TheRPGSite

Every time I see the "mother-may-I" term used, I think that it is the newest trend in strawman arguements.

Am I right? I could be wrong, but it looks like the latest version of "we must disempower the evil DM because the DM could stop my fun". Is this really a problem in gaming?

Quote from: jeff37923;544509Is this really a problem in gaming?

Nope

I think it's a tactic used by people who can't legitimately refute your argument, so they make up a hyperbolic (and false) attack on a particular edition so you focus on that and not on the weak argument actually presented by them.

It reminds of the people who insist on calling pro-choice people "anti-life" in that it serves no other purpose but to falsely characterize someone else's position as one that no reasonable person would ever hold.

Quote from: jeff37923;544509Every time I see the "mother-may-I" term used, I think that it is the newest trend in strawman arguements.

Am I right? I could be wrong, but it looks like the latest version of "we must disempower the evil DM because the DM could stop my fun". Is this really a problem in gaming?

No, you're right- it's a bunch of bullshit.

Quote from: jeff37923;544509Every time I see the "mother-may-I" term used, I think that it is the newest trend in strawman arguements.

Am I right? I could be wrong, but it looks like the latest version of "we must disempower the evil DM because the DM could stop my fun". Is this really a problem in gaming?

It is not an argument. It is a loaded word meant to belittle a style of play (something not unique to either side in these debates). We do it all the time too (we think we are right but we do engage in it). That is why it is generally better to avoid such language so we can debate the actual concepts rather than butt heads over ego.

Quote from: jeff37923;544509Every time I see the "mother-may-I" term used, I think that it is the newest trend in strawman arguements.

Am I right? I could be wrong

You are right.  Some of the younger players have no idea about older games and so have no other way to "debate" the differences.

Everything everyone else has said.  I feel there's some "nyah back at you!" in it pertaining to comments that 4e (and 3.5e, and 3e) had a "video game" feel.

Just another new type of bullet in Edition Wars.

"Mother-may-I" = what normal people understand as "talking to each other."

Quote from: Benoist;544526"Mother-may-I" = what normal people understand as "talking to each other."

Ha!  Yes, that too.

It's a problem when you have a bad DM.  It's a problem when you walk into a game store and sit down with a random DM who doesn't know you won't abuse things like other random players he's met over the years, and similarly with convention games.  

But it's not a problem when you have a good DM that you know.  And I think, or should I say I hope, that the vast majority of games meet that definition, to varying degrees.  With a good DM that you know, it will never be an issue.

It's about as annoying as the "show my on the doll where the evil GM touched you" thing.

Quote from: Mistwell;544529It's a problem when you have a bad DM.  It's a problem when you walk into a game store and sit down with a random DM who doesn't know you won't abuse things like other random players he's met over the years, and similarly with convention games.  

But it's not a problem when you have a good DM that you know.  And I think, or should I say I hope, that the vast majority of games meet that definition, to varying degrees.  With a good DM that you know, it will never be an issue.

This may explain some of the division. I have pretty much always run games with people I know, and only rarely played with strangers at a gaming atore (though in those cases i have to say they were all great experiences). At conventions I have always run stuff myself, and not been a player.

It's a completely false dichotomy - the idea that, unless you have a hard and fast rule defining a thing, that a competent and reasonable DM can't make a ruling without it being a "gimme".  Usually with the implication that the players are buying the DM pizza, for whatever reason.  

Note that "magic item wish lists" are for some reason exempt from this complaint.  :idunno:

Quote from: Soylent Green;544535It's about as annoying as the "show my on the doll where the evil GM touched you" thing.

It IS that thing.  Saying "mother-may-I" is an admission of past DM abuse (or, more likely, fantasies involving same).

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;544553It IS that thing.  Saying "mother-may-I" is an admission of past DM abuse (or, more likely, fantasies involving same).

I agree. Either you have been touched in the wrong places by some DM some time, or you coopted the ideas of those who have been and don't know any better (referring to people who started gaming with 4e for instance who really have no clue what they're talking about). At least from experience.

These are people complaining that their tabletop game isn't a computer game.

There are lots of computer games out there, and many of them are quite good. They should play those.

I do however think some wisdom can be gained by at least thinking about "mother may I"; it's not an uncommon trap for a DM to come up with some sort of arbitrary scenario where they believe there is some "obvious" solution and the players are left floundering trying to stumble upon the hidden "solution button".

Basically, as a DM, one should always be willing to ask "am I creating a mother may I situation here"?

Quote from: Benoist;544569I agree. Either you have been touched in the wrong places by some DM some time, or you coopted the ideas of those who have been and don't know any better (referring to people who started gaming with 4e for instance who really have no clue what they're talking about). At least from experience.

I think it's the latter more than the former.  I really don't see how there are that many dick DMs out there, especially since many 4e players never played D&D before WoTC took over.  So all they're going by are the ramblings of a few who had shitty DMs and running with it as an excuse to shoot down another playstyle despite having never actually seen how that playstyle works.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544537This may explain some of the division. I have pretty much always run games with people I know, and only rarely played with strangers at a gaming atore (though in those cases i have to say they were all great experiences). At conventions I have always run stuff myself, and not been a player.

Not really, because the entire arguement is based upon the premise that if you do not know the DM, then that DM is most likely a bad DM. In reality, if a person is a bad DM they usually drive away Players and then give up being a DM at all when they cannot find anyone who will game with them - there aren't bands of bad DMs roving the convention and FLGS wasteland searching for Players to abuse.

Quote from: Planet Algol;544582I do however think some wisdom can be gained by at least thinking about "mother may I"; it's not an uncommon trap for a DM to come up with some sort of arbitrary scenario where they believe there is some "obvious" solution and the players are left floundering trying to stumble upon the hidden "solution button".

Basically, as a DM, one should always be willing to ask "am I creating a mother may I situation here"?

I agree, but in terms of "mother-may-I", it is a case of a broken clock being right twice a day.

It's an old Forge-ism resurfacing, not surprisingly, among the Something Awful crowd.

http://verbus.livejournal.com/1649.html

The term "mother may I" seems somewhat perjorative.

I've played in many D&D games with numerous crappy DMs.

I've found that players who don't like the "mother may I" type of DMing, preferred the DM to be like a computer program with some exploitable loopholes/overrides in the players' favor.  More generally, these particular players were the types who preferred things in life to be precisely defined and/or predictable.

Quote from: jeff37923;544590Not really, because the entire arguement is based upon the premise that if you do not know the DM, then that DM is most likely a bad DM. In reality, if a person is a bad DM they usually drive away Players and then give up being a DM at all when they cannot find anyone who will game with them - there aren't bands of bad DMs roving the convention and FLGS wasteland searching for Players to abuse.

Like I said, the times I have played with gms i didn't know were great. I can just see how someone in the routine of playing with new GMs all the time is going to be more likely to encounter a bad GM over time. I have always felt people over estimate the number of bad GMs out there (and quite frankly the people i encounter in real life who do make such complaints usually have issues getting along with people in general).

Quote from: ggroy;544603The term "mother may I" seems somewhat perjorative.

I've played in many D&D games with numerous crappy DMs.

I've found that players who don't like the "mother may I" type of DMing, preferred the DM to be like a computer program with some exploitable loopholes/overrides in the players' favor.  More generally, these particular players were the types who preferred things in life to be precisely defined and/or predictable.

Rules lawyers?  Yeah, I can see that.  Played with more than a few myself.  The first people to get really pissed and indignant when they get their exploitation denied.

It doesn't shock me in the least that these would be the same people to use "mother may I" complaints because the DM's common sense is the one thing keeping them from "beating" everyone else at the table.

I hereby coin "General, tell me!" to denote the cult of designer knows best.

Quote from: jeff37923;544590Not really, because the entire arguement is based upon the premise that if you do not know the DM, then that DM is most likely a bad DM. In reality, if a person is a bad DM they usually drive away Players and then give up being a DM at all when they cannot find anyone who will game with them - there aren't bands of bad DMs roving the convention and FLGS wasteland searching for Players to abuse.

As I said, when as a DM you are playing with a player who you do not know, you may assume they will abuse things in a manner similar to what you've seen happen in the past with other random new players.  It's not necessarily that there are bands of roving bad DMs - it's that there are enough bad DMs, and enough bad players, that it makes convention and game store games more prone to a lack of trust between the DM and the players.

I mean, if you think about it, do you trust a stranger as much as you trust a friend you've gamed with for years? Don't you think that lesser level of trust can impact a game?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544607Rules lawyers?  Yeah, I can see that.  Played with more than a few myself.  The first people to get really pissed and indignant when they get their exploitation denied.

It doesn't shock me in the least that these would be the same people to use "mother may I" complaints because the DM's common sense is the one thing keeping them from "beating" everyone else at the table.

And understand it can work the other direction as well - a DM can play with an annoying-level of rules-lawyer-abuser often enough that when they encounter a new player, they can "hold the reins close" for that new player until they figure out what kind of player they are.  And that very "holding of the reins close" may be perceived as a mother-may-i style by the new player.  The bad players can cause the otherwise-good DM to treat another new player in a manner that's similar to a mother-may-i style.

Quote from: Mistwell;544689As I said, when as a DM you are playing with a player who you do not know, you may assume they will abuse things in a manner similar to what you've seen happen in the past with other random new players.  It's not necessarily that there are bands of roving bad DMs - it's that there are enough bad DMs, and enough bad players, that it makes convention and game store games more prone to a lack of trust between the DM and the players.

I mean, if you think about it, do you trust a stranger as much as you trust a friend you've gamed with for years? Don't you think that lesser level of trust can impact a game?

You are an idiot.

You have created this logical rabbit hole and are busy running down it. In short, you are once again Mistwelling (http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/wiki/index.php/Mistwelling).

EDIT: For those who can't figure it out, Mistwell's logical rabbit hole is the paranoia of assuming that that every Player or DM that you meet is going to be bad. You do not know that until you start play. These are both easy to handle situations in real life when they occur - if you have a bad Player then you ask them to leave, if you have a bad DM then you get up and leave. Nobody is forcing you to have to sit there and put up with bullshit.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544585I think it's the latter more than the former.  I really don't see how there are that many dick DMs out there, especially since many 4e players never played D&D before WoTC took over.  So all they're going by are the ramblings of a few who had shitty DMs and running with it as an excuse to shoot down another playstyle despite having never actually seen how that playstyle works.

I really don't think 4e brought in a significant number of new players.

Quote from: Mistwell;544692And understand it can work the other direction as well - a DM can play with an annoying-level of rules-lawyer-abuser often enough that when they encounter a new player, they can "hold the reins close" for that new player until they figure out what kind of player they are.  And that very "holding of the reins close" may be perceived as a mother-may-i style by the new player.  The bad players can cause the otherwise-good DM to treat another new player in a manner that's similar to a mother-may-i style.

What you say almost makes sense, except that I have never seen it borne out in real experience, despite the vast array of new groups and pick-up games i have played in through the years. Every time, we sit down, make or choose characters, then roll right on into the game. The GM rules, the players get creative, the game moves on. I've seen players not be invited back. I've encountered GMs I had no interest gaming with more than once. However, not once have I ever witnessed an instance of behavior that I would characterize as containing the pleading, subservient tone on the part of the player to a GM that this "mother may I" bullshit describes. I am now completely unsurprised to find it to have been adopted by the lowest common denominator of the Forge crowd, as it fits their agendas perfectly. It's a lie, and will be treated as such by most of us around these parts I'd imagine.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544514It is not an argument. It is a loaded word meant to belittle a style of play (something not unique to either side in these debates). We do it all the time too (we think we are right but we do engage in it). That is why it is generally better to avoid such language so we can debate the actual concepts rather than butt heads over ego.

As usual you pretty much nailed it. It's about how much do you believe your DM is a gamer also and out to have fun or be a selfish dick.

Quote from: Planet Algol;544582Basically, as a DM, one should always be willing to ask "am I creating a mother may I situation here"?

Yes.

And the proper answer is: "Yes, you may, just remember - those are some sharp fucking scissors to be running around with on that battlefield." ;)

Quote from: jeff37923;544693You are an idiot.

You have created this logical rabbit hole and are busy running down it. In short, you are once again Mistwelling (http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/wiki/index.php/Mistwelling).

EDIT: For those who can't figure it out, Mistwell's logical rabbit hole is the paranoia of assuming that that every Player or DM that you meet is going to be bad. You do not know that until you start play. These are both easy to handle situations in real life when they occur - if you have a bad Player then you ask them to leave, if you have a bad DM then you get up and leave. Nobody is forcing you to have to sit there and put up with bullshit.

Jeff, what you failed to realize, out of your bias, is that I agree with you on this "mother-may-i" topic in general.  Nor am I changing the subject - we're discussing the topic directly, and I am not white knighting anything.  I am trying to understand where some people might be coming up with it.  It's not a matter of me saying this is common, or that convention or game store games typically encounter this - I am simply trying to figure out where this concept sources from, and my suspicion is that it's bad DMs and players and a lack of trust.

So far, most people have agreed with me.  I think you reacted out of instinct, because you don't like me as a poster, as opposed to actually considering the argument I am making.  In which case, you'd probably get more out of just putting me on ignore.

Quote from: Melan;544716Yes.

And the proper answer is: "Yes, you may, just remember - those are some sharp fucking scissors to be running around with on that battlefield." ;)

What skips whole thing is just asking "so what does your character want to do" and remembering if your reaction brings some level of enjoyment to you and your players. It's a fine line to walk because the world has to be in motion or it's just storywank territory.

Quote from: Sigmund;544705What you say almost makes sense, except that I have never seen it borne out in real experience, despite the vast array of new groups and pick-up games i have played in through the years. Every time, we sit down, make or choose characters, then roll right on into the game. The GM rules, the players get creative, the game moves on. I've seen players not be invited back. I've encountered GMs I had no interest gaming with more than once. However, not once have I ever witnessed an instance of behavior that I would characterize as containing the pleading, subservient tone on the part of the player to a GM that this "mother may I" bullshit describes. I am now completely unsurprised to find it to have been adopted by the lowest common denominator of the Forge crowd, as it fits their agendas perfectly. It's a lie, and will be treated as such by most of us around these parts I'd imagine.

I think the "pleading, subservient tone" is a vast exaggeration on the part of the people making the argument.  I have seen convention and game store games where I can at least see some players perceiving the events are playing out that way.  I don't tend to think like those particular players, but I think that's where it sources to.

I think the assumption that this never exists is false, I just think it's not a common thing, nor do I think a set of rules should be written with the lowest common denominator in mind.  But I do think bad DMs are fully capable of making this happen.  I think you're giving too much credit to just how bad some DMs can be.  And, how bad some players can be.  I am not fond of the "badwrongfun" type of argument, but there definitely are some truly fucked up DMs and players out there (however rare they might be).  The thing is, I don't think any rules can solve for that problem - not even if you had 5000 page tomes dealing with every conceivable situation.

Can anyone point to what is actually being talked about here?  On the one hand, I agree that "Mother May I" is a stupid pejorative term.  However, I have no idea what usage of it is actually being discussed.  

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;544600It's an old Forge-ism resurfacing, not surprisingly, among the Something Awful crowd.

http://verbus.livejournal.com/1649.html

Since this is a post from six years ago, it hardly seems like a "re-surfacing".  Is there anything within this decade?

Quote from: Marleycat;544724or it's just storywank territory.

Storywank, meet Mother May I.  Mother May I, meet Storywank.  I'm sure you two will get along great.

Quote from: jhkim;544728Can anyone point to what is actually being talked about here?  On the one hand, I agree that "Mother May I" is a stupid pejorative term.  However, I have no idea what usage of it is actually being discussed.  


Since this is a post from six years ago, it hardly seems like a "re-surfacing".  Is there anything within this decade?

I will take a stab at this:

Imagine a kid in Junior High is DMing his first game.  He's a nerdy kid who generally feels powerless in life.  But now, he's the DM, and he controls the world, and he's going to use his power to met out random and capricious rulings to control the game.  The players are at his whim.  Can their spell hit the orc? The DM will decide not based on where the player said their character was, or where the module says the orc is at, but based on the DMs mood in that moment towards that player and situation.  So the players find themselves constantly trying to persuade the DM to let them do anything useful with their character.  A mother-may-i situation.

Is this common? No, not at all.  But can it happen? I think it can, on rather rare occasion.

Some people who fear this situation think that a set of rules that precisely dictates how everything works will solve for this problem.  A grid and miniatures and detailed spell description will solve for whether the orc can be hit with the spell.  A series of tome-sized books detailing how much it costs to buy the services of a tawdry whore or a broken-down mule will solve for the costs of everything.  And so on, such that you have so many rules that there is a specific rule for everything and nothing is left to the judgement of the DM.

