+ pages. Notable patterns and members have put up with it for about a year now.

To his credit rgrove has mellowed out alot since those early posts.

Wish I could say the same for certain other members who are more like drive by lunatics and really should have been banned long ago as they contribute about nothing.

I like alot of rgroves posts even if I dont necessarily agree with some of his ideas.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013166I appreciate your support but your off base. "Illusionist storytelling with pre-written sequences" is not my thing at all. I may dabble a bit in each of those from time to time but the vast majority of my games are as freeform and sandbox as any other. I do however place setting above published rules and often deviate from the "Standard".

Heres the thing. A large majority of the posters here are opposed to, or REALLY opposed to RPGs with either too many rules or too locked down and rigid rules. Theres a reason why all but about one version of D&D is so popular as it gives alot of freedom to tweak. Despite what some will claim. Its one of the reasons I like BX D&D, and early Gamma World and Star Frontiers so much.

Quote from: Sommerjon;1013138Bless your heart.

Well if most of his players like his style, and he certainly does, I wouldn't really advocate he radically change his style. Just pointing out it's a different style from most GMs here, and an unpopular one here. It's a common enough style elsewhere (to the extent that many people assume it's the only style), and was the dominant style in the 1990s.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013166I appreciate your support but your off base. "Illusionist storytelling with pre-written sequences" is not my thing at all. I may dabble a bit in each of those from time to time but the vast majority of my games are as freeform and sandbox as any other. I do however place setting above published rules and often deviate from the "Standard".

Well ok, but it seems like the complaints you get - that you post about here - come when you deviate from running an objective 'play to see what happens' style, towards more of a storytelling style? The orcs seem to have been given AC 11 for story reasons not in-world reasons. The PC not allowed to succeed on catching the NPC because you didn't want the Big Reveal yet.

Quote from: S'mon;1013218...and was the dominant style in the 1990s.

I played in the 90s and don't recall this being the dominant style of play.

Quote from: Voros;1013221I played in the 90s and don't recall this being the dominant style of play.

I gave up playing for awhile in the 90s because it seemed all the published stuff was in this linear/railroad Storytelling style, either brute force or illusionist. Obviously home games will have varied. But 2e AD&D went that route, following Vampire, and my other '90s games like Heavy Gear were much the same.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013158The character was in the first Deadpool too.

Haven't seen that either but  yeah, maybe I caught a glimpse of her in a trailer or clip and the image stuck. And its correctly been observed this isn't on topic so moving right along... :)

Quote from: S'mon;1013218Well if most of his players like his style, and he certainly does, I wouldn't really advocate he radically change his style. Just pointing out it's a different style from most GMs here, and an unpopular one here. It's a common enough style elsewhere (to the extent that many people assume it's the only style), and was the dominant style in the 1990s.

Have to second the part about "common style elsewhere", I had two such GM-s and one of them was my very first one for the group. Of course as a total beginner I didn't recognize the changes right away, we never got weird explanations for ...irregularities, but as time passed I noticed things that felt incorrect more and more, and later another old player/veteran in the party had a heated argument with the GM and that is when I realized the many modificiations he did mostly on the spot/whim as that player listed the actions of the GM.

The GM wanted the 'best' for the party, but as this was the only GM ever using AD&D the result was that I never properly understood and learned the system. Have to point out this guy was very charismatic, friendly, popular not just in our group but in the whole community of about 20 pnp players of the city (explains why there were so few arguments with him) at the time, and was skilled in describing scenes and sitations to make GM modifications make sense. Still it doesn't change the fact that he made spells have different effects which he after a few months forgot and denied to player mages to do/cast as well.

He moved from Hungary to Britain somewhere in 2004 or around that time, since then we didn't play AD&D at all, although as our group moved to other systems and 3.5 we didn't really miss it, and I noticed that in counter-reaction to the typical GM-ing of the person the rest of the community turned more towards being the 'lawyer' type of players who looked for stability and accuracy in the book rules.


EDIT:
The other player was from the capital, as far I can see most of the GMs in Hungary are still this type and when he came in 2010 (or was it 2011?) the local party was already very "anti-behind-the-scenes-modification" and after two attempts of GM-ing decided to just be a player. While players and GMs always checking the books irked him, he ended up also joining in and having fun before he returned to Budapest as he felt on his own skin that stability, rule integrity for a story and genuine challenge/consequences didn't make him unnecessarily jumpy or anxious every single time when something happened in the campaign.

Now that much time has passed since the first GM moved to Britain I can conclude that he was a great storyteller, perhaps the greatest I ever had, and greatly inbfluenced the growth of the RP community in my corner of Hungary, but at the same time he wasn't a good or consistent GM.

Two things that are somewhat related but not inextricably tied together and often conflated here is doing things or making choices for drama, mood, tone and other meta/Doylesian(?) considerations and make choices based on "story' in the sense of steering things down a preset path way in a sense that the players actions and choices mean little to nothing. All of them are points along a continuum of play styles and, IME, most games falls somewhere along with pure extremes being fairly rare.

