Quote from: gleichman;545022First, I didn't list my questions- just the setup and the rules. So you haven't answered anything yet.

And I mentioned three things wrong with your setup, which you've not addressed. So you've proven you can't even draw the map right, surprise, surprise.

QuoteSecond, if someone willing to use a calculator and actually do all the math needed to manage the combat in this way- they are basically using an method equal to maps and mins.

Or maybe I'm that mythical person you've never found, who can do the math in their head (I took Trigonometry, so I know the formulas/can look them up; a calculator is just a faster tool)

That said, if I took away your tape measure, would YOU be able to calculate distances?

QuoteAnd Third, it almost certainly took you a lot longer to do even the meaningless number crunching you did (for I had yet to post any questions) than even a child would take with a map and mini. So while acceptable- is that a way you'd actually want to play a game?

(Length) Sin (Angle) and (Length) Cos (Angle) does not take a lot of time. It takes more time to write it than calculate it.

No, it is not. But you've made the point that people that don't play to a Simulationist level of play are "cheating" and playing "mother may I", when your method is only a slightly more accurate version of the same thing, to me. With an undeserved level of self-awarded intellectual superiority to boot. Get off your damn high horse and just play the game!

Quote from: Marleycat;545049I like the concept of advantage/disadvantage not because of the math but because 1)It says to GM's rulings not rules.

Exactly.

Hence the term 'Mother May I' or 'Twenty Questions', i.e. the player is unable to process even the basic game mechanics without constant input from the GM.

Something completely in common with those who play without maps and minis. I think the driving needs are much the same: The desire not to be restrained by consistent rules, and the need to alter in-game reality on the fly.

Quote from: Marleycat;5450492)It's quicker, that way I as a player can get on with stuff that interests me.

I think it can be seriously debated it it's quicker or not. But I will admit, if a player thinks double or even single digit addition is slow or a burden- then this is an attractive feature.

Quote from: Marleycat;545049Combat is fun but if it goes more than 5-10 rounds I get bored, unless it's the Big Boss Finale.

You are free to be bored by (or to enjoy) whatever you like.

Quote from: gleichman;545053Something completely in common with those who play without maps and minis. I think the driving needs are much the same: The desire not to be restrained by consistent rules, and the need to alter in-game reality on the fly.
.

You would be quite wrong here.

Quote from: gleichman;545053Exactly.

Hence the term 'Mother May I' or 'Twenty Questions', i.e. the player is unable to process even the basic game mechanics without constant input from the GM.

Something completely in common with those who play without maps and minis. I think the driving needs are much the same: The desire not to be restrained by consistent rules, and the need to alter in-game reality on the fly.




I think it can be seriously debated it it's quicker or not. But I will admit, if a player thinks double or even single digit addition is slow or a burden- then this is an attractive feature.





You are free to be bored by (or to enjoy) whatever you like.

It's like I am talking with a wall, just amazing! It's like you're in your own little bubble of reality.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545056You would be quite wrong here.

In your specific case perhaps (though I doubt it as you've given little other reason), the nature of the replies of others and the consistent invoking specifically by them of the cliche "Rulings not Rules" says otherwise.

In general for this board, I stand by my conclusion.

Quote from: gleichman;545058In your specific case perhaps (though I doubt it as you've given little other reason), the nature of the replies of others and the consistent invoking specifically by them of the cliche "Rulings not Rules" says otherwise.

In general for this board, I stand by my conclusion.

Your conclusion doesn't seem to follow from the evidence. You are asserting it but not offering good support for people being motivated by a desire to alter in game reality on the fly. You are also mistaking wanting a human mind to adjudicate for a desire not to have consistency. Sometimes it takes the human element to produce consistency or outcomes that actually make sense. I personally like consistency. In something like dealing with an NpC I trust a GM to have characters react in a consistent way more than mechanic like social combat systems.

Quote from: gleichman;545053Hence the term 'Mother May I' or 'Twenty Questions', i.e. the player is unable to process even the basic game mechanics without constant input from the GM.

And this is different than a map drawn by the GM...how?

EDIT: oh, and monsters run by the GM. I consider it inferred in the above statement, but considering the intended target, deferred for clarity.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545061Your conclusion doesn't seem to follow from the evidence. You are asserting it but not offering good support for people being motivated by a desire to alter in game reality on the fly.

I'm not asserting, the people debating me are. What else does "Rulings no Rules" mean other than "I can't be bother with rules- I'm make up my own mind here:?

If that's wrong, you should take it up with them for so poorly representing what they're saying.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545061Sometimes it takes the human element to produce consistency or outcomes that actually make sense.

Another cliche, one I agree with with respect to modeling say the behavior of NPCs- but one that doesn't hold water with respect to a combat system that uses ranges and line of sight.

But feel free to provide an example which such 'human' judgement is better and the rules of the game unable to meet the need. HERO System is best for the example as I consider it a solid game design (Age of Heroes which no one knows anything about will also work).