But, I don't think the rules can really help with this situation, nor should they.  The problem is the bad DM, not the rules.  And a bad DM will find a way to make your game un-fun no matter how detailed the rules.  Nor should the rules be written with this lowest common denominator of a bad DM in mind - aside from perhaps writing a good advice section in the DMG to try to inform and persuade and advise potential DMs on how to be a better DM.

For me, the fundamental disagreement I have with some folks here is the claim that this hypothetical bad DM doesn't exist - that there are never any games where the players feel like they have to beg permission to do anything useful with their character.  For me, that's giving bad DMs too much credit.  I think they do exist.  They're not common, and they don't last long, but they do sadly exist.  And I think part of the jobs of good DMs on message boards like these are to write good informative and persuasive advice for people to become better DMs, rather than simply pretending there are no bad DMs that end up doing that to their players.

Quote from: Peregrin;544729Storywank, meet Mother May I.  Mother May I, meet Storywank.  I'm sure you two will get along great.

So your telling me you ask permission from your DM to do something? If so, too bad to be you.  I'd give that game a middle finger of LOVE. You do something, the DM says cool, roll +/-2 against Strength or whatever, end of story and move on. Nobody asked anybody a damn thing.

Quote from: Marleycat;544732So your telling me you ask permission from your DM to do something? If so, too bad to be you.  I'd give that game a middle finger of LOVE. You do something, the DM says cool, roll +/-2 against Strength or whatever, end of story and move on. Nobody asked anybody a damn thing.

Not at all.  My point is it's ironic to say "Yeah, these people are being jerks and misrepresenting my preferred play type" and then casually throw out a negative term used to do the same thing.

Quote from: Marleycat;544732So your telling me you ask permission from your DM to do something? If so, too bad to be you.  I'd give that game a middle finger of LOVE. You do something, the DM says cool, roll +/-2 against Strength or whatever, end of story and move on. Nobody asked anybody a damn thing.

Actually, I think he was saying that belittling jargon is rife within the gaming community.  Carry on.

Quote from: jhkim;544728Can anyone point to what is actually being talked about here?  On the one hand, I agree that "Mother May I" is a stupid pejorative term.  However, I have no idea what usage of it is actually being discussed.  

Same here. And that's even *after* reading Mistwell's response to you.

When I read the Something Awful thread (well, ten or twenty posts in that thread) linked in the discussion about 4e fans who hate 5e, I almost started a thread exactly like this one. Because I have no idea what those people are harping about.

I have several competing theories, and have heard others. Take Mistwell's explanation: very well described, and I can imagine someone complaining about the potential for a DM turning into an arbitrary tyrant. But that really doesn't happen very often, and it's certainly not something 4e is immune to; all editions have an equal chance of that kind of behavior. So that *can't* be what they're talking about.

The same applies to DMs who play favorites, or DMs who expect players to describe character actions in words they can understand. Either can (does) happen in any edition, with equal odds. No amount of rules can prevent this, because all of these assume the DM is ignoring any rules in the book and going purely by personal feelings or social interaction.

*My* first thought was that they're complaining about having to ask the DM if something is possible. But again, that happens -- *has* to happen -- in every edition, because the DM is the player's interface with the game world: their eyes, ears, and other senses.

And then I thought: maybe they're complaining about "invisible rules". In the old days, when you started playing, you often didn't know the rules, and that was OK: the DM knew the rules, and all you really need to know is how think like a character. The DM would figure out which rules applied for you; you don't need to know your THAC0 to say "I swing my sword!"

But, although I think that's a great way to play, hardly anyone plays that way anymore. So THAT can't be what they're complaining about, either.

What the heck *is* "mother-may-I"?

Quote from: misterguignol;544736Actually, I think he was saying that belittling jargon is rife within the gaming community.  Carry on.

If so, sorry if I misunderstood. :(

Quote from: Marleycat;544738If so, sorry if I misunderstood. :(

No worries.  I'd have quite a bit of pocket change if I got money for every time I misunderstood someone online.

Quote from: talysman;544737What the heck *is* "mother-may-I"?

Essentially, it is when you have to ask permission to do something, rather than being able to use your character sheet to tell the GM he *has* to allow you to do something.

So asking the GM if there is a big fuck-off icicle you can dislodge to cripple the dragon is mother-may-i. Where as spending a Awesome Point on your Drow Ranger to activate his 'Make the lame GM deal 20millionz damage to his dragon via the medium of my own plot' is not.

Quote from: talysman;544737What the heck *is* "mother-may-I"?

Quote from: jadrax;544741Essentially, it is when you have to ask permission to do something, rather than being able to use your character sheet to tell the GM he *has* to allow you to do something.

So asking the GM if there is a big fuck-off icicle you can dislodge to cripple the dragon is mother-may-i. Where as spending a Awesome Point on your Drow Ranger to activate his 'Make the lame GM deal 20millionz damage to his dragon via the medium of my own plot' is not.

Yeah, but that's related to my point. The GM is the player's interface to the world, so even in 4e, or even in some hypothetical "4e Double Plus" with a twenty-page character sheet with rules and powers for just about everything, there's going to be a moment where the player has to ask "is there an icicle?" And the GM can still say "yes, it's DC 500 to break off."

Unless, yeah, you have some kind of Awesome Point system that drifts into collaboration. But in those cases, you're just spreading the GM abilities around, not eliminating the problem. Someone at the table can still abuse the group (which is what you're getting at with the "20millionz damage" example.) The only way to prevent that is to debate it in the group, which is effectively "mother-may-I".

So that *can't* be what they're complaining about, can it? They can't *really* be complaining about the fact that someone, somewhere might disagree with their fantasies?

Quote from: talysman;544743So that *can't* be what they're complaining about, can it? They can't *really* be complaining about the fact that someone, somewhere might disagree with their fantasies?

You are absolutely correct.  Every edition has some sort of interpretation and DM fiat in it.  So more often than not, in my experience, is that people trot out that old tired phrase as a way to make fans of other editions besides 4e seem unreasonable.  See my first post on page 1 of this thread.

I'm aware of the general connotations of "Mother May I" - but I don't know about the specific usage being referred to by this thread.  

Quote from: talysman;544737When I read the Something Awful thread (well, ten or twenty posts in that thread) linked in the discussion about 4e fans who hate 5e, I almost started a thread exactly like this one. Because I have no idea what those people are harping about.

Quote from: talysman;544743Unless, yeah, you have some kind of Awesome Point system that drifts into collaboration. But in those cases, you're just spreading the GM abilities around, not eliminating the problem. Someone at the table can still abuse the group (which is what you're getting at with the "20millionz damage" example.) The only way to prevent that is to debate it in the group, which is effectively "mother-may-I".

So that *can't* be what they're complaining about, can it? They can't *really* be complaining about the fact that someone, somewhere might disagree with their fantasies?

So apparently there was a Something Awful thread?  Everyone seems to be bashing on some people who use the term "Mother May I" without specifying who they're bashing.  I generally refuse to read Something Awful, but putting in a link would at least give some clarity.  

When I remember seeing the term years ago, the canonical example was the Ranger's favored enemy bonus.  I do think that there is a real difference between the favored enemy bonus and certain other abilities, like extra hit points, spells, or sneak attack.  

If I have an extra spell per day, that is something I can just use.  While in principle the DM could say "No, you get one less spell per day now" - in practice that isn't likely to happen.  If I instead get a special bonus versus orcs, it depends a lot more on the DM whether I am fighting orcs in this adventure or not.  Both of these are subject to DM approval in some sense, but I do think there is a real distinction.  

I still think the term "Mother May I" is a dumb pejorative as a term, but there can be something coherent behind it, or not.

I have a suggestion.

Instead of dropping out of a thread where 'Mother My I' was used to make wild and inaccurate speculation among the echo chamber- you return to the people actually using the term and ask them directly?

Quote from: gleichman;544751I have a suggestion.

Instead of dropping out of a thread where 'Mother My I' was used to make wild and inaccurate speculation among the echo chamber- you return to the people actually using the term and ask them directly?

To be clear, I think I'm the only person who mentioned Something Awful in *this* thread, because the first time I ever saw the phrase "mother-may-I" as a D&D criticism was yesterday, in an SA thread someone linked to in the thread about 4e fans who hate 5e. I'm only assuming this thread is about that use of the term in the SA thread, but no one's confirmed in this thread. For all I know, maybe they've seen the phrase on RPGnet or ENWorld, too.

The SA thread is something like eight billion pages long, so there may have been an explanation of the term buried in there somewhere. However, my brief scan of the thread suggests there's no substantial discussion, it's just meant for drive-by sniping.

Quote from: jeff37923;544693You are an idiot.

You have created this logical rabbit hole and are busy running down it. In short, you are once again Mistwelling (http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/wiki/index.php/Mistwelling).

EDIT: For those who can't figure it out, Mistwell's logical rabbit hole is the paranoia of assuming that that every Player or DM that you meet is going to be bad. You do not know that until you start play. These are both easy to handle situations in real life when they occur - if you have a bad Player then you ask them to leave, if you have a bad DM then you get up and leave. Nobody is forcing you to have to sit there and put up with bullshit.

The irony of this post in the context of recent rage bawwing over Something Awful behaviors is so fucking rich I had to wash it down with tequila to cleanse the palate.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544748You are absolutely correct.  Every edition has some sort of interpretation and DM fiat in it.  So more often than not, in my experience, is that people trot out that old tired phrase as a way to make fans of other editions besides 4e seem unreasonable.  See my first post on page 1 of this thread.

In otherwords "Mother May I" is fact and does exist in every RPG because only a SPCG can truly excise it because it's you against a computer program, no human interaction needed. The argument isn't about the the term but that it implies both to what degree that it affects things and a subtle mischaractrization  against rules lighter playstyles in one term.  Nice. :(

Quote from: gleichman;544751I have a suggestion.

Instead of dropping out of a thread where 'Mother My I' was used to make wild and inaccurate speculation among the echo chamber- you return to the people actually using the term and ask them directly?

The meme has been around elsewhere for a while, TCO just brought it here. Personally I've seen it on /tg/ now and again, but there are some specific difficulties in singling out another poster in an anonymous conversation. Back when I took another shot at participating on the WotC boards (the other place I see this) I eventually dropped off because the quality of the conversation was less than stellar.

Anyway, it would be pointless to ask any of these individuals having never ascertained who coined the phrase, and the intent of the person who did is less important than whatever phenomenon gave this meme it's... traction? Credibility? In that respect it's similar to phrases like "murder hobos" and "fantasy Vietnam."

Quote from: jhkim;544750So apparently there was a Something Awful thread?  .

They use it there, but that's hardly the only place you hear it.  It's also used a lot at RPG.net and other forums as well.  Always in the same context: a 4e fan trying to use hyperbole to explain why they think X edition sucks.

Quote from: talysman;544752To be clear, I think I'm the only person who mentioned Something Awful in *this* thread

The term is heavily use in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=22844&page=67) on this site starting on page 67.

In both cases, I'm imagine context is key and the meaning will vary by who's making the statement.

Asking the people involve is worth a thousand answers from people who weren't.

Quote from: Marleycat;544754In otherwords "Mother May I" is fact and does exist in every RPG because only a SPCG can truly excise it because it's you against a computer program, no human interaction needed. The argument isn't about the the term but that it implies both to what degree that it affects things and a subtle mischaractrization  against a particular playstyle in one term.  Nice. :(

For me, it is about the term.  I have no problem with people complaining that they feel X edition has way too much GM fiat because of a lack of guidelines for basic play.  But I do have a problem with the term "mother may I" because of the imagery it gives as well as the reasons I mentioned upthread.

To continue my example, I don't have a problem with a pro-life person disagreeing with a pro-choice person, but when they start using terms like "anti-life", then there's no point in having the discussion because clearly they have no intention of having an honest conversation.

Quote from: gleichman;544757The term is heavily use in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=22844&page=67) on this site starting on page 67.

In both cases, I'm imagine context is key and the meaning will vary by who's making the statement.

Asking the people involve is worth a thousand answers from people who weren't.

I think the reason the op opened this thread and asked the question is because it has become an increasingly common term. I am sure he was inspired by the emergence of the mother may I discussion on the other thread, but it is a fair question that can be considered in a broader conteุรย

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544758For me, it is about the term.  I have no problem with people complaining that they feel X edition has way too much GM fiat because of a lack of guidelines for basic play.  But I do have a problem with the term "mother may I" because of the imagery it gives as well as the reasons I mentioned upthread.

To continue my example, I don't have a problem with a pro-life person disagreeing with a pro-choice person, but when they start using terms like "anti-life", then there's no point in having the discussion because clearly they have no intention of having an honest conversation.

This is pretty much how I feel about it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544758To continue my example, I don't have a problem with a pro-life person disagreeing with a pro-choice person, but when they start using terms like "anti-life", then there's no point in having the discussion because clearly they have no intention of having an honest conversation.

And they of course would say the same about you. Everyone wants to frame the debate in terms most favorable to themselves, a wise man sees beyond this and can still debate something on it's merits.

Talk to the people you are mischaracterizing, you may learn something.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544759I think the reason the op opened this thread and asked the question is because it has become an increasingly common term. I am sure he was inspired by the emergence of the mother may I discussion on the other thread, but it is a fair question that can be considered in a broader conteุรย

Not in a vaccum and against over 40 posts in the kangaroo court.

This is nothing but bunch of people who have taken insult whining amongst themselves to no end. You have a problem with what some individual said- call them out, don't whine in some other thread about it.

Quote from: gleichman;544762Not in a vaccum and against over 40 posts in the kangaroo court.

This is nothing but bunch of people who have taken insult whining amongst themselves to no end. You have a problem with what some individual said- call them out, don't whine in some other thread about it.

No one is shying away from debate on the other thread. It is possible to debate people on the thread you linked and to talk about this issue here on its own. It does highlight something worth discussion which is the use of mother may I in these kinds of debates about editions. You see it on rpgnet, enworld, wotc, and here. I see nothing wrong with discussing its use.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544758For me, it is about the term.  I have no problem with people complaining that they feel X edition has way too much GM fiat because of a lack of guidelines for basic play.  But I do have a problem with the term "mother may I" because of the imagery it gives as well as the reasons I mentioned upthread.

To continue my example, I don't have a problem with a pro-life person disagreeing with a pro-choice person, but when they start using terms like "anti-life", then there's no point in having the discussion because clearly they have no intention of having an honest conversation.

You caught me while I was editing. Phone posting is hard. Anyway so you're trying to say the term is trying to make a grey collaborative area, one that is the very basis of RPG'S into a black and white competitive game like a MMORG.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544763No one is shying away from debate on the other thread. It is possible to debate people on the thread you linked and to talk about this issue here on its own. It does highlight something worth discussion which is the use of mother may I in these kinds of debates about editions. You see it on rpgnet, enworld, wotc, and here. I see nothing wrong with discussing its use.

You should look closer then, what's been said so far in this thead has had nothing to do with it's recent use in the thread I reference. If someone goes from here to there they are going to completely mistake the term as it's being used.

You are in short poisoning the well, making a term unacceptable when you have no real idea what the person using it is really saying. I call that a harm.

The term gets used alot on the gaming den (tgdmb.com), I think most typically with regard to 4E skill challenges and out of combat mechanics (as contrasted to 3E's a rule for everything).
 
Seeing it used by the 4E people on 5E is an interesting turn of events. I for one would like to welcome them all into the arms of grognardism :)

Quote from: gleichman;544765You should look closer then, what's been said so far in this thead has had nothing to do with it's recent use in the thread I reference. If someone goes from here to there they are going to completely mistake the term as it's being used.

You are in short poisoning the well, making a term unacceptable when you have no real idea what the person using it is really saying. I call that a harm.

I would say it is generally being used online as people are describing it here (which is to say as a loaded term meant to embarrass the other side and kill real debate). Having participated in the other thread I am inclined to say that is how it was used there as well. And I said as much on that thread. But even if people on the other thread were using it to mean something wonderful, it wouldn't change how it is used by most folks on line these days.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544759I think the reason the op opened this thread and asked the question is because it has become an increasingly common term. I am sure he was inspired by the emergence of the mother may I discussion on the other thread, but it is a fair question that can be considered in a broader conteุรย

That is why I brought it up. I hadn't really encountered it before a couple of days ago, but the term seemed to have caught on and has become the strawman de jour of recent discussion regarding why 4E is better than other versions of D&D.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544767I would say it is generally being used online as people are describing it here (which is to say as a loaded term meant to embarrass the other side and kill real debate). Having participated in the other thread I am inclined to say that is how it was used there as well. And I said as much on that thread. But even if people on the other thread were using it to mean something wonderful, it wouldn't change how it is used by most folks on line these days.

I see you didn't learn much at all then from the other thread, despite an attempt to appear otherwise.

Very well, let the slander continue. It's clear that reason won't stop you.