Quote from: joriandrake;1013232Have to second the part about "common style elsewhere", I had ...

Now that much time has passed since the first GM moved to Britain I can conclude that he was a great storyteller, perhaps the greatest I ever had, and greatly inbfluenced the growth of the RP community in my corner of Hungary, but at the same time he wasn't a good or consistent GM.

My current GM, the one I helped build a Mad Max-style post-apocalyptic game with, is one of these style GMs. He loves making stuff up on the fly, and crafting the stats to fit the situation, and so forth. However, the rules system basically supports this. To continue with the current scenario, defense and hp are very opponent specific, and armor has an damage reduction value which depends on the armor quality. So if he wanted the guy in 'chain mail' (well, road leathers with stapled on hubcaps or something) to die to a relatively low hit, he can say that the guy simply had poor combat competency and his armor was quality level 0. But beyond those specifics, if the players start digging around, asking questions to try to ascertain how challenging a fight that group over the hill is, he will either answer questions and then stick to them ("They look like green troops, wearing spiked armor made more for intimidation than protection"), or he'll put up roadblocks which say roughly 'you can't tell, try something else' (and if we're being actively deceived, such that we think the armor is chainmail, but it is instead costume chain or something, there would have been some way to figure that out, even if we didn't think of it).

That's the difference, I believe, between what I consider successful* impromptu/deviate-from-the-book-standard GM-ing, and the OP's style--as he has explained it. If the players are trying to garner information to use to make good decisions on how best to approach the game world (because in the end, the only thing a player really has is his ability to make decisions), he will facilitate that act, or actually just not throw up roadblocks.
*and I use that term in this instance strictly to mean one that would be inoculated to the upset-player-scenario the OP originally described. OP's game is clearly by in large successful in the grand scheme because the people whom he cares about having fun are indeed having fun.

Quote from: Omega;10131891: Its not reason enough. Its allmost never reason enough. Yes there are some players more interested in the story more than the mechanics backing it. And there are even some who DEMAND this. Some dont even want to roll dice. But the great majority of RPG players need something more than "for drama".

2: This is probably one of the few of your threads where the majority are honestly trying to be helpful rather than the usual knee-jerk reactions.

3: Thank you for clarifying that. Alot of your posts have painted a somewhat different picture. Especially your early threads.

You are right, the thread has been extremely useful. There have been a couple of the usual low points but overall, good stuff. I enjoy open debate, even when I see I am losing terribly. Some take the attacks a bit too far though. Kind of hard not to react to those in turn.

Quote from: S'mon;1013218Well if most of his players like his style, and he certainly does, I wouldn't really advocate he radically change his style. Just pointing out it's a different style from most GMs here, and an unpopular one here. It's a common enough style elsewhere (to the extent that many people assume it's the only style), and was the dominant style in the 1990s.

You are right... My gaming kind of took on new life in the 90s after a long break. The players I started in with then remained my long term players until only a few years ago when a couple passed away and another moved. We saw no need, and thus I saw no need, to change the method of playing for almost two decades. I have a couple players now that have taken to my style and we get along great. There have been issues when a new player is inserted in the mix, apparently used to other types of GMing etc. Thats been the root problem with two of my posts that highlighted my own apparent deviation from today's GM norm and what drew such consternation from the members here.

Quote from: S'mon;1013228I gave up playing for awhile in the 90s because it seemed all the published stuff was in this linear/railroad Storytelling style, either brute force or illusionist. Obviously home games will have varied. But 2e AD&D went that route, following Vampire, and my other '90s games like Heavy Gear were much the same.

The preplanned Story gaming approach was indeed very popular and through that I was able to blend my love of gaming with my interest in creative writing. Ive never forced a player group to do anything in a game as Ive related here openly, I do nudge pretty hard sometimes. It was an accepted style for quite a while, ever published game clearly supporting it in the GM section and every published scenario requiring it. The attitude seemed to be that "You came her to play a game about delving in this dungeon, so by God you are going to delve this dungeon." Laugh

At any rate, I mellowed (Not nearly as much as the industry it seems) over the years but there is still alot of that in my gaming.

Well by rgroves own comment earlier It sounds like its not quite as on rails as it appeared. Hes just occasionally doing the things you oft expect when someone has a sort of plot or sequence of actions and doesnt want to "waste" them. Or to facilitate a mood or sense of threat. The off kilter part seems to be that he is using the die rolls to do this rather then describe it? Which seems contra to his particular style.

So I guess the question I have to rgrove is.

Did it really never occur to you that you could back up your tweaks with description? Or was this just a sort of rare occurrence? It sounds like its your standard approach though?

Quote from: Omega;1013256Well by rgroves own comment earlier It sounds like its not quite as on rails as it appeared. Hes just occasionally doing the things you oft expect when someone has a sort of plot or sequence of actions and doesnt want to "waste" them. Or to facilitate a mood or sense of threat. The off kilter part seems to be that he is using the die rolls to do this rather then describe it? Which seems contra to his particular style.

