Quote from: gleichman;544554
And yes, you are correct. Typically they lack even the most basic information (such as range) to correctly use the rules they'd declared as their game. They are in fact, free form.

Hence, it's all about asking the GM "Am I in range to do x" (i.e. mother, may I make an attack from here).

Sloppy, ruins simulation and slows the game down besides if any player should have the backbone to point out clear errors in the DM descriptions and rulings.

My point is that anyone who has already given up that much of objective information is likely more willing to accept any degree of [I'mother my i' [/I]resolution in their games. They're already bought into it nearly completely anyway- so much so that they are actually incapable of noticing it.

Those who value real simulation in the rpgs however are going to object to mechanics and methods like this.


ADDED: In addition, I should not that dungeons are more accepting of free form due to the intense constrints on movement. A 10' hallway for example allows for little variance. Those only playing in this style start to see the world in terms of only one dimension. And combat in one dimension can be dealt with without a map.

For those who have long abandon dungeon crawling, the matter is more complete to say the least.

All this here tells me all I need to know about you, your gaming experience, and why you use the ridiculous "mother may I" argument. My suggestion would be to spend some extra time finding a DM and fellow players you you can actually like and trust. Your problem is a people problem, not a rules problem. Deny it all you want, post at length why I'm wrong, etc.. However, until you admit this and take steps to correct it, you will continue to suffer the kinds of problems you are referring to, no matter what rules you use, because unless you are playing story games or tactical miniature games instead of RPGs, you are always going to find situations that the rules don't cover and that the GM will have to adjudicate, at which point your apparently dis-functional group is going to devolve into arguments and power struggles every time.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544613Gleichman this debate arose not because any of us said battlemaps were bad or that deep rules were bad, it arose because you derided attempts to play without battle mats or using rules light as mother may i, doomed to break immersion and realism. I am fine with people using miniatures and in depth rules. This is just a preference issue.

You just repeated what I said, pity you don't realize that.

Quote from: gleichman;544616That is not was caused this debate to arise.

What cause this debate to arise was the majority of this board rejecting the idea the 'mother may i' style gaming could be a real and a rational problem to some play styles.

Instead of say "yeah, that would be bad for you" or "could you explain why that's the case?", it replied with "social retard' and other ad hominem attacks.

That is what caused this debate to arise.

Not at all. What was rejected was the mother may i label because it dismisses valid styles of play as, well, 'mother-may-I'. It is one thing to say 'i like mats and rules for as many situations as possible because I believe it is more fair and consistent' versus 'anyone who doesn't use minies and rules heavy games is a slave to mother may I'.

Quote from: gleichman;544616What cause this debate to arise was the majority of this board rejecting the idea the 'mother may i' style gaming could be a real and a rational problem to some play styles.

The Phrase 'Mother may I' seems designed to be patronizing and derogatory for the outset suggesting that those who engage in a particular play style are childish and superfluous.

Quote from: Benoist;544614And when you say retarded stuff such as "D&D is all about numbers in the end", you are not self-centered at all, I suppose. Ask gamers out there what they think games like D&D and RPGs in general are about.

I phrased that poorly.

I was speaking about the game itself (i.e. HP, strike chances, saving throws, ranges, etc.), not about reasons for playing the game.

Consider the statement withdrawn from any wider meaning.

Quote from: gleichman;544618I should note that rules you use are not something I'm aware of. Thus examples from there are meaningless to me.

My rules are just a concrete expression of a typical manner in which description based on landmarks and regions are used.

The point is that feet end up not mattering in a game that uses a larger scale than feet for the same reason that inches don't matter if everything is measured in feet. Or for the same reason that six feet isn't even a thing in 3rd or 4th edition D&D combat.

And that mostly people are interested in who they can target and what the collateral damage will be, which can be handled in other manners than feet, angles, etc. with less back and forth than you seem to believe. Less "can I move there?" and "is he in range?" There's a legitimate concern for slowness in what you're saying, but there are very very easy conventions for dealing with that kind of thing.

Quote from: gleichman;544573whim of the GM instead of as the reslt of objective information.

This is your entire problem. it has nothing to do with the rules. If you even feel the need to refer to your GM's rulings as "whim", you already have a problem. Perhaps you are not suited to RPG playing. Perhaps your GM is a dick. Perhaps both. Doesn't matter though because no set of rules will ever help you with this, no matter how detailed.

Quote from: Kord's Boon;544622The Phrase 'Mother may I' seems designed to be patronizing and derogatory for the outset suggesting that those who engage in a particular play style are childish and superfluous.

Yes it is (while remaing very descriptive of the problem), and thus an indication of strong feeling on the subject.

It's not the term I would have used, but it's the one in use when I entered the thread- I'm sort of stuck with it.

On my own, I'd call it gaming by GM whim. But I've been insulted personally enough now that I'll stick with the patronizing and derogatory term for the rest of the thread.

Quote from: gleichman;544620You just repeated what I said, pity you don't realize that.

I am not seeing that affraid

Quote from: beejazz;544625My rules are just a concrete expression of a typical manner in which description based on landmarks and regions are used.

I'm sorry, but not knowing your rules I can't relate to your argument.

I can handle most D&D, HERO, CoC, GURPs, and some other sysems as I have reference points. With you, nothing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544628I am not seeing that affraid

I sorry, I wish you could.

Quote from: gleichman;544576It's statements like this that result in the various divides in gaming. It's pure ad hominem without justification, made to make yourself feel better by looking down on a different play style.

I forgot to add, 'and without any imagination' to my original statement.

Quote from: gleichman;544627Yes it is (while remaing very descriptive of the problem), and thus an indication of strong feeling on the subject.

It's not the term I would have used, but it's the one in use when I entered the thread- I'm sort of stuck with it.

On my own, I'd call it gaming by GM whim. But I've been insulted personally enough now that I'll stick with the patronizing and derogatory term for the rest of the thread.

Just to even the score, i hereby coin the phrase "General, tell me!" to describe the flip-side.

Quote from: gleichman;544627On my own, I'd call it gaming by GM whim. But I've been insulted personally enough now that I'll stick with the patronizing and derogatory term for the rest of the thread.

gleichman if I insulted you at all, that was not my aim. For what is worth you seem a very intelligent poster even if we disagree on how possible it is for a gm to be fair and consistent. I certainly think these threads could be more civil at times, but you have to admit you stormed in hurling insults yourself and employed a tone was likely to set people off.

Quote from: gleichman;544630I sorry, I wish you could.

Perhaps you could point out where our posts agree. No point in arguing if we agree