Quote from: gleichman;544769I see you didn't learn much at all then from the other thread, despite an attempt to appear otherwise.

Very well, let the slander continue. It's clear that reason won't stop you.

 I learned you basically had a reasonable position. But you still used mother may i in the manner i described initially and I told you that was my issue with your post. Gleichman I think I have been more than reasonable with you and very open to hearing your position. That doesn't mean we are going to agree on everything, and at he end of the day I still judge mother may I to be little more than a rhetorical sledge hammer.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;544766The term gets used alot on the gaming den (tgdmb.com), I think most typically with regard to 4E skill challenges and out of combat mechanics (as contrasted to 3E's a rule for everything).
 
Seeing it used by the 4E people on 5E is an interesting turn of events. I for one would like to welcome them all into the arms of grognardism :)

You sure? You do know that the "Big Tent" would have to include TCO (who I actually like btw). With him comes the superhero to demigod playstyle, which is fun but I don't want it as baseline.

Get out of my head Benoist! :D

Quote from: jhkim;544728Can anyone point to what is actually being talked about here?  On the one hand, I agree that "Mother May I" is a stupid pejorative term.  However, I have no idea what usage of it is actually being discussed.  


Since this is a post from six years ago, it hardly seems like a "re-surfacing".  Is there anything within this decade?

Lame. It's the very definition of "resurface", unless you're claiming the time difference suggests there's no connection. If so, I can find the term still current in Forger-discussion as late as 2008 (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=7917).

It pops up at SA as early as Jan, 2011: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&pagenumber=746&perpage=40#post387276296

In any case, the concepts are completely parallel.

Quote from: Mistwell;544723Jeff, what you failed to realize, out of your bias, is that I agree with you on this "mother-may-i" topic in general.  Nor am I changing the subject - we're discussing the topic directly, and I am not white knighting anything.  I am trying to understand where some people might be coming up with it.  It's not a matter of me saying this is common, or that convention or game store games typically encounter this - I am simply trying to figure out where this concept sources from, and my suspicion is that it's bad DMs and players and a lack of trust.

So far, most people have agreed with me.  I think you reacted out of instinct, because you don't like me as a poster, as opposed to actually considering the argument I am making.  In which case, you'd probably get more out of just putting me on ignore.

You are an idiot.

You may be agreeing with me about "mother-may-I", but I took to task your paranoid assumption that if you do not know a person's playstyle (DM or Player) that you must assume that they are going to be bad. The followup to this that you will have an awful experience if there are not rules to curtail the badness is what led to some of the mistakes of 4E.

At least get that right while you hoist yourself up on the cross.

Quote from: jhkim;544750When I remember seeing the term years ago

This might jog your memory. (http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/30136.html) The linked posts show how the ranger example metastasizes into a complete indictment of "traditional" gaming.

Quote from: jeff37923;544693EDIT: For those who can't figure it out, Mistwell's logical rabbit hole is the paranoia of assuming that that every Player or DM that you meet is going to be bad. You do not know that until you start play. These are both easy to handle situations in real life when they occur - if you have a bad Player then you ask them to leave, if you have a bad DM then you get up and leave. Nobody is forcing you to have to sit there and put up with bullshit.

You always have a choice to walk as a last resort it's true, but I do think there's an excluded middle there too, in the sense that what we call bad DMs or bad players are not necessarily unredeemable shitty human beings in general period the end: they may just be mistaken in their assumptions, or oblivious to something rubbing other players the wrong way, are used to doing things a certain way while the others aren't, etc.

In other words, just joking around to make the person realize you have an issue with what they're doing, or communicating plainly and saying "you know, I don't like it when you do that", and being reasonable human beings you know... collaborating to have fun? Not confrontational douches? Well it solves 99% of problems at the game table.

And yes, sometimes that means that people will be incompatible and not come back to play next week, or that you'll have to run the game instead of that guy that quit, but at least you're doing it like a normal adult trying to organize a social game with other like-minded people. So the whole "let's enforce the rules and better yet! Design games so that the DM's castrated and we have the leverage by the rules to tell him to fuck off!" sounds to me like a childish recipe for disaster and a lousy time for everyone involved.

Grow some balls, people. Talk to each other.

And by the way, to bring another piece of the puzzle here in regards to the use of the expression, the first guy I ever remember using it is Mike Mearls on his livejournal about 6 years ago, where he talked about the 'problem' of what he branded "Mother May I" (and probably recuperated from the Forge), which was then talked about ad nauseam on ENWorld at the time. It dates back to the same time frame as the post about the Rust Monster. That's how I assume many of the online D&D fans were introduced to the term, which then carried on in the late late 3.5 design conversation and 4e's obviously.

Quote from: Marleycat;544771You sure? You do know that the "Big Tent" would have to include TCO (who I actually like btw). With him comes the superhero to demigod playstyle, which is fun but I don't want it as baseline.
 
Get out of my head Benoist! :D

:) I'd stop telling them to get off my lawn for being young 'uns in general, but certain folks may still need the shotgun pointed at 'em.

Quote from: Benoist;544779Grow some balls, people. Talk to each other.

You know, if that needs to be explained to them, then maybe they shouldn't be gaming and should be studying Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People instead.

Quote from: jeff37923;544787You know, if that needs to be explained to them, then maybe they shouldn't be gaming and should be studying Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People instead.

Color me shocked, I mean, seriously. We are talking about most of us being 30 something years old adults and older enjoying games we've played on average for the last 20-30 years, and we can't figure out this stuff for ourselves to resort instead to bullshit theory that tries to fix problems with people via more and more rules? I mean. WOW. What the fuck guys, right?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;544782:) I'd stop telling them to get off my lawn for being young 'uns in general, but certain folks may still need the shotgun pointed at 'em.

Seriously, your right, I'd rather include rather than exclude. The more people in the hobby I love means the more relevant it is. Worse comes to worse I could take Ben's advice and strike up a conversation with them when I meet them IRL(which I do but it's good advice regardless).

Quote from: Benoist;544781And by the way, to bring another piece of the puzzle here in regards to the use of the expression, the first guy I ever remember using it is Mike Mearls on his livejournal about 6 years ago, where he talked about the 'problem' of what he branded "Mother May I" (and probably recuperated from the Forge), which was then talked about ad nauseam on ENWorld at the time.

I read the original (link on John Kim's blog, given above.) And now I'm even more confused, because two things come to mind:

• Isn't it the GM's job to decide what monsters (etc.) are going to show up? Doesn't every such choice limit what the players can do in response?
• Isn't the solution not "add more rules" but "stop adding these so-called 'mother may I' abilities"?

Missed all the good stuff but adding my 2 cents:

Mother-may-I is a legitimate problem, but it's a problem of degree.

The DM will always have to make rulings (and essentially unsupported by the rules), otherwise they'd be a computer. This becomes a problem when the players have to negotiate with the DM for every meaningful action (or when the DM has to make up shit on the fly for every action).

Just because good DMs don't often encounter this kind of problem doesn't mean it should be ignored.

I've got an idea about a magic system. I might post it.

Quote from: talysman;544794I read the original (link on John Kim's blog, given above.) And now I'm even more confused, because two things come to mind:

• Isn't it the GM's job to decide what monsters (etc.) are going to show up? Doesn't every such choice limit what the players can do in response?
• Isn't the solution not "add more rules" but "stop adding these so-called 'mother may I' abilities"?

It really is more simple than you're making it. The DM makes the decisions a world in motion would.  The players then react and their journey begins. The players making decisions and doing stuff the DM acting as the world in motion and acting as such while reacting directly to player decisions at the same time. :)

Quote from: One Horse Town;544800I've got an idea about a magic system. I might post it.

Please do I love different magic systems.

(1) Well technically choosing the setting right there limits choices. As a referee, adjudicator, and power giving life to the setting you are ipso facto framing the game to some extent. The richness of the campaign derives from the meaningful interaction of the PCs with their environment. It does ask from you DM to be consistent and strive to make sense to your players, but the belief that only an airtight rules system spelling out all possible permutations and cases can provide this for the DM to be consistent in his rulings is utter horseshit and stems from a communication breakdown at some game table some time, hence "tell us where the bad DM touched you".

(2) The solution is to communicate around the game table. Rules don't fix people. People fix themselves.

Quote from: Benoist;544803(2) The solution is to communicate around the game table. Rules don't fix people. People fix themselves.

I don't want to be fixed.

Quote from: Benoist;544803(2) The solution is to communicate around the game table. Rules don't fix people. People fix themselves.

In my experience, the most critical and frustrating information bottleneck in role-playing involves players having to ask the GM questions before they make decisions (which I refer to as "Playing 20 Questions" rather than "Mother May I").  Seriously, my group did several dual-GM games (that I've both helped run and played in) to improve the GM bandwidth problem.  As such, I see a map board and an objective set of rules as tools to allow the players to answer their own questions about what exists and is or isn't possible without having to utilize the valuable bandwidth of the GM to discuss hypotheticals that may never be realized.  While I'm fine with a fairly granular set of rules with a fairly high level of abstraction, I find it important that the players can use those rules for planning without having to wait for the GM to provide answers to questions about what certain choices will mean if the players' characters should have that information available to them.

So to summarize, one of the problems I've seen in role-playing games is caused by too much communication being required and rules and map grids can very much help or even fix that problem.

Quote from: jhkimWhen I remember seeing the term years ago...

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;544775This might jog your memory. (http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/30136.html) The linked posts show how the ranger example metastasizes into a complete indictment of "traditional" gaming.

Thanks for the reminder - I had indeed forgotten about that post.  

I would say that usage varied from some people who used it in an insulting way for mechanics like the original ranger "favored enemy" example; and other later people used the term to spout their usual attacks on all of traditional RPGs.  (I wouldn't say "metastasized" since I don't think the earlier people using the term like Mearls suddenly turned into the latter type like João.  Indeed, the latter type were mostly just applying a new label to their usual complaints.)  

That's why I'm asking about what the re-surfaced usage is.  Is it more like Mearl's Ranger usage, or more like João's usage that I criticized in my post?

Quote from: John Morrow;544821In my experience, the most critical and frustrating information bottleneck in role-playing involves players having to ask the GM questions before they make decisions (which I refer to as "Playing 20 Questions" rather than "Mother May I").  Seriously, my group did several dual-GM games (that I've both helped run and played in) to improve the GM bandwidth problem.  As such, I see a map board and an objective set of rules as tools to allow the players to answer their own questions about what exists and is or isn't possible without having to utilize the valuable bandwidth of the GM to discuss hypotheticals that may never be realized.  While I'm fine with a fairly granular set of rules with a fairly high level of abstraction, I find it important that the players can use those rules for planning without having to wait for the GM to provide answers to questions about what certain choices will mean if the players' characters should have that information available to them.

So to summarize, one of the problems I've seen in role-playing games is caused by too much communication being required and rules and map grids can very much help or even fix that problem.

Sure, exchanges between DM and players can turn into the "20 questions" thing, and that's when you pop up the sheet of paper or veleda board to draw a quick sketch, since obviously not everyone is getting what you're talking about and seeing in your mind's eye as the DM.

To take back my example earlier (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=544547&postcount=784) you might describe a room of 50 feet on a side with the adventurers Cadmus, Elbeghast, Xarbathos and Rorhwen coming close by the southern corridor in such terms:

QuoteDM: You are entering a large square room. Perhaps 50 feet on a side. Each side of the square has an opening/door in the middle of it. You reach the room through one of them, on the south wall. There is a 10-foot pit in the middle of the room. A hooded figure is praying close to it surrounded by some worshippers, all humanoids it seems, but all wearing black hoods. They are humming slowly and don't seem to have noticed you.
Player 1: how far are we from them again?
DM: You'd say about 20 feet. It's dark in the room, and they are all looking at the pit in the center of the room right now, which probably explains why they didn't spot you.
Player 1 (turning to the others): we could rush to them and take them on quickly. We'd have surprise at least. We can cover that distance in a few seconds.
Wizard player (to DM): How spaced are they? Are they all in a group around the pit, or spread out in the room beyond or what?
DM: The former. You'd say that they're spreading 5 or so feet around the pit in all directions, all pretty close to the edge.
Wizard player (to the other players): I could fireball them.
Player 1: Are you crazy?! That's going to be visible in all directions, not to mention, you might actually cook us all too!

Now if the players keep asking questions or that it otherwise seems clear that the players are not on the same page, you just draw a quick sketch like this:

(http://enrill.net/images/maps/DM-sketch-01.jpg)

With C, X, E and R being the PCs, the small hollow dots being the cultists, the black dot being the leader of the bunch turning his back to the PCs, the huge circle in the middle being the pit, and you're basically there. You are not breaking up the miniatures, not spending turn after turn thinking in terms of squares and bullshit, and you get on with the actual imagining of what's going on around you.

It's not rocket science.

It really, really isn't. And I wish you guys would quit making it sound like something it isn't. Literally MILLIONS of gamers do it that way, and if anything, the use of grids and minis and uptight minigames to manage these sorts of things is a minority in the hobby, not a majority. Come on guys. It's not hard to imagine, is it?

And the key to this is just that: communication, and empathy, describing stuff effectively, asking the DM when you have a doubt on something, and knowing when to just make a sketch so that a pic saves you a thousand words.  Easy peasy.

Plus with sketches, if something is in motion you can draw its vector.

Big fan of sketches for battleboards here.

Quote from: Planet Algol;544857Plus with sketches, if something is in motion you can draw its vector.

Big fan of sketches for battleboards here.

Yes. I actually intended to add vectors on the sketch with corresponding dialog, but lacked the time.

BTW, that's exactly how we played with Planet Algol as DM in Red Box Vancouver (awesome), and, BTW again, that's how I've run countless RPGs myself before. It is really not as hard as some people here seem to imagine it is.

Quote from: Benoist;544851Literally MILLIONS of gamers do it that way, and if anything, the use of grids and minis and uptight minigames to manage these sorts of things is a minority in the hobby, not a majority. Come on guys. It's not hard to imagine, is it?

And the key to this is just that: communication, and empathy, describing stuff effectively, asking the DM when you have a doubt on something, and knowing when to just make a sketch so that a pic saves you a thousand words.  Easy peasy.

Not just gamers.

Believe it or not I don't have complicated rulesets when discussing things with my co-workers.

When we need to come up with lesson plans or benchmarks for certain classes we ...

Just talk.

And then we make decisions.

Seems to work fine.

but I can see how socially inept nerds might not understand the concept.

Quote from: Benoist;544851Sure, exchanges between DM and players can turn into the "20 questions" thing, and that's when you pop up the sheet of paper or veleda board to draw a quick sketch, since obviously not everyone is getting what you're talking about and seeing in your mind's eye as the DM.

To take back my example earlier (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=544547&postcount=784) you might describe a room of 50 feet on a side with the adventurers Cadmus, Elbeghast, Xarbathos and Rorhwen coming close by the southern corridor in such terms:



Now if the players keep asking questions or that it otherwise seems clear that the players are not on the same page, you just draw a quick sketch like this:

(http://enrill.net/images/maps/DM-sketch-01.jpg)

With C, X, E and R being the PCs, the small hollow dots being the cultists, the black dot being the leader of the bunch turning his back to the PCs, the huge circle in the middle being the pit, and you're basically there. You are not breaking up the miniatures, not spending turn after turn thinking in terms of squares and bullshit, and you get on with the actual imagining of what's going on around you.

It's not rocket science.

It really, really isn't. And I wish you guys would quit making it sound like something it isn't. Literally MILLIONS of gamers do it that way, and if anything, the use of grids and minis and uptight minigames to manage these sorts of things is a minority in the hobby, not a majority. Come on guys. It's not hard to imagine, is it?

And the key to this is just that: communication, and empathy, describing stuff effectively, asking the DM when you have a doubt on something, and knowing when to just make a sketch so that a pic saves you a thousand words.  Easy peasy.

It's how I do stuff but with worse drawings.:)

A couple years ago, I ran my group through AD&D Temple of Elemental Evil.  We managed to do the entire adventure not only with no battle maps, but most of the time the mapper wasn't even mapping.

It can be done.  Even with a screwed up map like those in ToEE ;)

But this goes back to "D&D existed long before 3e every came out, and millions of gamers managed to do just fine."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544872but most of the time the mapper wasn't even mapping.

Bread crumbs?  Wards?  How did they not get lost?  The mapper is one of the most important roles in classic D&D.

I mean I guess you could just give them sketches, but IMO mapping is challenging but (given time) a very rewarding task.  When you're running for your lives or trying to scan the architecture for secret passages or things that seem "off", it's invaluable.

Quote from: Peregrin;544873Bread crumbs?  Wards?  How did they not get lost?  The mapper is one of the most important roles in classic D&D.

I mean I guess you could just give them sketches, but IMO mapping is challenging but (given time) a very rewarding task.  When you're running for your lives or trying to scan the architecture for secret passages, it's invaluable.