So I guess the question I have to rgrove is.

Did it really never occur to you that you could back up your tweaks with description? Or was this just a sort of rare occurrence? It sounds like its your standard approach though?

Of course it occurred to me, and yes typically there are logical reasons for whatever changes I make to the game norm... or for that matter when making up something new. This situation, as I have admitted a couple of times, was more the result of a snarky player getting upset because I deviated from the book he was pawing through and my being a defensive dick about it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013251You are right... My gaming kind of took on new life in the 90s after a long break. The players I started in with then remained my long term players until only a few years ago when a couple passed away and another moved. We saw no need, and thus I saw no need, to change the method of playing for almost two decades. I have a couple players now that have taken to my style and we get along great. There have been issues when a new player is inserted in the mix, apparently used to other types of GMing etc. Thats been the root problem with two of my posts that highlighted my own apparent deviation from today's GM norm and what drew such consternation from the members here.

This is important here. Your style seems to have grown to match the needs of the players. They like, or love something with a little or alot of plot behind it?
This is actually fairly common as long term groups mesh in sometimes unique ways and it can looks really weird from the outside. Like tables where the DM rolls for everything and the players may not even know their own PCs HP. They are there for the action and the DMs narration and dont want any mechanics getting in the way. Im pretty sure some here would find that fairly odd. Others might shrug and go "eh. thats not strange."

This is why some of us advocate for a "how to DM" section in RPGs and why I and others advise strongly that a DM needs to be upfront about their style to new players so there arent any false assumptions or blow-ups when one side or the other realizes somethings off kilter to what they thought.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013257Of course it occurred to me, and yes typically there are logical reasons for whatever changes I make to the game norm... or for that matter when making up something new. This situation, as I have admitted a couple of times, was more the result of a snarky player getting upset because I deviated from the book he was pawing through and my being a defensive dick about it.

heh. I've done that too. But usually I make a point to remind the players that just because its an orc doesnt mean its the exact same orc as all the rest. "Did you pay attention when I said this kobold was bigger and stronger looking than the rest? No? Well I did and I mentioned he was carrying a battle axe. That is why he hit you so hard." and maybe they will pay attention next time when I mention the orc chief looks strong and competent.

Quote from: Sommerjon;1013138Or perhaps it is because he knows his players far better then random poster 113?
I made this living breathing world that strangely enough happens to be things that some of the players like to dig into and root around in.  Mere coincidence?
How dare I as a person make something that several other people would want to spend time doing.  WTF do I think I'm doing?

Did you read the OP? Did you read the various posts on this thread concerning the OP? Are you familiar with the fact that this thread is a rehash of, conservatively, a dozen other threads like it from Grove?

If not - avail yourself.

Quote from: Nexus;1013009Barring the character having superhuman powers I envision 'dodging' bullets more of dodging the shooter's aim rather than literally sidestepped the projectile.

Or diving into cover when you realize you are going to come under fire.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013251Thats been the root problem with two of my posts that highlighted my own apparent deviation from today's GM norm and what drew such consternation from the members here.

Yes, I think both 70s-80s and 2000s-present dominant GM styles of rules adherence don't fit very well with aspects of your approach, although there are similarities here and there - fudging to keep PCs alive is common elsewhere among both old school and new-school GMs; not so much here I'd expect. Fudging for story outcome not uncommon in post-2000 play, but controversial. Fudging/modifying for aesthetic purposes I think was only really common in the '90s.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013251You are right... My gaming kind of took on new life in the 90s after a long break. The players I started in with then remained my long term players until only a few years ago when a couple passed away and another moved. We saw no need, and thus I saw no need, to change the method of playing for almost two decades.

...


This is pretty much the mirror image of my situation. Two of my group moved away, one died. The group was more or less consistent with 4 exceptions since I started to play pnp. I'm mostly stuck at home because now I'm caring for my ill mother who is 70. That's why I am here now and try to play RPG via online means, mainly play by post, to "not lose fully touch with my roleplayer side".

 It isn't easy to adjust though, even if we only consider the dozens of systems I'm unfamiliar with. (although the 'unknown' also interests me)

Quote from: tenbones;1013269Did you read the OP? Did you read the various posts on this thread concerning the OP? Are you familiar with the fact that this thread is a rehash of, conservatively, a dozen other threads like it from Grove?

If not - avail yourself.

Yes I did, what's your point?  That he isn't flipping over showing his belly to you?
Sure I'm not a fan of everything he does and would go about it differently, but the absolute shitstorm some of you cause just to through sand in his eyes in some juvenile sense of superiority is tiredly laughable.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012955But when confronted on it by some ass hat player I would have thought the notion of modifying the rules.

Here we see the actual problem.

We all think the player asked a perfectly reasonable question.  Grover has damned the impudent player to the depths of asshathood for daring to question his mighty word.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013054No one but you thinks that this is the argument people are making.

And this.