Quote from: gleichman;545069I'm not asserting, the people debating me are. What else does "Rulings no Rules" mean other than "I can't be bother with rules- I'm make up my own mind here:?

If that's wrong, you should take it up with them for so poorly representing what they're saying.
).

Yes you are. I am going to assume you are correctly quoting here. But all we have is a poster who says "rulings, not rules", that could mean almost anything, but I doubt they meant "i cant bother with rules". Most likely they were saying you need as much rules as are required but optimally have as much space of the game handled by human judgement as possible.

QuoteI'm not asserting, the people debating me are. What else does "Rulings no Rules" mean other than "I can't be bother with rules- I'm make up my own mind here:?

If that's wrong, you should take it up with them for so poorly representing what they're saying.

I assume that's directed at me? If so it means I don't need a rule for every single case, guidelines are all I need. It pretty much means if a player says something like "I'm going to circle around in this direction using those rocks for cover to get behind him...." means cool roll Dexerity to see if you are ignored and don't trip, if so you have advantage next round.

He never asked me a thing he declared this is what I am going to do and I just said great lets see if you succeed.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545075Yes you are. I am going to assume you are correctly quoting here. But all we have is a poster who says "rulings, not rules", that could mean almost anything, but I doubt they meant "i cant bother with rules". Most likely they were saying you need as much rules as are required but optimally have as much space of the game handled by human judgement as possible.

You do know what you're saying when you say "but optimally have as much space of the game handled by human judgement as possible" don't you?

It means that you consider the optimal case to be the maximum amount of human whim possible (and that's a freakn' lot).

Which is exacty what I've said you an they have said.

How can you be so detached from your own words?

Quote from: gleichman;545069Another cliche, one I agree with with respect to modeling say the behavior of NPCs- but one that doesn't hold water with respect to a combat system that uses ranges and line of sight.

But feel free to provide an example which such 'human' judgement is better and the rules of the game unable to meet the need. HERO System is best for the example as I consider it a solid game design (Age of Heroes which no one knows anything about will also work).

i don't find most rpg combat mechanics especially reaslistic in a lot of edge cases. Especially when it comes to modelling fist fights. There have definitely been moments where players have wanted to do something like slug an opponent in the face to knock him out while restrained and the system in question made it either impossible or silly difficult (where the guy is getting slugged over and over again until he reaches zero hp or something). Now this depends entirely on the system but in a case like this I find it helpful that the Gm can overide the poor combat modeling to say "you hit him on the head and knock him out" (of it is a game that doesn't handle that scenario well).

I dont play hero, so cant comment on that.

Quote from: gleichman;545085You do know what you're saying when you say "but optimally have as much space of the game handled by human judgement as possible" don't you?

It means that you consider the optimal case to be the maximum amount of human whim possible (and that's a freakn' lot).

Which is exacty what I've said you an they have said.

How can you be so detached from your own words?

No.

 you don't know what I meant when I said "you need as much rules as required but...". How big that space is depends entirely on how one addresses this first part. And however answers it, it doesn't translate to "cant be bothered by rules". You really need to stop leaping to conclusions. What I said was pretty broad in scope and doesn't automatically mean what you seem to think it means (in fact is quite unlikely to mean that).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545086i don't find most rpg combat mechanics especially reaslistic in a lot of edge cases. Especially when it comes to modelling fist fights. There have definitely been moments where players have wanted to do something like slug an opponent in the face to knock him out while restrained and the system in question made it either impossible or silly difficult (where the guy is getting slugged over and over again until he reaches zero hp or something). Now this depends entirely on the system but in a case like this I find it helpful that the Gm can overide the poor combat modeling to say "you hit him on the head and knock him out" (of it is a game that doesn't handle that scenario well).

You should find better game systems to play, the two I use handle that case very nicely as part of their core rules (you can buy Age of Heroes for $25, but to be honest I worry if I was a good enough writer to make the rules clear).

If you refuse to use a better system, then you have to do what you have to. But I think it a pity. Gaming systems should be better than that.

ADDED: I'm certain that there are extreme cases where even the best systems 'fail'. My solution is either to accept the failure as a cost of the system's abstraction or in very rare cases (once in dozens of games perhaps) overule the system.

Quote from: gleichman;545098You should find better game systems to play, the two I use handle that case very nicely as part of their core rules (you can buy Age of Heroes for $25, but to be honest I worry if I was a good enough writer to make the rules clear).

If you refuse to use a better system, then you have to do what you have to. But I think it a pity. Gaming systems should be better than that.

ADDED: I'm certain that there are extreme cases where even the best systems 'fail'. My solution is either to accept the failure as a cost of the system's abstraction or in very rare cases (once in dozens of games perhaps) overule the system.

I will give it a look. I have yet to find a system that covers every situation well (most have weak points). And I also am much more interested in lighter systems these days, because speed of play is important (happy to play deeper systems but what I look for now is systems with broad mechanics that work well for a lot of different situations in the hands of a good GM).

If the systen breaks down, I am going to overule it rather than accept it as a consequence of the system's abstraction. That is one of the major reasons to have a GM.