A lot of luck, really.  The party did make a pretty good effort to go carefully and clear out areas they had been to previously, so a lot of "We go left.  Ok, then right." left them somewhat unscathed.  That, and made Int checks to remember which direction went where.

But I should note "somewhat" unscathed.  They lost two henchmen from being outflanked, and two of the PCs had to end up being raised at the church of ST. Cuthberts in Homlett due to unlucky choices and poor mapping.

Quote from: Peregrin;544873Bread crumbs?  Wards?  How did they not get lost?  The mapper is one of the most important roles in classic D&D.

I mean I guess you could just give them sketches, but IMO mapping is challenging but (given time) a very rewarding task.  When you're running for your lives or trying to scan the architecture for secret passages or things that seem "off", it's invaluable.

I'm going to have to agree with you on this. I suppose it's possible without a mapper but it'd take more than a little good fortune.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544872A couple years ago, I ran my group through AD&D Temple of Elemental Evil.  We managed to do the entire adventure not only with no battle maps, but most of the time the mapper wasn't even mapping.

It can be done.  Even with a screwed up map like those in ToEE ;)

But this goes back to "D&D existed long before 3e every came out, and millions of gamers managed to do just fine."

The run through the Temple we did last year...one of the players is a draftsman who would risk the dangers of random encounters to re-walk areas previously explored if due to an earlier mapping error the map didn't seem to jive with an entrance, exit, or stairs.  No lie!

This whole concept is really funny.  Someone is going to have the authority, and generally speaking, the player is going to be better off if its the guy a few feet away from him, than some game designer hundreds of miles away that he'll never meet.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;544851Sure, exchanges between DM and players can turn into the "20 questions" thing, and that's when you pop up the sheet of paper or veleda board to draw a quick sketch, since obviously not everyone is getting what you're talking about and seeing in your mind's eye as the DM.

Or you play with an erasable map grid on the table so you don't have to pull anything out and use it whenever necessary, which is pretty much what I've long seen done.  Like I said earlier, whether you wind up with "20 Questions" is going to depend on how complicated the planning and actions of the players and NPCs are.  In my experience, this happens in all but the simplest encounters, so this happens most of the time.  I can image groups where the action is simple enough that this is the exception rather than the norm and, as I've pointed out in a thread a while back, you can reduce D&D combat to a one dimensional tactical exercise where all that matters, like in the old Wizardry computer games, is what rank your character is in (aka marching order).

Quote from: Benoist;544851To take back my example earlier (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=544547&postcount=784) you might describe a room of 50 feet on a side with the adventurers Cadmus, Elbeghast, Xarbathos and Rorhwen coming close by the southern corridor in such terms:

QuoteDM: You are entering a large square room. Perhaps 50 feet on a side. Each side of the square has an opening/door in the middle of it. You reach the room through one of them, on the south wall. There is a 10-foot pit in the middle of the room. A hooded figure is praying close to it surrounded by some worshippers, all humanoids it seems, but all wearing black hoods. They are humming slowly and don't seem to have noticed you.
Player 1: how far are we from them again?
DM: You'd say about 20 feet. It's dark in the room, and they are all looking at the pit in the center of the room right now, which probably explains why they didn't spot you.
Player 1 (turning to the others): we could rush to them and take them on quickly. We'd have surprise at least. We can cover that distance in a few seconds.
Wizard player (to DM): How spaced are they? Are they all in a group around the pit, or spread out in the room beyond or what?
DM: The former. You'd say that they're spreading 5 or so feet around the pit in all directions, all pretty close to the edge.
Wizard player (to the other players): I could fireball them.
Player 1: Are you crazy?! That's going to be visible in all directions, not to mention, you might actually cook us all too!

Based on the initial description, I would have assumed the pit was also square.  Before the Wizard player question, I would have assumed the other humanoids were surrounding the hooded figure, and not the pit.  If no player thought to ask questions before committing to a course of action, the misunderstanding could have been significant, which illustrates the problem of assumption clash even with this pretty simple example.  Your diagram also adds a detail lacking in your description -- the fork in the corridor across from the players.

Quote from: Benoist;544851Now if the players keep asking questions or that it otherwise seems clear that the players are not on the same page, you just draw a quick sketch like this:

(http://enrill.net/images/maps/DM-sketch-01.jpg)

With C, X, E and R being the PCs, the small hollow dots being the cultists, the black dot being the leader of the bunch turning his back to the PCs, the huge circle in the middle being the pit, and you're basically there.

And with that diagram, I wouldn't have made the false assumptions I made with the description only, so why not just cut to the chase and sketch it out in the first place?  And why not draw it on something with a grid to help with scale and proportion instead of a blank sheet?  Isn't that why most notebooks intended for writing have ruled lines on them and why engineering notebooks are full of graph paper?  In other words, isn't an erasable map grid pretty much designed to be used for this purpose?  Sure, you can hammer nails with a rock or the handle of a screwdriver, but if you know you are going to be driving nails, why not buy a hammer?

Quote from: Benoist;544851You are not breaking up the miniatures, not spending turn after turn thinking in terms of squares and bullshit, and you get on with the actual imagining of what's going on around you.

We don't break out miniatures.  We use pawns and dice, which we keep on the table, and which take no more time to place on a map board than it would take you to draw some circles or letters.  Sure, players can spend time thinking about squares but doing so allows them to answer questions about range and movement possibilities themselves without having to query the GM about how far things are and what they think they can or can't do.  It's not perfect but, in my experience, it's far less disruptive to immersion than having to suspend my character's mind's eye view of the scene until I get ask the GM clarifying questions.  Instead of suspending my imagination until the questions are answered, I can just look at the map and answer them myself.  And that, fundamentally, is where the "actual imagining of what's going on around you" fails for me with verbal descriptions like those in your example.

If I imagine what's going on around my character based on assumptions and those assumptions turn out to be false, I have to retcon what my character had been thinking for the past N rounds before the misunderstanding was clarified.  An alternative is to play "20 questions", which means that I'm not actually imagining of what's going on around my character but am, instead, suspending my imagination until I can get enough clarification to imagine it.  The other alternative that I'm aware of, and I've actually done this so this isn't just a snarky straw man, is to play a character that understands and interacts with their world in a very simple way such that the details don't matter.  Evil cultists in the room?  That's all I need to know.  I run up and hit them with my axe and I'm going to do that no matter how far away they are, how far apart they are, and regardless of what shape the pit is.  Just assume I'm headed for the closest one and I'm making an attack roll.  

You can convey detail with words, detail with images, or do without the detail.

Quote from: Benoist;544851It's not rocket science.

It really, really isn't. And I wish you guys would quit making it sound like something it isn't. Literally MILLIONS of gamers do it that way, and if anything, the use of grids and minis and uptight minigames to manage these sorts of things is a minority in the hobby, not a majority. Come on guys. It's not hard to imagine, is it?

It's also not rocket science to use a map board and markers for combat.

Beyond questioning the claim there are literally millions of people playing tabletop role-playing games right now, I think your claim that those using grids to manage combat are a minority is undermined by the popularity of D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, and (yes) D&D 4e as well as plenty of other games that either assumed grid or hex maps or support them over the years as well as the various types of erasable map boards sold in game shops as well as the virtual tabletops that provide grids or hexes.  How many people are playing D&D 3.5, D&D 4e, or Pathfinder without a grid and how much of the hobby isn't playing those games?  Do you have anything other than speculation to support your claim?

As for imagining it, you make a false assumption that's not uncommon in debates like this, which is that I've only experienced a single narrow style of play.  I've played games without GMs, games with multiple GMs, games with map grids, games without them, games with dice, games without dice, games with single characters, games with multiple characters, convention games, and so on.  It's not a matter of what can be done or what I can imagine but what works best.  I can drive nails with a rock or a screwdriver handle, and have done so, but that doesn't make either of those choices better than using a hammer designed to drive nails.  And would I want to buy a rock to drive nails if I have a hammer?  Maybe if you don't drive a lot of nails, a rock would be a better all-purpose tool for you.

I suppose I should add that the use of an illustration and map board only has to be as "uptight" as you want it to be.  What it gives you is a common objective frame of reference for position and distance.  What you or the rules do with that is up to what you want.  You could leave things like movement and weapon ranges entirely up the the discretion of the GM if you want, though that leads back to the "20 Questions" problem when a player assumes their character could move further than the GM does, for example.

Quote from: Benoist;544851And the key to this is just that: communication, and empathy, describing stuff effectively, asking the DM when you have a doubt on something, and knowing when to just make a sketch so that a pic saves you a thousand words.  Easy peasy.

And my point is that a sketch on a map grid saves a thousand words, more often than not, as do position markers and a common understanding of movement rates and weapon ranges.  And while it's easy to say that the player should ask the GM when they have a doubt, how is a player supposed to know when they've misunderstood the GM unless they confirm all of their assumptions with the GM?

Sure, you can solve all of that if you keep everything simple.  Replace a map grid of the dungeon with a standard marching order and reduce corridor combat to a single dimension.  Reduce the tactics in combat to picking a target and don't worry too much about how the character gets there or any terrain complexity.  I played plenty of hours of Wizardry on my Apple ][ computer that was that simple.  But if the players want things like position, movement, and timing to matter, trying to maintain and coordinate all of that with verbal descriptions and subjective rulings would quickly overwhelm the abilities of most normal people.

Quote from: RPGPundit;544908This whole concept is really funny.  Someone is going to have the authority, and generally speaking, the player is going to be better off if its the guy a few feet away from him, than some game designer hundreds of miles away that he'll never meet.

Given that I've probably played more hours of games using homebrew rules than published rules, the guy who designed the rules was often the guy a few feet away from me if not me, because I contributed to a lot of those homebrew rules.  The issue isn't one of authority for me but information flow.  Instead of asking the GM how far my character can move or whether he can hit a target, I can look down at the map and figure it out myself, and if I have any question about how the results will be resolved, I can look them up in the rulebook myself, all while the GM is managing NPCs or talking to the other players.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544524Everything everyone else has said.  I feel there's some "nyah back at you!" in it pertaining to comments that 4e (and 3.5e, and 3e) had a "video game" feel.

Just another new type of bullet in Edition Wars.

Huh. I wasn't a huge fan of 3/.5, but I never got the "video game" feel from it that I did 4e.

Quote from: Piestrio;544863Believe it or not I don't have complicated rulesets when discussing things with my co-workers.

When we need to come up with lesson plans or benchmarks for certain classes we ...

Just talk.

And then we make decisions.

Seems to work fine.

You don't work for an ISO 9000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9000) certified manufacturing company, do you?  Take a look at ISO 9000 certifications.  Then ask yourself why manufacturing companies go through all of the trouble do document their processes so they can be objectively reproduced by anyone and there are no uncertainties about what needs to be done.

There are some very real issues here that are beyond the scope of this discussion, but let's just say that there comes a point in every growing start-up that I've seen where they have to move away from a few people in a conference room just making decisions toward actually processes and rules or things fall apart and can't grow beyond a certain point.

Quote from: Piestrio;544863but I can see how socially inept nerds might not understand the concept.

It has nothing to do with social skills and everything to do with how much the details and results matter.  My kids can slap things together with Lego without any rules, but I wouldn't want to fly in an airplane made out of parts manufactured like that.  In many ways, you can look at it as a quality control issue.  If you don't care that much about the quality or get acceptable results just winging it, then you don't need a lot of control.

This is completely nuts. Nobody's discussing the fact you might like grids and markers and maps. You like what you want. What is totally ridiculous is to portray a game style that doesn't use these gimmicks and has worked for a gazillion gamers over the years as though it couldn't possibly work or is somehow broken and needs fixing for anyone but yourself (which can be dealt with at the level of D&D Next with a dedicated tactical miniatures module, for instance). That's bullshit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;544908This whole concept is really funny.  Someone is going to have the authority, and generally speaking, the player is going to be better off if its the guy a few feet away from him, than some game designer hundreds of miles away that he'll never meet.

RPGPundit

Unless they have been given ample reason not to trust the guy a few feet away from him...in which case you wonder why they're sitting at THAT table to begin with, but it does happen.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;544992Huh. I wasn't a huge fan of 3/.5, but I never got the "video game" feel from it that I did 4e.

I'll cop to having thrown down the VG insult about 3e but it had more to do with the way Feat Trees worked; they seemed very much like how you built your powers in Diablo II, the way you'd stack one together so you'd have the prerequisite for the next, and so on.  To be fair, that kind of "meet a requirement, that fulfills a prerequisite, so you can pick and choose this next thing" could maybe be traced back to the AD&D bard, but then the AD&D bard isn't based on a computer game's expectation of "character build".  If anything it's the other way around.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544998I'll cop to having thrown down the VG insult about 3e but it had more to do with the way Feat Trees worked; they seemed very much like how you built your powers in Diablo II, the way you'd stack one together so you'd have the prerequisite for the next, and so on.  To be fair, that kind of "meet a requirement, that fulfills a prerequisite, so you can pick and choose this next thing" could maybe be traced back to the AD&D bard, but then the AD&D bard isn't based on a computer game's expectation of "character build".  If anything it's the other way around.

Oh, gotcha, and I'd agree with that. Having to basically map out your character from level 1 to 20 (and beyond, depending on the game) in order to have anything resembling a "good build" is annoying as Hell.

And I say this as a guy that looooooves lots of options in creation and advancement.

Quote from: Benoist;544860Yes. I actually intended to add vectors on the sketch with corresponding dialog, but lacked the time.

You can add vectors to an erasable map board, too, and there companies that even sell vector markers for miniature games if they are important, because if the combat lasts for more than a few rounds, you are going to be erasing and moving those letters and vectors constantly, which seems a lot more complicated and time-consuming to me than moving a pawn across the surface of a map grid, which a player can do themselves.

Again, it's not a lack of imagination.  It's a matter of wondering why you think this is better than the alternative, which is sketching the situation out on an erasable map grid and representing the combatants with pawns, dice, or miniatures.

Quote from: John Morrow;544989And with that diagram, I wouldn't have made the false assumptions I made with the description only, so why not just cut to the chase and sketch it out in the first place?

Even with the diagram, there are huge problems, for one it doesn't have a scale (and isn't really drawn to scale) and that means that any options using AoE runs us back to 20 questions.

It would also serve poorly for any individually resolved initiative system and/or those with Zone of Control rules which is most of the games I play.

As described (both in its description and in its use) it's still basically freeform gaming ran in zero-dimensions.

Quote from: John Morrow;545003You can add vectors to an erasable map board, too

Nobody's against the use of an erasable veleda board (which I mentioned in an earlier post, you'll note) if you find it more practical.

Quote from: John Morrow;545003Again, it's not a lack of imagination.

I get that. You want precision and clarity and you get that best through physical representations at the game table. It's cool. But not everyone is you, not everyone needs it, and some people might actually think that ruins their fun playing the game. Playing the other way, without miniatures and markers and the like, works for a lot of people, and it's functional way to play for them.

Quote from: John Morrow;545003It's a matter of wondering why you think this is better than the alternative, which is sketching the situation out on an erasable map grid and representing the combatants with pawns, dice, or miniatures.

Reminds me of a quote attributed to Gary Gygax: There is no intimacy; it's not live. [he said of online games] It's being translated through a computer, and your imagination is not there the same way it is when you're actually together with a group of people. It reminds me of one time where I saw some children talking about whether they liked radio or television, and I asked one little boy why he preferred radio, and he said, "Because the pictures are so much better."

Many people prefer to play without miniatures because the pictures are so much better.

Quote from: gleichman;545004Even with the diagram, there are huge problems, for one it doesn't have a scale (and isn't really drawn to scale) and that means that any options using AoE runs us back to 20 questions.

You on the other hand are totally reaching with these types of remarks and I really can't take anything you say about this seriously. When you start saying that the gazillion people playing that way must be imagining having no problem with their game, that they're deluded or intellectually inferior, you lose the argument. Pretending that D&D really is about numbers is just the icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned: all these people playing for the worlds of their imaginations, they must be completely out of their minds to have fun that way!

Quote from: Benoist;545005It reminds me of one time where I saw some children talking about whether they liked radio or television, and I asked one little boy why he preferred radio, and he said, "Because the pictures are so much better." [/I]

Many people prefer to play without miniatures because the pictures are so much better.

THIS IS YOUR REAL ANSWER!

It's because you can't imagine yourself restrained by the rules and the reality they represent. Thus you must be free of them. You must be a special snowflake able to alter that reality at whime.

Anything else you're going on about is simple denial of that core need inside yourself.

QuoteMany people prefer to play without miniatures because the pictures are so much better.

This is so quotable. I use mini's for critical junctures but otherwise it clutters my mind with too much multitasking it's the main reason I can't really get into 4e beyond the ADEU system for wizards that is.