Quote from: Sommerjon;1013316Yes I did, what's your point?  That he isn't flipping over showing his belly to you?
Sure I'm not a fan of everything he does and would go about it differently, but the absolute shitstorm some of you cause just to through sand in his eyes in some juvenile sense of superiority is tiredly laughable.

I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. I'm not with him on everything (but I think my tastes lean more his way that 'typical' board member) but it seems to be largely working for him and his usual players.

Quote from: tenbones;1013269Did you read the OP? Did you read the various posts on this thread concerning the OP? Are you familiar with the fact that this thread is a rehash of, conservatively, a dozen other threads like it from Grove?

If not - avail yourself.

I went back and counted, couldnt find even half that many tenbones. :)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013323Here we see the actual problem.

We all think the player asked a perfectly reasonable question.  Grover has damned the impudent player to the depths of asshathood for daring to question his mighty word.

Not the question, it was the delivery and refusal to accept an answer.

If I asked "why did I hit when I should have missed" and the referee answered with "Because I said so," my response would have been "That's asinine, and my feet work."

But I'm not sure why we should expect you to suddenly understand now.

Quote from: Sommerjon;1013316Yes I did, what's your point?  That he isn't flipping over showing his belly to you?
Sure I'm not a fan of everything he does and would go about it differently, but the absolute shitstorm some of you cause just to through sand in his eyes in some juvenile sense of superiority is tiredly laughable.

So... I'm not sure why you think anyone is being forced into submission? If you read the OP, and read through the thread... then the answer to any of these questions/claims you have should be fairly obvious. Unless you don't understand them. Or the history of Grove's various posts and threads.

"absolute shitstorm", "Juvenile sense of superiority", "throwing sand in his eyes" - I dunno, sounds like sketchy claims and a tad hypberbolic.

You're really just reading the last of a long chapter of threads. Again... you should avail yourself. Unless you're just wanting to pick a fight with someone? Are you really laughing? It's hard to tell. You seem to be conveniently ignoring the vast majority of the thread and all the other dozens of threads leading up to this. Maybe a little on purpose?

Personally, I've said nothing I don't mean. I've said nothing I can't back up. If you're taking it upon yourself to get worked up on Grove's behalf - by all means. Go for it!

ABSOLUTE SHITSTORM RISING!!!!


ohhhh shit! it's on!

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013358I went back and counted, couldnt find even half that many tenbones. :)

Hah! Maybe it's the total volume... your threads tend to run many times longer than the others. Length and girth are in your favor.

Quote from: tenbones;1013371Unless you're just wanting to pick a fight with someone?

You DO know who you're talking to, don't you?

Quote from: tenbones;1013372Length and girth are in your favor.

That's what SHE said!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013374You DO know who you're talking to, don't you?

Muahaha of course I do. But this thread is lagging in the radioactive fallout department. We need to go full-apocalyse.<---Hyperbolic Thrusters engaged<---- She said that too!!! ZOMG

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013367If I asked "why did I hit when I should have missed" and the referee answered with "Because I said so," my response would have been "That's asinine, and my feet work."

But I'm not sure why we should expect you to suddenly understand now.

understanding does not necessarily mean agreeing. I get it, I really do...I even sort of agree, to a point.

Quote from: tenbones;1013372Hah! Maybe it's the total volume... your threads tend to run many times longer than the others. Length and girth are in your favor.

No argument there, sadly.

Quote from: tenbones;1013376Muahaha of course I do. But this thread is lagging in the radioactive fallout department. We need to go full-apocalyse.<---Hyperbolic Thrusters engaged<---- She said that too!!! ZOMG

Wait, I want to weigh in... "YOUR MOM DID TOO!"

Quote from: tenbones;1013376We need to go full-apocalypse.

Gabriel's Horn has sounded!

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013380Wait, I want to weigh in... "YOUR MOM DID TOO!"

I want to go on record I have never attacked another poster's mother.

It seems a little too obvious to go there. And to do it that fast right out of the gate? Kinda gauche*. I recommend you warm up to it. Don't just jump at it, tongue hanging out like a crazed animal. Do you GM like this?


*always wanted to use that word. And if my posting history is any indication that I have to use this word ironically, SO FUCKING BE IT.

Grover, you hideous misapplication of sperm and egg! Your DM style is an abomination in the eyes of God and Man! Your inconsistent chaotic and totally arbitrary use of DM powers makes the Baby Jesus cry! YOU ARE EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG IN MODERN GAMING! YOU ARE A STORYGAMER!!

Quote from: tenbones;1013384I want to go on record I have never attacked another poster's mother.

It seems a little too obvious to go there. And to do it that fast right out of the gate? Kinda gauche*. I recommend you warm up to it. Don't just jump at it, tongue hanging out like a crazed animal. Do you GM like this?


*always wanted to use that word. And if my posting history is any indication that I have to use this word ironically, SO FUCKING BE IT.

"Whipped puppy pout".....