QuoteTHIS IS YOUR REAL ANSWER!

It's because you can't imagine yourself restrained by the rules and the reality they represent. Thus you must be free of them. You must be a special snowflake able to alter that reality at whime.

Anything else you're going on about is simple denial of that core need inside yourself.

What an ass. What if say you have a particular handicap that affects the way you process information?

Can we all just agree to this...

1. Some people immerse better with miniatures, this does not make them robots, they are not doing it wrong.
2. Some people immerse better without miniatures, this does not make them simpletons, they are not doing it wrong.
3. Using maps and minis shows everyone where things are without the need for questions to determine where things are.
4. Not all game systems or playstyles require the level of detail that maps & minis provide.

...and move along?

Quote from: gleichman;545009THIS IS YOUR REAL ANSWER!

It's because you can't imagine yourself restrained by the rules and the reality they represent. Thus you must be free of them. You must be a special snowflake able to alter that reality at whime.

Anything else you're going on about is simple denial of that core need inside yourself.

Holy shit. Have you ever played a role playing game in your life, dude? :jaw-dropping:

I've played with miniatures (http://praemal.blogspot.com), and without miniatures, for the record. I can actually enjoy both. I just don't want to have D&D pigeon-holed onto the grid by default, so that I can use miniatures sometimes, and not use them other times, however I see fit, and preferably without the grid itself in both instances.

Quote from: gleichman;545009THIS IS YOUR REAL ANSWER!

It's because you can't imagine yourself restrained by the rules and the reality they represent. Thus you must be free of them. You must be a special snowflake able to alter that reality at whime.

Anything else you're going on about is simple denial of that core need inside yourself.

The ironic thing is that Ben actually plays with minis, he could buy a car if he sold all his Dwarven Forge stuff.  It's just that he doesn't *always* play with minis, and sees both ways as valid.

Quote from: CRKrueger;545014The ironic thing is that Ben actually plays with minis, he could buy a car if he sold all his Dwarven Forge stuff.  It's just that he doesn't *always* play with minis, and sees both ways as valid.

I know. It makes me LOL.:)

I am far more in the no mini's camp than he is basically because of my handicap and gaming space more than anything else. But I still use them.

Quote from: Marleycat;545010What an ass. What if say you have a particular handicap that affects the way you process information?

If you can't play the game right, then I would play a different game (there are many options out there). Or at least admit that I can't play it right.

Sort of like a number of people on this board have admitted that they find double digit additional to burdensome, and like the advantage/disadvantage rules better because it doesn't task them.

Quote from: gleichman;545024If you can't play the game right, then I would play a different game (there are many options out there). Or at least admit that I can't play it right.

Sort of like a number of people on this board have admitted that they find double digit additional to burdensome, and like the advantage/disadvantage rules better because it doesn't task them.

Geez, you're a jewel your mother must be so proud!!

Quote from: CRKrueger;545014The ironic thing is that Ben actually plays with minis, he could buy a car if he sold all his Dwarven Forge stuff.  It's just that he doesn't *always* play with minis, and sees both ways as valid.

Isn't it funny?  I have largely harped that I prefer gameplay without needing minis.  And that's true.  But I also have about 300 of the little bastards :)  Hell, I've got a bunch that are made from lead

(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/SNC00026.jpg)


For the record, I don't want a system to be dependent on minis or maps in any way, but if they are needed, go for it.  The difference is that I want pretty much full functionality of game rules without them, and the problem I have with 4e (and 3e to an extent) is that so many of the core rules revolve around using maps and minis as base functionality.

*Edit*  Oh, and I painted them in 1981-83 as well, so be gentle on the crappy paint job ;)

Quote from: Marleycat;545027Geez, you're a jewel your mother must be so proud!!

She is. It's unfortunate she suffers from mild mental retardation and believes in her schizophrenia to be a top NASA scientist, though. So I guess I would take her conclusions with a huge grain of salt on that one.

TSR Era D&D: Products of Your Imagination (actual slogan by the way)

WOTC Era D&D: Products of Us, no Imagination Required.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;545033TSR Era D&D: Products of Your Imagination (actual slogan by the way)

WOTC Era D&D: Products of Us, no Imagination Required.

I think you are selling 3.x wayyyyy short here. Yes, when the ramp-up to 4E was going on, the books sucked. Yet there was a lot of damn good stuff beforehand.

If you want to be disparaging of WotC D&D, it fits better to say WotC under Hasbro Just Wants Your Money.

Quote from: CRKrueger;545012Can we all just agree to this...

1. Some people immerse better with miniatures, this does not make them robots, they are not doing it wrong.
2. Some people immerse better without miniatures, this does not make them simpletons, they are not doing it wrong.
3. Using maps and minis shows everyone where things are without the need for questions to determine where things are.
4. Not all game systems or playstyles require the level of detail that maps & minis provide.

...and move along?

I wish we could, but I doubt you could get Benoist to agree to #1 or #3; he's too busy dealing with that shaft called 'his ego' that he's rammed up his own backside.

Edit: I've already agreed to #2 and #4. But no one cares.

Quote from: Marleycat;545027Geez, you're a jewel your mother must be so proud!!

Dead the last 34 years from cancer so it will be difficult to know. Not that you care in the least of course.

Quote from: gleichman;545004Even with the diagram, there are huge problems, for one it doesn't have a scale (and isn't really drawn to scale) and that means that any options using AoE runs us back to 20 questions.

It would also serve poorly for any individually resolved initiative system and/or those with Zone of Control rules which is most of the games I play.

As described (both in its description and in its use) it's still basically freeform gaming ran in zero-dimensions.

And yet, the vast, vast majority of ACTUAL miniature games get by just fine without a grid (and, arguably, are WAAAAAYY more conducive to argument due to their one-on-one competitive nature).  How can this be?  :idunno:

It's almost like rulers were available to the plebs, now, instead of being restricted to the landed nobility.  

Beyond that, I often use a gridded mat for scale drawings.  This doesn't mean that the characters themselves have to be restricted to the grid spaces - PCs and monsters don't "snap to" at my table.  (Nor did they when we started doing this back in 2e days.)

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;545043And yet, the vast, vast majority of ACTUAL miniature games get by just fine without a grid (and, arguably, are WAAAAAYY more conducive to argument due to their one-on-one competitive nature).  How can this be?  :idunno:

I use the term 'maps and mins' as short hand. It may be point to point measure and models, or grid and tokens. Or even pure math (for those so inclined).

The details of the individual method don't matter. The consistancy, speed of use, and accuracy does.

Quote from: gleichman;545042Dead the last 34 years from cancer so it will be difficult to know. Not that you care in the least of course.

Actually I do. My mother died 11 years ago so believe it or not I can relate.

My mother died 6 years ago, on March 4th, from a Cancer that ate at her for years.

I too do know how that feels.

Good communication skills on the part of the DM are how you overcome the 'information bottleneck' in an RPG. Replacing the imagined scenario with a gameboard about which the players don't need to ask any questions is not addressing the issue - it's avoiding the issue by playing a different kind of game.

Quote from: gleichman;545009THIS IS YOUR REAL ANSWER!

It's because you can't imagine yourself restrained by the rules and the reality they represent. Thus you must be free of them. You must be a special snowflake able to alter that reality at whime.

Anything else you're going on about is simple denial of that core need inside yourself.

Brian, I'm not sure if this is relevant, but in my experience, the presence or absence of a map isn't tied to adherence to rules vs whim. I've mainly used maps for The Fantasy Trip, and I can see benefits of clarity and self-adjudication. These will certainly speed up the game, assuming players themselves have a firm grasp of the rules (they don't always). But with a conscientious, responsible GM, the "whim" factor is about the same for combat as it is for other game elements such as dungeon layout, NPC stats and motivation, etc.

Actually, my favored approach when not using a map, if there was any amount of maneuver, was to use a use a hidden sketch. Generally speaking, the GM needs a god's-eye view of the action. The players don't, necessarily. Any confusion that the players may experience in not having a top-down view of the action is probably more realistic in terms of reflecting the limitations on decision-making when you're in the middle of a melee, or even viewing it from the sidelines at ground-level (e.g., an archer). Granted, the confusion may be exaggerated by poor description skills on the part of the GM, or poor visualization skill on the part of the player. Subjectively, I've always found the visualization approach to be more vivid and more conducive to IC-POV, but YMMV.

Basically, I find this branch of the overall discussion to be no different from the general case. Taken to the extreme, it resolves to a lack of trust (in the motivations/competence/fairness of the GM) and a reaction that insists on shifting both knowledge, power, and control more in the direction of the player. I'm sure there are cases where most of us would find that reaction justified, but that doesn't mean there's anything fundamentally & universally wrong with leaving more things up to the GM's judgment.

EDIT: I should say principled judgment. Also, I haven't read the May 24th playtest rules, so I'm not too familiar with the particular debate, but on a skim, your initial post over there strikes me as a bit of nonsequitur. The mantra of "rulings not rules" is perhaps vague to the point of meaninglessness, but as my edit suggests, there's quite a bit of difference between "whim" and "principled judgment". I find that having a competent GM who exercises principled judgment has strong benefits that can't be replicated through hard-and-fast rules which are self-adjudicated by the players. For example, the GM may be privy to information that determines whether a particular rule applies. Self-adjudication would require that players also have that information, which might not mirror their characters' knowledge.

Quote from: gleichman;545009THIS IS YOUR REAL ANSWER!

It's because you can't imagine yourself restrained by the rules and the reality they represent. Thus you must be free of them. You must be a special snowflake able to alter that reality at whime.

Anything else you're going on about is simple denial of that core need inside yourself.

Saying it with caps and conviction doesn't make it true. It is pretty clear from this response you are just projecting things onto people you want to see.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545067Saying it with caps and conviction doesn't make it true. It is pretty clear from this response you are just projecting things onto people you want to see.

The entire "mother-may-I" argument, summed up in one sentence.  ;)

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545066But with a conscientious, responsible GM, the "whim" factor is about the same for combat as it is for other game elements such as dungeon layout, NPC stats and motivation, etc.

Basically impossible. The typical human cannot manage a consistent process without fixed rules of how do so. That why rules exist in the first place.

What you're basically say is that everyone is a fine carpenter and they need never use a measuring device of any type to be so. It is on it's face a foolish claim.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545066The players don't, necessarily. Any confusion that the players may experience in not having a top-down view of the action is probably more realistic in terms of reflecting the limitations on decision-making when you're in the middle of a melee, or even viewing it from the sidelines at ground-level (e.g., an archer).

As a said many time, I find this line of debate (which has nothing to do with the subject we're talking about by the way) weak.

My players are doctors, teachers, accountants and engineers. Not trained warriors and wizards. Thus to play they characters correctly I find that the free use of a God's Eye view a useful tool to counter their lack of knowledge so that they may run the heroes the game is about.

That said, I do on occasion use hidden movement. The game still however uses a map and minis when I do so.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545066Basically, I find this branch of the overall discussion to be no different from the general case. Taken to the extreme, it resolves to a lack of trust (in the motivations/competence/fairness of the GM) and a reaction that insists on shifting both knowledge, power, and control more in the direction of the player.

It's not a lack of trust in the GM as an individual, it's the knowledge that people are flawed and commonly make mistakes especially when mentally 'mapping' an encounter.

It's also the idea that a RPG should be a shared experience based upon a common ruleset and the free exchange of accurate information quickely and effectively.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545067Saying it with caps and conviction doesn't make it true. It is pretty clear from this response you are just projecting things onto people you want to see.

It's what they are saying to me BedrockBrendan, I won't call them liars.

If they have a different reason, they need to give one besides "trust the GM" and "Rulings not Rules".

Brian, before I read your recent posts, just a heads-up that I edited mine, mainly to add a couple things.

Quote from: CRKrueger;545012Can we all just agree to this...

1. Some people immerse better with miniatures, this does not make them robots, they are not doing it wrong.
2. Some people immerse better without miniatures, this does not make them simpletons, they are not doing it wrong.
3. Using maps and minis shows everyone where things are without the need for questions to determine where things are.
4. Not all game systems or playstyles require the level of detail that maps & minis provide.

...and move along?

I agree with all said points and indicated as much in this thread. Repeatedly. My own actual experience with RPGs, which also was discussed on this thread, demonstrates this as well.

Quote from: Benoist;545084I agree with all said points and indicated as much in this thread. Repeatedly. My own actual experience with RPGs, which also was discussed on this thread, demonstrates this as well.

Then offer me an apology for saying that I've never played an RPG before, and that I'm social retarded, and the rest of your ad hominem attacks.

Quote from: gleichman;545089Then offer me an apology for saying that I've never played an RPG before, and that I'm social retarded, and the rest of your ad hominem attacks.

I won't in the present state of affairs, because of the way you choose to characterize the experience of people who do not share your opinion. Stop being so damn full of yourself and your own way to use miniatures and maps at a game table, accept the fact that millions of gamers have done it without those tools and actually enjoyed the experience without being necessarily fooling themselves or mentally crippled, and I will revisit my own reaction to your rhetoric from there.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545082Brian, before I read your recent posts, just a heads-up that I edited mine, mainly to add a couple things.

I'll pull the edited part over here to answer you.

Btw, this is a example of debating the subject on the merits by you. Nearly a lost art.

Quote from: Elliot WilenEDIT: I should say principled judgment. Also, I haven't read the May 24th playtest rules, so I'm not too familiar with the particular debate, but on a skim, your initial post over there strikes me as a bit of nonsequitur. The mantra of "rulings not rules" is perhaps vague to the point of meaninglessness, but as my edit suggests, there's quite a bit of difference between "whim" and "principled judgment". I find that having a competent GM who exercises principled judgment has strong benefits that can't be replicated through hard-and-fast rules which are self-adjudicated by the players. For example, the GM may be privy to information that determines whether a particular rule applies. Self-adjudication would require that players also have that information, which might not mirror their characters' knowledge.

I'm willing to give on the point the GM may have knowledge of rule application that the players for good reason do not. In such cases he should be free to withhold such information until it is applied (and maybe even beyond that). The most common case is an ability that a foe or object in the encounter may have.

However I don't consider this simple point reason to trust the GM with hidden processes that he's incapable of managing consistency and accurately. Be it the application of combat bonus rules solely by his judgement or mental 'maps' of the combat area.

BTW, I typically split my gaming time about 50/50 between GMing and as a player. So when I say a GM is incapable, I'm saying that about myself as well.

Quote from: Benoist;545093I won't in the present state of affairs, because of the way you choose to characterize the experience of people who do not share your opinion. Stop being so damn full of yourself and your own way to use miniatures and maps at a game table, accept the fact that millions of gamers have done it without those tools and actually enjoyed the experience without being necessarily fooling themselves or mentally crippled, and I will revisit my own reaction to your rhetoric from there.

As I thought.

It's a pity I can't put you on a ignore list, but I'll make an effort to skip over you in the future.

Quote from: gleichman;545095As I thought.

It's a pity I can't put you on a ignore list, but I'll make an effort to skip over you in the future.

Likewise, except I reserve the right to burst your bubble whenever I feel like it. Feel free to ignore.

Quote from: gleichman;545077Basically impossible. The typical human cannot manage a consistent process without fixed rules of how do so. That why rules exist in the first place.

What you're basically say is that everyone is a fine carpenter and they need never use a measuring device of any type to be so. It is on it's face a foolish claim.

I think your assertions here are based on the idea that the model of the game world, as represented by various rules, is 100% precise and exclusively relevant to the action. Do you use hexes? In the real world, people may occupy a space near hex A and hex B, but not exactly in the center of either hex. Or if you use analog measures, what about your turn sequence? Does it also have a continuous representation of time-and-motion, or is time quantized and sequenced in turns or phases? In my head, I can't maintain the precision of a game with strict measurements and procedures, but it's a spurious precision. I've said that relative positioning is useful, so your comment about never using a measuring device is a gross misrepresentation. As long as there isn't a systemic bias in judgment--something which is further minimized through the use of random factors in action resolution--I don't see a problem with estimation.

Furthermore, if you ever use hidden movement, then even with a detailed map and measurements on your side of the GM screen, the process of communicating information to the players verbally reintroduces your version of "mother may I" (which I think is narrower than the SA/4e-fanatic's line) since they have to rely on you to tell them if X is possible.

QuoteIt's not a lack of trust in the GM as an individual, it's the knowledge that people are flawed and commonly make mistakes especially when mentally 'mapping' an encounter.

It's also the idea that a RPG should be a shared experience based upon a common ruleset and the free exchange of accurate information quickely and effectively.

Both of these strike me as YMMV, really.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545103I think your assertions here are based on the idea that the model of the game world, as represented by various rules, is 100% precise and exclusively relevant to the action.

Yes- as limited by it's abstraction level, which is a pre-agreed upon matter for the gaming group. The abstraction level covers many sins while maintaining consistency and accuracy (to that level of abstraction).

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545103Furthermore, if you ever use hidden movement, then even with a detailed map and measurements on your side of the GM screen, the process of communicating information to the players verbally reintroduces your version of "mother may I" (which I think is narrower than the SA/4e-fanatic's line) since they have to rely on you to tell them if X is possible.

You don't understand, there's no information given in those rare cases where I use hidden movement. When such information does appear, hidden movement ceases and the figure is placed on the map.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545103Both of these strike me as YMMV, really.

The concept that people are flawed and prone to serious inconsistency is not in the realm of a YMMV issue. It is a fact.

If you care that they are flawed and inconsistent is a case if YMMV.

Quote from: gleichman;545116You don't understand, there's no information given in those rare cases where I use hidden movement. When such information does appear, hidden movement ceases and the figure is placed on the map.

Ah, I wasn't sure about that, but there's still the consideration of deciding when the information appears, which is entirely in the hands of the GM, even if the GM is (privately) following a set of rigid rules.

But getting back to the question of abstraction, I'm saying that a GM can generally stay consistent within a certain level of abstraction. This doesn't have to be done entirely in the GM's head; it'll also be in the form of notes. The basic idea that this is doable is fundamental to traditional RPGs. Some of the uses of "mother may I" in online discussion, on the other hand, come across as a pretty thoroughgoing assertion that the GM never has this ability and will always disempower the players if he's placed in a discretionary role. See: "GM Fiat", "No Myth", and other concepts used to advocate "player empowerment" and "narrative control".

Note that I'm not talking primarily about combat, here. In fact I think that combat is an area where structure and transparency are more required than elsewhere--but it's still relative, and the greatest pitfall for a GM isn't adherence to the rules, but bias.

QuoteThe concept that people are flawed and prone to serious inconsistency is not in the realm of a YMMV issue. It is a fact.

If you care that they are flawed and inconsistent is a case if YMMV.

Again, I think it's a matter of degree and focus, and also a matter of abstraction. The limitations of GM who has to decide whether to give me a +1 bonus on a d20 aren't nearly as serious as those of a GM who will decide, without resort to dice or any other well-defined mechanic, whether I can or cannot leap across a 20' chasm. Others will be very concerned about how a GM decides if an NPC is convinced by a PC's effort at persuasion--to the point of repeating mantras like "say yes or roll dice" or "let it ride".

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545143Ah, I wasn't sure about that, but there's still the consideration of deciding when the information appears, which is entirely in the hands of the GM, even if the GM is (privately) following a set of rigid rules."

Not, it's covered by the line of sights rules and is not in my hands at all. If I move in NPC to a location where they are visible- they are visible.

Really easy to determine with a map and mins in front of you.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545143But getting back to the question of abstraction, I'm saying that a GM can generally stay consistent within a certain level of abstraction.

If the abstraction is high enough, yes.

If the measure if feet and time scale in seconds, no.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545143This doesn't have to be done entirely in the GM's head; it'll also be in the form of notes. The basic idea that this is doable is fundamental to traditional RPGs.

I disagree.

And if the notes are indeed complete enough to allow it, they are a form of maps and minis to my mind.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545143Again, I think it's a matter of degree and focus, and also a matter of abstraction. The limitations of GM who has to decide whether to give me a +1 bonus on a d20 aren't nearly as serious as those of a GM who will decide, without resort to dice or any other well-defined mechanic, whether I can or cannot leap across a 20' chasm.

You are making a classic error here. The error of assigning a +1 bonus is going happen far more often the leaping a 20' chasm does, unless you're playing Mario Brothers the RPG. It is likely that effect of the former over the length of the campaign is greater the latter.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545143Others will be very concerned about how a GM decides if an NPC is convinced by a PC's effort at persuasion--to the point of repeating mantras like "say yes or roll dice" or "let it ride".

I'm not talking about social interactions in this thread. Only Combat.

Quote from: Benoist;545005Nobody's against the use of an erasable veleda board (which I mentioned in an earlier post, you'll note) if you find it more practical.

I'm specifically talking about an erasable surface ruled with a grid or hexes upon which tokens, markers, or miniatures can be placed and moved.  My point is that one can also roughly sketch out a room upon such surfaces or add vector lines, arrows, letter labels, and so on to such a surface.  What I don't understand is why a piece of paper or an unruled surface without markers is more desirable.  What benefits does your approach offer that sketching out the room and putting some pawns on a BattleMat that's already on the table not offer?

Quote from: Benoist;545005I get that. You want precision and clarity and you get that best through physical representations at the game table. It's cool. But not everyone is you, not everyone needs it, and some people might actually think that ruins their fun playing the game. Playing the other way, without miniatures and markers and the like, works for a lot of people, and it's functional way to play for them.

That's fair enough, so long as you understand that precision and details are being sacrificed and, with them, the meaningful complexity of player and character choices.  And at some point, if you look at Brian's old Elements of Tactics column on RPGnet (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements01nov02.html), abstraction essentially eliminates meaningful choices for nearly all of those elements such that there are little or no real tactics involved in play.  

Resource Management requires meaningful resources to manage, but a game without fatigue or where ammunition is not counted eliminates that tactical element.  Dissimilar Assets requires combatants and weapons that have different strengths and weaknesses and making all characters and weapons similarly effective eliminates that tactical element.  Maneuver requires meaningful movement choice but abstracting movement into a single dimension (e.g., marching order) or abstract zones reduces or eliminates that tactical element.  It can all be reduced down to what Wizardry had to offer, which was a no-brainer rank decision (fighters in front, wizards and thieves in the back) and maybe a choice of who to attack along with a decision to leave combat that also becomes a no-brainer decision when the Pace of Decision is long and characters don't die in a round or two (cue the whining about save-or-die spells).  

For all intents and purposes, there are no real tactics in such a combat situation.  The tactics have all been abstracted out.  As long as you understand and want that, that's fine.  But even though I played Wizardry years ago, I'm at a loss to remember the attraction of combat where the only real choices are who to attack and to stay or leave.  

Quote from: Benoist;545005Reminds me of a quote attributed to Gary Gygax: There is no intimacy; it's not live. [he said of online games] It's being translated through a computer, and your imagination is not there the same way it is when you're actually together with a group of people. It reminds me of one time where I saw some children talking about whether they liked radio or television, and I asked one little boy why he preferred radio, and he said, "Because the pictures are so much better."

That anecdote is attributed to various people and almost certainly comes from the days of radio dramas, because I find it difficult to imagine what someone might listen to on the radio these days that would make them say such a thing.  Of course one could also say the same thing about books.  I once read a novelization of a Doctor Who episode before I actually saw the episode and I assure you that my own special effects were far superior to those of the BBC.  That said, do I really need to point out to you that radio dramas are a largely dead medium or that while publishers sold 2.57 billion books in 2010, people bought 1.33 billion movie tickets and 1.25 billion DVD and BD discs were sold in the US, which of course doesn't count all of the movies and TV shows that were rented ($16.3 billion) or the video game industry.  While I think there is certainly some truth to the idea that one's imagination can produce better results than a special effects studio (e.g., my point about the Doctor Who novelization) and certainly prefer role-playing with other people in the same room with me, the reality is that in the big scheme of things video killed the radio star (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ) much as computer games have eclipsed tabletop role-playing in terms of money, players, and hours spent playing.  There is a huge heaping spoonful of wishful thinking in that quote.

Quote from: Benoist;545005Many people prefer to play without miniatures because the pictures are so much better.

I have only rarely used miniatures and prefer to not use them, actually,  For the most part, the games I've played in used pawns, tokens, or dice to represent the PCs and combatants.  The purpose of using those markers and the map board is not to replace the imagination of the player and act as a literal representation of the game situation any more than the GM saying that an NPC looks a bit like Robin Hood is meant to lock the players into a literal image of Robin Hood.  The goal is to give the players and GM a rich, accurate, and consistent description of the configuration of things in the game world from which they can imagine what's happening.  And I'm not sure why you think a map board with some colored pawns on it is any more likely to destroy the imagination of the players than your sketch with some letters is.

Quote from: gleichman;545004Even with the diagram, there are huge problems, for one it doesn't have a scale (and isn't really drawn to scale) and that means that any options using AoE runs us back to 20 questions.

Sure, but it's an improvement over having no diagram at all with respect to an objective transferral of information, which is my point.

Quote from: gleichman;545004It would also serve poorly for any individually resolved initiative system and/or those with Zone of Control rules which is most of the games I play.

Again, it would still work better than a purely verbal description, from which I initially would have misinterpreted the arrangement of the NPCs, which is pretty significant.  

Quote from: gleichman;545004As described (both in its description and in its use) it's still basically freeform gaming ran in zero-dimensions.

It's pretty much always has a single dimension, even if it's reduced to out of range/sight, in range/sign and can attack with ranged weapons, and in melee contact with an opponent.  The only real tactical decision in such combats are to attack or retreat and who to attack.  The rest of the tactical complexity gets abstracted away.

Quote from: John Morrow;545162It's pretty much always has a single dimension, even if it's reduced to out of range/sight, in range/sign and can attack with ranged weapons, and in melee contact with an opponent.  The only real tactical decision in such combats are to attack or retreat and who to attack.  The rest of the tactical complexity gets abstracted away.

Indeed. And for dungeon crawling with D&D, that's a common outcome.

The design of D&D is about resource management, not tactical maneuver. So this is sort of expected.

But it does have some hybrid features (Range, Line of Sight, AoO for some versions), those using the RAW shouldn't be abstracted away. But another feature of D&D is that no one seems to use the RAW.

Quote from: John Morrow;545160I'm specifically talking about an erasable surface ruled with a grid or hexes upon which tokens, markers, or miniatures can be placed and moved.  My point is that one can also roughly sketch out a room upon such surfaces or add vector lines, arrows, letter labels, and so on to such a surface.

Well first let me repeat something here: I've played with and without miniatures. I've played with sheets of paper, with veleda white boards without grids, with tact-tiles with pre-mapped encounters, and tact-tiles sketching rooms and corridors precisely, and less precisely. I honestly think I've played in many of the ways we are talking about.

I'm not seeing any problem with using a map with squares and tokens and markers and drawing vectors on your mat and whatnot, if that is what you feel provides the best play experience for you.

My contention is that it's not because you think this is the optimal way to represent elements in the game that it ought to be for everyone else, or that all other alternate ways are inferior, only result in a complete chaos, a total lack of meaningful information and approximations, and automatically leads to the "20 questions" thing. That's what I am calling bullshit on.

Quote from: John Morrow;545160What I don't understand is why a piece of paper or an unruled surface without markers is more desirable.  What benefits does your approach offer that sketching out the room and putting some pawns on a BattleMat that's already on the table not offer?

What I have personally found is that putting a mat with a grid specifically in front of people changes the dynamic of the game for some players (not all). The more you pile on these sorts of abstractions, the easier it is to game the rules instead of playing the game, by which I mean, actually imagining what is going on as though you were there and reacting to the situations accordingly.

This is what some people here are talking about when they say the grid ruins their immersion. The game basically becomes the application of the rules on a board, the grid itself, and the effect this minigame has in the actual game world becomes an afterthought, a consequence of that minigame.

I have found that when players forget about the grid and when you actually tell them out loud that what they see on the diorama or white board is an approximation and not what is actually happening in the game world, and that it'd be cool if they thought about the game world first, the figs on the board second, it actually "clicks" with them fairly easily.

Having played AD&D with miniatures since the days of my 3.5 campaigns, I have observed an increase in the actual immersion of the players, because they just don't have to think in terms of rules to instead visualize the situation, whether it uses actual visuals on the game table or not, and act as though they were there. I cut the intermediary of the grid, with or without miniatures, and went back straight to the game world as a reference, asking players to use their imagination instead. And it works.

Quote from: John Morrow;545160That's fair enough, so long as you understand that precision and details are being sacrificed and, with them, the meaningful complexity of player and character choices.  And at some point, if you look at Brian's old Elements of Tactics column on RPGnet (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements01nov02.html), abstraction essentially eliminates meaningful choices for nearly all of those elements such that there are little or no real tactics involved in play.  

Only Gleichman is claiming that people don't want to admit that. Of course you are losing absolute accuracy when you are not using precise means of simulation like a grid and miniatures. But there is a world of excluded middle between an abstraction that is usable to communicate directly between players and share an imagined space at the game table, and the total lack of meaningful choices and communication breakdown you guys keep saying this is about. I honestly -honestly now- cannot remember the last time I played a game in the last what, 25+ years, playing at dozens of different tables with literally hundreds of different people over the years, where this kind of complete communication breakdown ever occurred the way you are portraying it right now.

I appreciate that you feel like you need the grid and tokens yourself, but that doesn't make it something critical for anyone to enjoy an RPG effectively and consider they have meaningful choices in front of them as their characters in their mind's eye.

Quote from: John Morrow;545160Resource Management requires meaningful resources to manage, but a game without fatigue or where ammunition is not counted eliminates that tactical element.  Dissimilar Assets requires combatants and weapons that have different strengths and weaknesses and making all characters and weapons similarly effective eliminates that tactical element.  Maneuver requires meaningful movement choice but abstracting movement into a single dimension (e.g., marching order) or abstract zones reduces or eliminates that tactical element.  It can all be reduced down to what Wizardry had to offer, which was a no-brainer rank decision (fighters in front, wizards and thieves in the back) and maybe a choice of who to attack along with a decision to leave combat that also becomes a no-brainer decision when the Pace of Decision is long and characters don't die in a round or two (cue the whining about save-or-die spells).  

For all intents and purposes, there are no real tactics in such a combat situation.  The tactics have all been abstracted out.  As long as you understand and want that, that's fine.  But even though I played Wizardry years ago, I'm at a loss to remember the attraction of combat where the only real choices are who to attack and to stay or leave.

To me, it sounds like you are making the argument that choices and actual tactics are contained within the parameters of the rules themselves, exclusively. I think any wargamer would disagree with that.

I like to play wargames and role playing games. I consider myself to be interested in actual tactics, that is, actually applying tactics at the level of the game world, trapping enemies in a room with flaming oil, using high ground, ordering people around, making a plan to attack the keep, and so on.

I hate it when the rules become a minigame and that the "tactics" become whether I get an opportunity attack or not, whether taking a 5 foot step will reduce the cover of the opponent I'm trying to shoot at this round, and so on. These aren't the tactical situations I'm interested in. I'm interested in being immersed in the world, not having to deal with another layer of rules acting as a buffer between me and the game world. I don't want to have to translate whirlwind attacks and cleaves into actual moves in the game world in my head. I want the opposite: to describe those moves as though they happened live and then have the rules being tools used to adjudicate them in terms of successes and failures, die rolls and the like.

Quote from: John Morrow;545160That anecdote is attributed to various people and almost certainly comes from the days of radio dramas, because I find it difficult to imagine what someone might listen to on the radio these days that would make them say such a thing.  Of course one could also say the same thing about books.  I once read a novelization of a Doctor Who episode before I actually saw the episode and I assure you that my own special effects were far superior to those of the BBC.  That said, do I really need to point out to you that radio dramas are a largely dead medium or that while publishers sold 2.57 billion books in 2010, people bought 1.33 billion movie tickets and 1.25 billion DVD and BD discs were sold in the US, which of course doesn't count all of the movies and TV shows that were rented ($16.3 billion) or the video game industry.  While I think there is certainly some truth to the idea that one's imagination can produce better results than a special effects studio (e.g., my point about the Doctor Who novelization) and certainly prefer role-playing with other people in the same room with me, the reality is that in the big scheme of things video killed the radio star (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ) much as computer games have eclipsed tabletop role-playing in terms of money, players, and hours spent playing.  There is a huge heaping spoonful of wishful thinking in that quote.

YMMV, but that quote is actually true for some people, many of which might enjoy playing role playing games I'm sure.

Quote from: John Morrow;545160I have only rarely used miniatures and prefer to not use them, actually,  For the most part, the games I've played in used pawns, tokens, or dice to represent the PCs and combatants.  The purpose of using those markers and the map board is not to replace the imagination of the player and act as a literal representation of the game situation any more than the GM saying that an NPC looks a bit like Robin Hood is meant to lock the players into a literal image of Robin Hood.  The goal is to give the players and GM a rich, accurate, and consistent description of the configuration of things in the game world from which they can imagine what's happening.  And I'm not sure why you think a map board with some colored pawns on it is any more likely to destroy the imagination of the players than your sketch with some letters is.

There are different levels of accuracy and consistency that can be played in any number of ways in a role playing game. Some ways some people will enjoy, others some people won't, and vice versa. My point really is that your way is not the only possible way that works.

Quote from: gleichman;545150Not, it's covered by the line of sights rules and is not in my hands at all. If I move in NPC to a location where they are visible- they are visible.