Quote from: jeff37923;1013385Grover, you hideous misapplication of sperm and egg! Your DM style is an abomination in the eyes of God and Man! Your inconsistent chaotic and totally arbitrary use of DM powers makes the Baby Jesus cry! YOU ARE EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG IN MODERN GAMING! YOU ARE A STORYGAMER!!

Yeah, I get all that but how do you really feel about it?

I think this is the moment where I take my hat and back out of this thread.

o_O

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013390Yeah, I get all that but how do you really feel about it?

"ONE OF US! ONE OF US!" *hands over Illuminati robes and "Down with OSR" t-shirt.* Meeting are every third Wednesday. They're potluck so bring your own baby or hot dish.

Quote from: joriandrake;1013394I think this is the moment where I take my hat and back out of this thread.

o_O

Too late!

Quote from: joriandrake;1013394I think this is the moment where I take my hat and back out of this thread.

o_O

You dug too deep!!!! Fly you fool! FLY!!!!

Quote from: joriandrake;1012990Interesting, my reaction is the opposite, I would like to play a game under Grove especially because nothing in the threads is the same as experiencing events personally during a campaign.

Interesting enough, I'm with you, just because I'd like to see how he is in person:).
But I don't promise in advance coming for a second session;).

Quote from: joriandrake;1013394I think this is the moment where I take my hat and back out of this thread.

o_O

Oh no,  Things are just getting interesting so don't pass out on us now....

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296.... GM: NO, I just rule it the way I see it. An orc grunt with a broadsword isnt as good as a hero. So I nerf them a little.

I'm OK with that but would build it into the rules.  So the same conditions that nerf an orc could nerf a PC.

QuotePlayer: So how the hell am I supposed to know what anything is, how good or challenging it will be? Chainmail isnt really chainmail, a broadsword really isnt a broadsword...

I agree with the player.  You also seem to be making a lot of work for yourself or are over enamored with descriptive text.  Why in the world does the orc need to wear chainmail?  Just make it the armor that lines up with the AC you give them.

QuoteGM (Interrupting and a little hacked) ... yeah, thats right and a fireball may not do the same damage, a fall from the roof may do more, and they might take a saving throw differently too. So what? Its my world, those that live in it and arent under your control function as I see them, not based specifically on some freaking rulebook.

Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!

Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

Have to say I am on the players side.   I view your decision on how things work based only whose hands it is in (NPC vs PC) equivalent to dice roll fudging (just in the player favor).  It takes away one's sense of accomplishment if PCs get such favorable treatment especially when they have no idea when or to what extent they get it.  That is, beating orcs in mail+broadswords no different than beating orcs in leather+short swords, but you led the players to believe there was a difference.

Quote from: AsenRG;1013402Interesting enough, I'm with you, just because I'd like to see how he is in person:).
But I don't promise in advance coming for a second session;).

TPK if you guys show up. Guaranteed!!!

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013390Yeah, I get all that but how do you really feel about it?

Love for my fellow gamer. I want to take you by the hand and bring you to the light of consistancy. To save you from the mediocrity of abstract Mother-May-I GMing. I want to help you help yourself to be a better GM.

But I really think you are a lost cause.

You make a great bad example, though.

For the record, despite teeing off on him on the other thread, I really am trying to help rgrove. It just gets frustrating sometimes.
I am glad that for the most part he and his players seem to enjoy their time together.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1013440For the record, despite teeing off on him on the other thread, I really am trying to help rgrove. It just gets frustrating sometimes.

I attempted to help, but gave up quickly because I don't like to waste my time.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1013440I am glad that for the most part he and his players seem to enjoy their time together.

Except for the ones who don't like the inconsistency of his games.

Quote from: Xanther;1013410I'm OK with that but would build it into the rules.  So the same conditions that nerf an orc could nerf a PC.



I agree with the player.  You also seem to be making a lot of work for yourself or are over enamored with descriptive text.  Why in the world does the orc need to wear chainmail?  Just make it the armor that lines up with the AC you give them.



Have to say I am on the players side.   I view your decision on how things work based only whose hands it is in (NPC vs PC) equivalent to dice roll fudging (just in the player favor).  It takes away one's sense of accomplishment if PCs get such favorable treatment especially when they have no idea when or to what extent they get it.  That is, beating orcs in mail+broadswords no different than beating orcs in leather+short swords, but you led the players to believe there was a difference.

Is like this
To answer your question on why chainmail on the orc, I game from a homegrown setting some 30 years in the making. I covert it into whatever system im.using, not the other way around. It's a pain sometimes but the setting comes first. This culture of orcs is like this..etc

Quote from: jeff37923;1013437Love for my fellow gamer. I want to take you by the hand and bring you to the light of consistancy. To save you from the mediocrity of abstract Mother-May-I GMing. I want to help you help yourself to be a better GM.

But I really think you are a lost cause.

You make a great bad example, though.

Ahhh shucks.

Quote from: Spellslinging Sellsword;1010304Here is a fun video of plate armor vs. firefighter gear vs. modern military gear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1010348This makes me want to see an obstacle course run with guys in leather, chain and plate. (I did look on youtube. Nothing yet.)

I feel a new TV show coming ... American Paladin Warrior.

Quote from: joriandrake;1013394I think this is the moment where I take my hat and back out of this thread.

o_O

If you're still having trouble with the sarcasm translation--this where everyone is blowing off steam and jettisoning any pent-up aggression.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013509If you're still having trouble with the sarcasm translation--this where everyone is blowing off steam and jettisoning any pent-up aggression.

Bingo!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013323Here we see the actual problem.

We all think the player asked a perfectly reasonable question.  Grover has damned the impudent player to the depths of asshathood for daring to question his mighty word.

I think the question is reasonable, in that it isn't unreasonable, but most of the people I play with wouldn't ask it. If I'm thinking in character, I don't know from any numbers, armor class or die rolls. I might think "My sword went through that mail like butter, boy I'm cool" or I might think "why did that happen? Usually I can't get through mail that easily?" and then, if the fight were over, I'd  _look at the armor_ and tell the GM that I was looking at the armor and maybe she or he would tell me something interesting. If there was nothing wrong with the armor, it would be back to "boy, I'm good." I wouldn't say "the book says x" because my character doesn't know he's in a game.  I've had rules lawyers in my game, even after I wrote my own system back in the Eighties. In fact, I have never been the foremost expert on my own rules. But even Peter Price wouldn't been bothered about something so  trivial.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1013560most of the people I play with wouldn't ask it. If I'm thinking in character, I don't know from any numbers, armor class or die rolls. I might think "My sword went through that mail like butter, boy I'm cool" or I might think "why did that happen? Usually I can't get through mail that easily?" and then, if the fight were over, I'd _look at the armor_ and tell the GM that I was looking at the armor and maybe she or he would tell me something interesting. If there was nothing wrong with the armor, it would be back to "boy, I'm good." I wouldn't say "the book says x" because my character doesn't know he's in a game. I've had rules lawyers in my game, even after I wrote my own system back in the Eighties. In fact, I have never been the foremost expert on my own rules. In fact, I have never been the foremost expert on my own rules. But even Peter Price wouldn't been bothered about something so  trivial.

Everyone has agreed since the beginning that the specific instance was trivial. It simply evidenced a broader conceptual issue. As to thinking in character, great if you do, but this is not about rules lawyers vs non-rules lawyers, it is about wanting to be able to make informed decisions which matter. We don't know that the example individual didn't hold to the ideal of not thinking out of character as well, only that he noticed that he hit when he thought he wouldn't and enquired about it. If you spend most of your thinking in character, then you should probably want what the character sees to matter, and the decisions the character makes to matter. And that can only be the case if you actually can tell the GM that you are looking at the armor, and some information come back from the GM which will inform your decision making process.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1013560I think the question is reasonable, in that it isn't unreasonable, but most of the people I play with wouldn't ask it. If I'm thinking in character, I don't know from any numbers, armor class or die rolls. I might think "My sword went through that mail like butter, boy I'm cool" or I might think "why did that happen? Usually I can't get through mail that easily?" and then, if the fight were over, I'd  _look at the armor_ and tell the GM that I was looking at the armor and maybe she or he would tell me something interesting. If there was nothing wrong with the armor, it would be back to "boy, I'm good." I wouldn't say "the book says x" because my character doesn't know he's in a game.  I've had rules lawyers in my game, even after I wrote my own system back in the Eighties. In fact, I have never been the foremost expert on my own rules. But even Peter Price wouldn't been bothered about something so  trivial.

For me, I think my reaction would depend on the nature of game and its tone. If its a extremely heroic, cinematic game unless the GM called attention to it I wouldn't worry about. The mooks shopped for armor at the Stormtrooper Surplus store. If the tone was more grounded and 'realistic' and my character had the ability or background that they'd notice especially if the GM mention mentioned they did, I've investigate to some degree or at least note it was odd.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013566Everyone has agreed since the beginning that the specific instance was trivial. It simply evidenced a broader conceptual issue. As to thinking in character, great if you do, but this is not about rules lawyers vs non-rules lawyers, it is about wanting to be able to make informed decisions which matter. We don't know that the example individual didn't hold to the ideal of not thinking out of character as well, only that he noticed that he hit when he thought he wouldn't and enquired about it. If you spend most of your thinking in character, then you should probably want what the character sees to matter, and the decisions the character makes to matter. And that can only be the case if you actually can tell the GM that you are looking at the armor, and some information come back from the GM which will inform your decision making process.

When he encounters the Ork in mail, my character is going to think "fuck, it's wearing mail." However, he wouldn't know anything about a die roll. He knows, because that's the way his world works, that using a sword against mail is not a great idea but he doesn't know that it is impossible, because it isn't. So he thinks he did great, unless he sees that the armor is beat up and rusty or something.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1012913Grove, someone linked an essay to try and help you, I don't know if you read it, but here's the key as it relates to this topic:



Yes, what you did was minor, but if you're going to adjust a small thing "just because", at what point does it stop?  Deadly trap becomes non-deadly?  Encounter with a Giant becomes encounter with an Ogre?  The player should trust that you'll only change the most minor stuff and all the other challenges are real?