Really easy to determine with a map and mins in front of you.

Right. Again, I'm not entirely sure where the extreme anti-map people are coming from. As I mentioned, when I played combats of any significant complexity, I often used a private sketch to keep track of locations. (EDIT: Also, drawing in a point from the other thread, I usually didn't GM combats with dozens of participants.)

QuoteIf the abstraction is high enough, yes.

If the measure if feet and time scale in seconds, no.

Abstraction and scale aren't quite the same thing. That might be a nitpick, but more to the point is the idea of an appropriate or acceptable level of abstraction. As I wrote above, I find that guesstimating distances is acceptable because the precision implied by a feet-and-seconds model is (a) spurious and (b) at a level which is often unknowable or unactionable to the participants (that is, they're not in a position to control events at that level of detail). The more detailed model isn't necessarily wrong, since stochastic "noise" reintroduces the variability and uncertainty which have been stripped out due to precise positioning and discrete time scales. But the more abstract model isn't necessarily worse. (As a side note, there certainly are pitfalls in the design of a detailed model. For example, if a person in motion happens to be behind an obstacle at the moment your turn to shoot comes up, a crude-but-detailed model would call the shot blocked. A more sophisticated model might allow the shot with a penalty reflecting the fact that the person is exposed x% of a given time-window.)

QuoteYou are making a classic error here. The error of assigning a +1 bonus is going happen far more often the leaping a 20' chasm does, unless you're playing Mario Brothers the RPG. It is likely that effect of the former over the length of the campaign is greater the latter.

First of all,  if the GM's judgment doesn't have a systematic bias, it doesn't matter, and I'm assuming that the GM doesn't have an agenda. Second, if the GM is consistent and isn't out to get you (a special form of bias) then the effect will apply equally to all and you can adjust for it. And actually, you can adjust for it even if the GM does single you out. In probability, it's an often-cited fallacy that "more trials means things will balance out in the long term". You are correct insofar as this is absolutely false, of course--a game where we bet $1 on a fair coin toss is more likely to come up more lopsided if we repeat the trial 100 times than if we repeat it 10 times. But when we're comparing events that have different distributions and different payoffs, the devil's in the details. It could be like comparing the iterative $1 coin flip with a single million-dollar bet on whether a woman in a bar likes me better than you.

QuoteI'm not talking about social interactions in this thread. Only Combat.

Fair enough...but after skimming the 5/24 playtest rules, I think the guidelines on advantage/disadvantage are really pretty clear. First, there are a number of specific cases. Second, the effect is strictly capped, which limits the effect of a bad call or bias by the GM. Finally, the GM does seem to have a catchall ability to grant advantage/disadvantage outside of the cases which are enumerated, but I get the impression that this is mainly intended for use outside of combat. In practice, I suspect that groups would naturally gravitate toward a common understanding of the frequency and circumstances under which "free form" advantage would be granted in combat. Since there are a fair number of cases enumerated, I'd bet most groups would just fall back on those, making on-the-fly judgments a relative rarity--and rarer still as certain practices become informally canonized in the group.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545184Abstraction and scale aren't quite the same thing. That might be a nitpick,

It is, abstraction starts with the selection of scale (unless we're talking about D&D where it starts with HPs... really strange case D&D).

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545184As I wrote above, I find that guesstimating distances is acceptable because the precision implied by a feet-and-seconds model is (a) spurious and (b) at a level which is often unknowable or unactionable to the participants

It's find if the abstraction is contained in the rules, not find with the guesstimating is contained in the GM.

Beyond that, I've already answered this point.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545184First of all,  if the GM's judgment doesn't have a systematic bias,

IME it typically does. Normally in favor the the PCs and at an unconscious level.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545184and I'm assuming that the GM doesn't have an agenda.

He always has a agenda, typically to have a fun game the pleases his players although there are worse cases.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545184Fair enough...but after skimming the 5/24 playtest rules, I think the guidelines on advantage/disadvantage are really pretty clear.

I can't really comment. My only reason for being in the thread was to explain what one type of 'Mother My I' comment means, and where I see acceptance that style of gaming coming from.

I leave it to other if it applies to D&DNext combat or not. I have no interest in that game.

Quote from: Benoist;545175My contention is that it's not because you think this is the optimal way to represent elements in the game that it ought to be for everyone else, or that all other alternate ways are inferior, only result in a complete chaos, a total lack of meaningful information and approximations, and automatically leads to the "20 questions" thing. That's what I am calling bullshit on.

My contention is that it's more efficient to accurately convey the information visually than verbally (I think your diagram also illustrates this) such that getting an accurate and rich understanding of a complex situation will be easier and more reliable with a diagram than with a verbal description, (B) diagrams with some sort of grid or hex convey scale and proportion better than a diagram without a grid or hex, (C) unless the player has a comprehensive understanding of the situation and what their character is and isn't capable of doing it will inevitably require a lot of questions to the GM to determine what their character can or can't do if they want to assess a variety of options (in effect, "20 Questions" or "Mother May I"), and (D) the primary way of escaping the problem of conveying details between player and GM seems to be to not have them, to make them mechanically irrelevant, or for the choices and decisions of the players to be very simple.

Quote from: Benoist;545175What I have personally found is that putting a mat with a grid specifically in front of people changes the dynamic of the game for some players (not all). The more you pile on these sorts of abstractions, the easier it is to game the rules instead of playing the game, by which I mean, actually imagining what is going on as though you were there and reacting to the situations accordingly.

And that is very different problem than the grid or miniatures, themselves, slowing down the game or replacing imagination.  It also raises the question of why players would behave that way if it didn't give them something that they wanted and are, in effect, being denied by the elimination of the tools.

One of my pet peeves with this hobby is how strongly games and GMs work to restrict the environment and options of the players to limit what they can do.  Adventures happen in dungeons that have restricted pathways through them and which have to be entered and exited in a specific way.  Characters are restricted to classes, professions, or clans that fill certain roles.  Characters are often assumed to be traveling through places they've never been before so what they know is restricted to what they learn in the course of the game and they can't use information that they might already know.  Combat effectively boils down to a handful of optimal choices that the players choose again and again.  All of that, to me, is what truly stifles the choices that players make.

Quote from: Benoist;545175This is what some people here are talking about when they say the grid ruins their immersion. The game basically becomes the application of the rules on a board, the grid itself, and the effect this minigame has in the actual game world becomes an afterthought, a consequence of that minigame.

I can see that and I've even been guilty of it, myself, but the problem isn't the tools but how players use them.  But the alternative has negative side effects, too.  Consider the pejorative "Mother May I" as the flip side of the pejorative "minigame" and claims of it destroying immersion.  Where you see players dropping immersion to game the combat to their advantage, I've seen GMs game judgement calls over things like range and movement to manipulate the outcome of the combat.  When the player asks, "Can I charge through that gap in the middle of the guards and attack the evil priestess?" and the GM has to subjectively decide whether the character can reach the NPC and attack in a single turn and subjectively decide whether it draws attacks from the guards who might close to stop it, the temptation for the GM to make those decisions based on how they want the combat to go rather than simply the situation at hand is strong.

Quote from: Benoist;545175I have found that when players forget about the grid and when you actually tell them out loud that what they see on the diorama or white board is an approximation and not what is actually happening in the game world, and that it'd be cool if they thought about the game world first, the figs on the board second, it actually "clicks" with them fairly easily.

And you need to physically get rid of the map board and markers to do that?

Quote from: Benoist;545175Having played AD&D with miniatures since the days of my 3.5 campaigns, I have observed an increase in the actual immersion of the players, because they just don't have to think in terms of rules to instead visualize the situation, whether it uses actual visuals on the game table or not, and act as though they were there. I cut the intermediary of the grid, with or without miniatures, and went back straight to the game world as a reference, asking players to use their imagination instead. And it works.

I don't doubt that it works, but how complex are their choices?  What kinds of tactical choices to the players typically make in combat and how much information do they need to make those choices?

Quote from: Benoist;545175Only Gleichman is claiming that people don't want to admit that. Of course you are losing absolute accuracy when you are not using precise means of simulation like a grid and miniatures. But there is a world of excluded middle between an abstraction that is usable to communicate directly between players and share an imagined space at the game table, and the total lack of meaningful choices and communication breakdown you guys keep saying this is about. I honestly -honestly now- cannot remember the last time I played a game in the last what, 25+ years, playing at dozens of different tables with literally hundreds of different people over the years, where this kind of complete communication breakdown ever occurred the way you are portraying it right now.

I've seen quite a bit of it, even with people I've played with for decades.  Heck, one of the two retcons that I remember was the result of a verbal-only encounter where differences between how the GM understood the situation and how I understood it led to my character's death.  After realizing the misunderstanding, we replayed the scene.  See also the Usenet message by Mary Kuhner that I referenced in this reply (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=544807&postcount=880) in the other thread for another form of the problem, in that example between a husband and wife who played one-on-one games extensively together.

Quote from: Benoist;545175I appreciate that you feel like you need the grid and tokens yourself, but that doesn't make it something critical for anyone to enjoy an RPG effectively and consider they have meaningful choices in front of them as their characters in their mind's eye.

What are the meaningful tactical choices that the players in your room-with-a-pit example could make without asking for more detail from the GM (i.e., "20 Questions") about the situation and the rules implications of the choices?  And how many of the questions, including a few that you gave in your example, would they not have to ask with a scale drawing on a grid or hex map where they could see the terrain and character positions and calculate distance and range on their own?  I'm not seeing that point as a matter of mere opinion or taste.

Quote from: Benoist;545175To me, it sounds like you are making the argument that choices and actual tactics are contained within the parameters of the rules themselves, exclusively. I think any wargamer would disagree with that.

No.  I'm making the claim that understanding options and the implications of choices come from understanding the situation and the rules that will be used to resolve those choices.  If I know how far my character can move in a turn, I can understand which movements options are possible and what their implications might be.  If I know the range of my character's weapons and whether or not I can shoot through other characters obstructing my target, I can understand what my target options are and how those choices might turn out.  If can't assess a choice unless I know it's possible and what it might mean and if I can't know that without querying the GM, the choices are either "Mother May I"/"20 Questions" to assess what my choices are or keeping those choices really simple based on the limited facts that I do know.

Quote from: Benoist;545175I like to play wargames and role playing games. I consider myself to be interested in actual tactics, that is, actually applying tactics at the level of the game world, trapping enemies in a room with flaming oil, using high ground, ordering people around, making a plan to attack the keep, and so on.

Great, but what about the players who don't know that high ground offers than an advantage or doesn't think flaming oil is an option to hold an enemy at bay, either because they assume the oil fire will be small and ineffective or they assume the enemy willing and able to jump through it?  Those are exactly the sorts of problems I've seen with assumption clash, even when dealing with casual players who don't care much about the rules.  

In fact, I've seen the perfect example of this in action.  In college, I played a D&D game run by a guy in the SCA (now an anthropology professor) who grafted his own realistic combat system onto D&D that took things like higher ground and charges into account.  Only the GM had the rules.  The players simply described what their characters were doing and the GM would apply the modifiers and so on.  When the players don't have access to the rules and what will and won't work, they wind up making bad choices without knowing they are making bad choices, don't make good choices because they don't know they are good choices, and decisions can get pretty arbitrary.  The players can't make good choices based on information that they don't have.

Quote from: Benoist;545175I hate it when the rules become a minigame and that the "tactics" become whether I get an opportunity attack or not, whether taking a 5 foot step will reduce the cover of the opponent I'm trying to shoot at this round, and so on. These aren't the tactical situations I'm interested in.

Then don't use rules that take that level of detail into account.  I've used maps and markers with pretty vanilla Fudge.  That's not a problem with the map grid and markers but with the rules being used with them.

Quote from: Benoist;545175I'm interested in being immersed in the world, not having to deal with another layer of rules acting as a buffer between me and the game world. I don't want to have to translate whirlwind attacks and cleaves into actual moves in the game world in my head. I want the opposite: to describe those moves as though they happened live and then have the rules being tools used to adjudicate them in terms of successes and failures, die rolls and the like.

And if the rules don't explicitly have things like Whirlwind Attacks and Cleaves, how often do you see players use them, what mechanical effect do they have on the game, and who gets to decide that?  How does a GM decide how a Whirlwind Attack or Cleave works without rules defining that and how do those rulings remain consistent?

Quote from: Benoist;545175YMMV, but that quote is actually true for some people, many of which might enjoy playing role playing games I'm sure.

I'm sure it's true for some people and I even gave you an example where it was true for me.  But it doesn't change the fact that if it were really true for a significant number of people that radio dramas wouldn't be a largely dead art form which suggests that quote is of limited value.  Nobody is tuning in their radio at 8PM to listen to the latest episode of Gray's Anatomy or Once Upon A Time.  Why do you think that is?

Quote from: Benoist;545175There are different levels of accuracy and consistency that can be played in any number of ways in a role playing game. Some ways some people will enjoy, others some people won't, and vice versa. My point really is that your way is not the only possible way that works.

I'm not claiming it is.  What I'm saying is that it's a choice with consequences and things are lost when accuracy and consistency are sacrificed and when it comes to immersion in character and setting, there seem to be plenty of people who find immersion difficult to maintain without detail and consistency.

Can't answer your post right now because I can't break down posts effectively on my phone, but I'll get back to it, John.

There is no style or issue of "mother-may-I" it's a phrase which has effectively pushed buttons. Masterful troll.

I think this thread has gone way into tangency, so I'll be responding to a post from earlier that wasn't:

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;544550It's a completely false dichotomy - the idea that, unless you have a hard and fast rule defining a thing, that a competent and reasonable DM can't make a ruling without it being a "gimme".  Usually with the implication that the players are buying the DM pizza, for whatever reason.  

Note that "magic item wish lists" are for some reason exempt from this complaint.  :idunno:

First of all: people who have been consistent about not liking the "Mother-May-I" bullshit have been consistent about hating 4e's Item Wishlists as well. I, for example, am on record as having said that system was the worst system of handing out magic items ever, and that you'd be way better off either handing out items in a player controlled marketplace or outright randomly. Putting the GM in the position where there is the expectation that they will give out the frost bastard sword the ranger "needs" but no actual mechanism for ensuring that will happen is the worst thing in the world. It puts the arrow the wrong way: where not finding a specific item in a random displacer beast's lair causes the player to resent the DM.

But this 5e thing where the player isn't allowed to know what their character can do (both because the rules explaining what skills do are in the DM guidelines and also because those rules are almost entirely "the DM makes something up on the fly"), is just as bullshit. It is the worst possible method of engaging players. If you want players to engage with the story, they should be able to tell you what their characters can do. It is not an exaggeration to say that Mike Mearls gets butthurt when players attempt to do things based on their understanding of how the universe works and what their character can do.

Quote from: Mike MearlsThe section that covers common tasks follows the same basic format as the skill section, and it presents these as guidelines for DMs. These are not canonical, player-controlled rules, but a guide to resolving common tasks to help inform a DM's decision-making process.

This is bullshit. You know what absolutely fucking better be a "player controlled rule"? Things your character does! It's a cooperative storytelling game, and in order to cooperate or add anything, each player has to be in control of their own additions to the story.

It's not just that Mike Mearls is so afraid of player empowerment that he removed all player agency from "common tasks", putting all of the burden on the DM. It's that in doing so he has made the game take an ass long time to resolve anything. Every time you attempt any task, the first thing you do is ask the DM to write some damn rules for it off the top of his head, and then hope that the rules written in this manner will give you the slightest hope in Hell of actually doing whatever it is you wanted done. That is molasses slow in addition to being fundamentally insulting.

The DM already controls the difficulty of the world. The player needs to control the abilities of their character. How the fuck are they supposed to write their section of the story if they aren't allowed to know what their character can do?

But while I know that there are a lot of 4e fans out there who seem to have only just now noticed that "Mother-May-I" crap is crap, and were willing to completely overlook those elements in 4e (notably in the skill challenge and equipment sections), there are still a lot of 3e fans out there who have consistently hated on this stupid concept from the beginning. Honestly, I think it comes from the fact that most 4e fans pretty much did not use the skill challenges and made pacts with their DMs about how and what items were to be found before the game even started.

-Frank

Quote from: gleichman;545201It is, abstraction starts with the selection of scale (unless we're talking about D&D where it starts with HPs... really strange case.

To digress a bit, I don't think that is quite right. At least feet and seconds aren't directly comparable to other dimensions which one might abstract. For example, I've often pointed to what might be called abstraction of the limits of conscious control. In wargames this is comparable to abstraction of "soft factors", such as the decisions of subordinates, into a die roll. RPG combat could be simulated at the angstrom and millisecond scale, but one would still need to decide whether to abstract the reaction time, coordination, and awareness of the character, or to let the player declare they'll swing their sword at precisely such-and-such time and location.