The setting has to have integrity, because, to reiterate from above, without that integrity, meaningful choice becomes impossible.

So, here's what you should learn from this, if nothing else:

If you're going to put your thumb on the scale next time, and decide that this Ogre has a weak AC "just because you want it to", make the Ogre a tad lame, or something, anything the player's can see or somehow find out so it makes sense.  You know, what people have been telling you for 38 pages.

I agree with wholeheartedly, not just to placate curious players but more importantly, it adds a certain amount of color to have a lame ogre or an orc who cut the sleeves off his mail byrnie because he thinks chainmail wifebeaters are cool.

Quote from: Omega;10128691: Except thats not at all what you told the player. You told them that a suit of chainmail could change its stats possibly radically simply because you wanted the fight to be harder or easier but for some unfathomable reason dont want to actually describe the difference or have a reason why chain A and chain B are functioning so differently.

2: uh... Just about no one has said that you must adhere to the rules slavishly. In fact I and many others have again and again and again pointed out that tweaking things is pretty much the norm. AGAIN. The difference is that we give reason for these tweaks. The Orc in Chain is worse AC than it should have not "Because!" but rather has some explanation. Its poorly made chain, its a clumsy orc, its cursed chain or even "Its not chain at all. Its some sort of string netting shirt painted silver???" etc.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013323Here we see the actual problem.

We all think the player asked a perfectly reasonable question.  Grover has damned the impudent player to the depths of asshathood for daring to question his mighty word.

Except the player insisted on answers without his character bothering to look. That's the part where I think Grover wasn't totally out of line.

Quote from: Elfdart;1013849Except the player insisted on answers without his character bothering to look. That's the part where I think Grover wasn't totally out of line.

Well, he certainly could have old the player, "you don't know the answer at this point" and made the player go looking/inspecting/perhaps even researching. However, he did not. He explained the exact reason, and it was that the AC was dependent upon the challenge he wanted to give to the player at the time, and not for any specific in-gameworld reason. And that's why the gamer got upset (I believe).

If Rgrove had insisted that the player inspect the situation and discover a cause for the discrepancy (from expectation), he could then have used that knowledge/method in the future to help gauge whether an opponent (or group thereof) was an easy/medium/hard challenge in a current situation. And therefore his decisions would again be meaningful. In which case there would be no problem.

Quote from: Elfdart;1013849Except the player insisted on answers without his character bothering to look. That's the part where I think Grover wasn't totally out of line.

That might have been because the GM described the orc exactly like every other orc. The player had no reason to think the orc was different untill they noticed a mechanical change that differed from what they were told. And the player may have been just been expecting to be told the armour was rusty or whatever. And was caught off guard by the truth. And there was no point in asking if the armour was different because rgrove flat out said it wasnt. It was bog standard chain and only performed less because he wanted it to.

QuoteGM: No you hit his AC of 11, fair and square. The orcs typically wear mail though, these do anyway, soldiers of the Black Duke and all. Doesnt matter how I describe it. I designed him with an AC of 11. Thats what you use when you fight him.

And follows up that equipment is consistent for the PCs. But not for the NPCs.

Hence the disconnect.

QuoteOriginally Posted by rgrove0172  View Post
"There are all kinds of humans...huge strong ones, small lithe ones, fat slow ones, smart skinny ones.. same with elves, dwarves, gnomes....there are similarities,amid species sure but plenty of variety. Why should goblins be clones? You get an idea what your facing when you see it. It might and probably is a bit different than any norm. It's supposed to represent a real fantasy world after all. The orc with chainmail looked pretty average but his tribe were an inferior breed. Nuff said."

But this is not what you told your player or us.

"
Player: So how the hell am I supposed to know what anything is, how good or challenging it will be? Chainmail isnt really chainmail, a broadsword really isnt a broadsword...

GM (Interrupting and a little hacked) ... yeah, thats right and a fireball may not do the same damage, a fall from the roof may do more, and they might take a saving throw differently too. So what? Its my world, those that live in it and arent under your control function as I see them, not based specifically on some freaking rulebook.

Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!"

Right here, you are once again telling us that the rules do not matter, descriptions do not matter, nothing we see matters.

"
GM: No you hit his AC of 11, fair and square. The orcs typically wear mail though, these do anyway, soldiers of the Black Duke and all. Doesnt matter how I describe it. I designed him with an AC of 11. Thats what you use when you fight him."

You are giving the lie to your own statements right here. The player does NOT get an idea of what they are facing when they see it because "doesn't matter how I describe it."

You admitted to the player in this example that Chainmail is AC14, but this orc, who was wearing chainmail, was AC11, and gave no other reason than "I designed him with AC11."

You keep getting into trouble with your players over the same types of issues. You keep coming to us asking what we think. You keep sounding surrised when we give the smae responses. You claim to "get it" but obviously you do not. If you did you would no longer express surprise at our answers. That you refuse to change your methodology in the face of consistently presented experience that it does not work, and consistent examples and explanations of why it does not work is your own choice. But don't expect us to change our tune any time soon, and expect us to grow increasingly frustrated at the farce.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1013906Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!"

Right here, you are once again telling us that the rules do not matter, descriptions do not matter, nothing we see matters.

"
GM: No you hit his AC of 11, fair and square. The orcs typically wear mail though, these do anyway, soldiers of the Black Duke and all. Doesnt matter how I describe it. I designed him with an AC of 11. Thats what you use when you fight him."

This reminds me of a lot of action adventure fiction, especially weekly TV series fiction, where how tough or weak an opponent or hero appears to be is not governed by any internal week-to-week fictional consistency, but is instead governed almost solely by narrative constraints, often with little attempt to rationalize why the heroes win or lose in any given situation throughout episode or film. The heroes lose in the initial encounter to establish the scariness of the bad guys of the plot and then the heroes somehow escape the bad guys or the bad guys ignore the puny heroes to continue on about their important bad guy plan. Why? Because that's what the plot needs to keep the heroes alive and to justify them spending the rest of the movie or episode running around gathering whoever and whatever they needed (planning or training montage optional) to defeat the bad guys in the climax of the film or episode. I find that frustrating in passive entertainment. I expect better (i.e. greater consistency) in a more active entertainment like tabletop RPGs.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1013906You keep getting into trouble with your players over the same types of issues. You keep coming to us asking what we think. You keep sounding surrised when we give the smae responses. You claim to "get it" but obviously you do not. If you did you would no longer express surprise at our answers. That you refuse to change your methodology in the face of consistently presented experience that it does not work, and consistent examples and explanations of why it does not work is your own choice. But don't expect us to change our tune any time soon, and expect us to grow increasingly frustrated at the farce.

This.

Quote from: Dumarest;1012192Are we still piling on Grover because we don't like his GM style?

Not piling. Explaining exactly where his GM style caused players to feel unsatisfied.

Player. As I understand it was one guy but the rest are fine with how he handles things. Did I understand you correctly, rgrovej0172?

Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1012752Okay, late to the party (which seems to be winding down)

Ha! Your post was #341 and the current last post is now #478 - plenty of legs left in this one.

Quote from: joriandrake;1012753I myself only posted on this first at page 30 and the OP commented since then so it's not a dead thread yet.

I've set my posts per page to the max, so it is currently on Page 10, havign 30 pages would drive me crazy.

Quote from: soltakss;1014329I've set my posts per page to the max, so it is currently on Page 10, havign 30 pages would drive me crazy.

I don't know how to do that, btw currently this is the 48th page for me

Quote from: joriandrake;1014334I don't know how to do that, btw currently this is the 48th page for me

On the top menu strip, click on Settings. Under General Settings, there is an option "Number of Posts to Show Per Page", the maximum is 50.

Quote from: soltakss;1014343On the top menu strip, click on Settings. Under General Settings, there is an option "Number of Posts to Show Per Page", the maximum is 50.

Thank you, I changed it to 30 for now and will see how that feels like first.

Quote from: soltakss;1014343On the top menu strip, click on Settings. Under General Settings, there is an option "Number of Posts to Show Per Page", the maximum is 50.

It should go higher, mine is at 100/page so this thread is currently at page 5 for me.

Quote from: soltakss;1014329Ha! Your post was #341 and the current last post is now #478 - plenty of legs left in this one.

Yeah, you guys have managed to continue on much longer than I anticipated...

... which puts you all one-up over my ex-husband, if nothing else.

If you make a conscious decision to give the ork an AC11 while he wears chainmail, you have consciously decided that his AC is reduced for another reason than the chainmail he is using. AC penalty, damage penalty, due to other reasons than the armor he is wearing, or the armor is of poor quality, etc. That's the point you probably should have made as the GM, I think, rather than basically say "it's because of GM Fiat."

GM: He has a -3 to AC because of a past wound from ten years ago! And he wasn't fresh and ready for battle so I gave him a penalty to the damage he dealt! Why do you care?!

Player: Oh, ok, yeah that makes sense.

GM: Anyways, moving on...

Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1014808Yeah, you guys have managed to continue on much longer than I anticipated...

... which puts you all one-up over my ex-husband, if nothing else.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2036[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1014808Yeah, you guys have managed to continue on much longer than I anticipated...

... which puts you all one-up over my ex-husband, if nothing else.

WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA!

..I like the way you think, ma demoiselle!

Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1014808Yeah, you guys have managed to continue on much longer than I anticipated...

... which puts you all one-up over my ex-husband, if nothing else.

Well, I can see you'll fit right in here.

Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1014808Yeah, you guys have managed to continue on much longer than I anticipated...

... which puts you all one-up over my ex-husband, if nothing else.

We're flattered by the distinction, Tulpa Girl:D!
Also, trust us, we can last even longer in more interested threads;).