That's an exaggeration of course but I do think there can be value (vividness, realism) in simulating fairly detailed effects even though I'd advocate abstracting the process that leads to them.

To clear something up, though, when I originally said a GM can be consistent, I was thinking more about "campaign level" or "adventure continuity level" issues.

But the issue of control-scale vs. physical scale is relevant to combat, and the scale/degree of abstraction can be chosen somewhat independently for each. I suppose my point is that control-scale has implications for the need for objective, transparent precision in physical scale even if some elements are modeled at a level beyond that precision.

Maybe I can put that in plain English tomorrow.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545307To digress a bit, I don't think that is quite right. At least feet and seconds aren't directly comparable to other dimensions which one might abstract.

Clearly I think they are more related than you do.

In general there are many areas for abstraction and depending upon the specific game we're talking about- they may or may not have considered the other areas when they were determined. Different designers may start their design process at different points for their own reasons (I always start with scale myself).

So the question I have for you is, where are you trying to go with this? I'm bit lost I'm afraid.

From now on, I will force my players to call me, "Mother". Then I'll make them ask for permission to go to the bathroom.

Brian, it is clear for me that you have not thought very much about the unknowns and complexity levels of combat modeling.

As for spatial cognition...well well, lemme just say this: gridded maps keep everything on a discretized 2d level.
By doing that, they prevent the collapse into a 1D binary level (in range not; back-front).

But many many people can have and will be succesful in using non-discretized i. e. continous representations of spatial situations. To be doing this consistently to the satisfaction of everyone involved, there needs to be a constant feedback loop and information redundancy. Talking, implicit assumptions being reality checked implicitly too, gestures, drawings on a split second turnaround time!

A constant back and forth of information in verbal and graphical ways, this is what roleplaying is its strongest at. And thus it can provide what wargames and computer games cannot: continous movement and full freedom of action.

I see no reason to do away with rpgs strengths.

If you are such a "migraine-personality" that you are unable to cope with non-discretized versions of the complex world, may I suggest you get into ASL? Never ever will anybody be asking anyones mother. All possible rules questions are resolved already, even the most arcane. Everything is in neat hexes, with line of sight even being modelled in a teeny mode of non-discretized arrangement, still uses only the center dots, mind you.

If you had ever encountered a truly complete rulesset, you would know how foolish you sound when comparing GM-driven games with anything like them.

Quote from: Settembrini;545327A constant back and forth of information in verbal and graphical ways, this is what roleplaying is its strongest at. And thus it can provide what wargames and computer games cannot: continous movement and full freedom of action.

I see no reason to do away with rpgs strengths.

Very well put - spot on. The whole point of an RPG is that player characters should be able to attempt anything, and to allow such freedom a GM is needed  as an arbiter of success or failure. The more rules or legislation constrain this freedom of choice, the less like an rpg the game becomes.

Quote from: Settembrini;545327If you are such a "migraine-personality" that you are unable to cope with non-discretized versions of the complex world, may I suggest you get into ASL?

Ah, from reasonable observation to BS false dichotomy in a heartbeat.

4e is shit.  People who whine about "Mother May I" are fags.  4e is shit.

Quote from: jeff37923;544509Am I right? I could be wrong, but it looks like the latest version of "we must disempower the evil DM because the DM could stop my fun". Is this really a problem in gaming?

When the term was first coined (years and years ago), it seemed to apply to behavior that was actually problematic.

Now it seems to be getting applied to any circumstance in which the DM is actually doing their job. Complete idiocy. It's people saying, "Compared to a video game, the great thing about an RPG is that you can do anything." And people replying, "Yeah, and that's a problem."

Quote from: B.T.;5453604e is shit.  People who whine about "Mother May I" are fags.  4e is shit.

Astute.

Quote from: John Morrow;545160What benefits does your approach offer that sketching out the room and putting some pawns on a BattleMat that's already on the table not offer?

I can't speak for Benoist, but in my experience there is generally a point where players stop interacting with the game world and start interacting with the limited representation of the game world presented on the tabletop.

This point can vary dramatically between players.

This is why I don't use products like Dwarven Forge unless they precisely match the game world: I find that, given that level of detail, virtually all players perceive the game world as being the model terrain regardless of what physical description may be given. (For similar reasons, I only use monster miniatures if they're a precise match for the monster I'm using. I've literally seen players who fought a vividly described hook horror remember the monster as being an ogre because that's the miniature that was used.)

With my regular 3.5 group I use a Chessex battlemap and draw room outlines using magic markers. That group has no problem continuing to interact with the game world in this situation: In other words, they don't mistake the map for the territory.

But I've played with other people for whom that isn't true: As soon as the grid lines are laid down, they're interacting entirely with the map. And anything that isn't on the map stops existing for them.

I've taken these same players, removed a layer of abstraction, and gotten them to start interacting with the world again.

Complicating this, of course, is that there are people who want to play on the map and don't give a damn about the territory. There was a 4E game I played where the DM was using preprinted battlemaps. At one point during the battle I wanted to circle around the bad guys and I asked, "What's off the map here?" And the response was, "There's nothing off the edge of the map. That's the edge of the map."

QuoteAnd at some point, if you look at Brian's old Elements of Tactics column on RPGnet, abstraction essentially eliminates meaningful choices for nearly all of those elements such that there are little or no real tactics involved in play.

I took a look at that essay and I'm not drawing the same conclusion you are. There's nothing about facing, ganging up, range, or terrain features that require non-verbal depiction in order to use them or take advantage of them.

Quote from: Glazer;545334Very well put - spot on. The whole point of an RPG is that player characters should be able to attempt anything, and to allow such freedom a GM is needed  as an arbiter of success or failure. The more rules or legislation constrain this freedom of choice, the less like an rpg the game becomes.

I do not fully agree. I was talking about interaction schemes, they are pretty independent of the legislation. Having a lot of rules can actually be a kind of freedom itself. But yes, the whole reason for having a DM is to provide a possibility for true surprise and true freedom of action which no rules-system can ever provide.

And it is the very nature of the DM-fueled freedom that he is the arbiter. If he would not need to decide, he could be done away with. So if one is using only written rules and minis in combat, you are failing to use the DM-driven RPG concept at all.

Nota Bene: I have DMed many sessions with 2D gridded terrain and minis and very strict adherence to the 3.5 raw. Especially during weekday gaming, they do prevent the collapse into 1D and into the realm of tired and unconcetnrated confusion. But using the strengths of a DM in combat we did not at that time.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;545344Ah, from reasonable observation to BS false dichotomy in a heartbeat.

Well, Gleichman definitely is calling something complex and demanding in the realm of interaction and guesswork impossible. And without asking he talks about his beloved mother (did no one but me find this weird?). Also he prefers strict rulings. A perfectionist.

That is what used to be called the 'migraine personality'.
http://submittedforyourperusal.com/2011/10/05/migraine-personality/

In short I am insulting him like this:

Only because YOU cannot make it work, does not say it is impossible.

Quote from: Glazer;545334Very well put - spot on. The whole point of an RPG is that player characters should be able to attempt anything, and to allow such freedom a GM is needed  as an arbiter of success or failure. The more rules or legislation constrain this freedom of choice, the less like an rpg the game becomes.

People have this misconception that unlimited freedom is a good thing. But the truth is that it's creativity of operating within limits that sparks true imagination and progress.

There are no free lunches in life, there should be no free lunches in RPGs.


Edit: as an side and to everyone, the person you quoted (Settembrini) has been in my ignore list for years. I won't be read is posts directly or replying to him. True of a number of people here.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545376I took a look at that essay and I'm not drawing the same conclusion you are. There's nothing about facing, ganging up, range, or terrain features that require non-verbal depiction in order to use them or take advantage of them.

That's because you brought your own bias to the articles and elevated them above what I wrote.

Gleichman, I disagree with you about nearly everything and I'm glad you're here.

Quote from: Aos;545387Gleichman, I disagree with you about nearly everything and I'm glad you're here.

That's my view.  I rarely if ever use the ignore feature either.  Because even though I may have a polar opposite view on this and think Gleichman's view is absurd and borders into ridiculous I'm always open to understand if not  learn from different points of view.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545364Now it seems to be getting applied to any circumstance in which the DM is actually doing their job. Complete idiocy. It's people saying, "Compared to a video game, the great thing about an RPG is that you can do anything." And people replying, "Yeah, and that's a problem."

That's not the problem, as I see it.  The problem is a matter of degree.

When Steffan O'Sullivan wrote Fudge a couple of decades ago, he deliberately left things like drowning rules (an example he gives in his designer's notes (http://www.panix.com/~sos/rpg/fud-des.html)) out of the system because one of his design goals was "never to have to look anything up during play". which is basically a "rulings not rules" argument.  From his designer's notes (http://www.panix.com/~sos/rpg/fud-des.html) (I recommend reading the entire section titled "Looking Things Up", from which these quotes are taken, which is relevant to this discussion:

QuoteSo what does go on? Well, you're trying to simulate either the real world or some non-real, fictional world. Wouldn't it be helpful to have rules for every contingency? Well, yes and no:

• Yes, it would be helpful to have easily-remembered meta-rules that covered every contingency.
• No, it wouldn't be helpful at all to try to have specific rules to cover every contingency because the undertaking is impossible. Any list you could make would be incomplete and would fail at some point. In addition, you'd constantly be interrupting your game looking things up, and the GM would never feel comfortable just winging it to keep the game flow going, because it might turn out that the rules contradicted her.

[...]

But why doesn't Fudge have rules for common things, such as falling damage, or how much damage it takes to knock a door down, or time to drown, and so on? Don't these things come up often enough to make it worth your while to include them?

My answer is simply: no, they don't. If they came up often enough, you'd never have to look them up. If they only occur now and then, you'd have to stop the game to look up the rule, then calculate the damage, etc. In the meantime, the role-playing mood is broken as index-searching, rule-reading, and technical calculations are made.

In short, that's not role-playing, that's simulation. And here's where Fudge fails the "good game" test for many players: it's aimed at role-playing rather than "realistic simulation."

So at one extreme, we have rules for everything and a game that looks like ASL: The RPG.  At the other extreme, we have rules for nothing and the GM just makes it all up as they go.  Since most role-playing games exist between those extremes, one should conclude that there is both a value to having rules and a point at which the rules will hit a point of diminishing returns and some things will have to be handled on an ad hoc basis.

In those Fudge designer's notes, Steffan O'Sullivan makes the case for leaving most rulings in the hand of the GM to avoid time-consuming rule referencing during the game, which is a big part of the "rulings vs. rules" argument.  But if fixed rules only made games worse and had no corresponding benefit, one should conclude that role-playing games should toss out the fixed rules and just handle everything through GM ruling and interpretation.  I've played in games where the only rule was "high rolls are good, low rolls are bad" and one can role-play that way.  So why don't most people role-play that way?  Because there are benefits to having fixed rules and liabilities to the "rulings not rules" approach, too.  So what a system needs to do is to find a balance between those extremes  where the benefits are maximized and the liabilities minimized and that sweet spot will, of course, vary quite a bit by group.  

The "Mother May I" or "20 Questions" arguments here are an illustration of the primary liability of leaving things up to GM interpretation.  The problem is that it limits the ability of players to make independent judgements about situations and to know the implication and meaning of choices without consulting with the GM first.  But there are other liabilities as well.  In this old Usenet message Mary Kunher (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/c3bd34ce03c6e779?dmode=source) discusses how players and GMs may assess situations differently and how relying on the GM to make that assessment can be unsatisfactory (her example is one-on-one games played with her husband, not some random jerk GM at the local game shop, so it's not a GM quality problem).  Having important successes or failures hinge on a GM judgement call can leave the impression that the GM made the success or failure happen.  And, finally, I think experienced role-players underestimate the degree to which beginning role-players often lack the real world knowledge to make judgement calls.  In those cases, having detailed rules actually tells the GM how to do thing in a reasonable manner.

What concerns me for 5e, especially after reading Frank Trollman's message above, is that Mike Mearls is making the same sort of mistake that they made with 4e, which is that rather than trying to find a balance between the benefits and liabilities of various styles, that they are listening to a single noisy extreme and producing rules that go to an extreme at the expense of other concerns.  In the case of 4e, the noisy extreme was the Forge gamist ideal.  In the case of 5e, it seems like it's the "rulings not rules" OSR.  While I think Mike Mearls and the 5e design team can learn some very valuable things from the OSR about how D&D can be played and D&D rules can work, I don't think embracing any single style to an extreme is going to produce a successful edition of D&D.  

D&D 3e was specifically designed to appeal to a broad range of styles rather than a single style at the expense of others.  While I don't think it was entirely successful, it did well enough in that regard that it was quite successful.  D&D 4e emphasized a single style of play at the expense of others and suffered because of it.  D&D 5e will also suffer if it emphasizes a single style of play at the expense of others, even if that style is the OSR.

Morrrow I do agree with you that a game like D&D needs to strike a balance in the core if they are too attract the most gamers possible. Right now all we have is a glimps of how things work and no idea how modules fit in. If the options are done as they were in say 2E (where a lot of people just use them as core because they are there) it will be a lot easier to layer more involved mechanics ontop of a rules light core (picture the 3e book with all the same stuff in it but a parenthetical "optional" next to grid related rules and deep skills.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545376I can't speak for Benoist, but in my experience there is generally a point where players stop interacting with the game world and start interacting with the limited representation of the game world presented on the tabletop.

Yes, this can happen, but why not take a look at why it happens rather than take the tool away?  It's similar to the complaint that Steffan O'Sullivan makes in his Fudge designer's notes (http://www.panix.com/~sos/rpg/fud-des.html) about a player who would insist on looking up precise modifiers rather than leaving it up to GM fiat.  Why is the player doing that and is simply taking the tool away the right solution?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545376This is why I don't use products like Dwarven Forge unless they precisely match the game world: I find that, given that level of detail, virtually all players perceive the game world as being the model terrain regardless of what physical description may be given. (For similar reasons, I only use monster miniatures if they're a precise match for the monster I'm using. I've literally seen players who fought a vividly described hook horror remember the monster as being an ogre because that's the miniature that was used.)

I agree with this and it matches my experience.  It's why I prefer pawns to miniatures and dislike using inappropriate miniatures because I personally have that problem.  So here we have some advice to mitigate the problem of the player limiting their mental image of the scene to what's on the map board rather than throwing the tool away -- use sketches rather than terrain and pawns or markers instead of miniatures.  And that was pretty much what I was trying to get out of Benoist.  What is really causing the problem such that a sketch works OK but a sketch on a grid with markers fails for him.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545376With my regular 3.5 group I use a Chessex battlemap and draw room outlines using magic markers. That group has no problem continuing to interact with the game world in this situation: In other words, they don't mistake the map for the territory.

But I've played with other people for whom that isn't true: As soon as the grid lines are laid down, they're interacting entirely with the map. And anything that isn't on the map stops existing for them.

While I can see that happen, I think the same thing can happen with verbal descriptions, where the players interact only with what the GM describes and  if it's not in the description, it doesn't exist.  There are KotDT strips that make fun of this -- for example, if the GM describes a cow in a field, it must be important because the GM doesn't describe things that the characters aren't meant to do something with.  The players mentally reduce combat to the 1 dimension that I talked about, picking a target and attacking it.  And as soon as a player does visualize the scene in a complex way and wants to interact with it in complex ways, that's where I've seen the "20 Questions" problem inevitably occur.  

What commonly happens in the game's I've been in is that the GM may start describing an encounter verbally but as soon as a player starts asking about details, the consensus is to go to the erasable map  grid.  And that's not unlike Benoist's example, where such questions lead to a sketch.  

The fundamental problem is that there is only so much information that can be conveyed about a scene verbally before a drawing becomes a more efficient and effective way to convey the information.  So that leads me to question whether the verbal-only description is really a richer and more detailed experience instead of being a simpler and less detailed experience where the players simply don't interact with anything the GM doesn't explicitly describe.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545376I've taken these same players, removed a layer of abstraction, and gotten them to start interacting with the world again.

Can you give a specific example of what they did that you didn't like with the map and markers and did differently without them?  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545376Complicating this, of course, is that there are people who want to play on the map and don't give a damn about the territory. There was a 4E game I played where the DM was using preprinted battlemaps. At one point during the battle I wanted to circle around the bad guys and I asked, "What's off the map here?" And the response was, "There's nothing off the edge of the map. That's the edge of the map."

Ugh.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545376I took a look at that essay and I'm not drawing the same conclusion you are. There's nothing about facing, ganging up, range, or terrain features that require non-verbal depiction in order to use them or take advantage of them.

The problem is not that non-verbal depictions are required to take them into consideration.  The problem is that it can be incredibly difficult to take all of those things into consideration and make sure that everyone at the table has a common understanding of those factors and to keep them consistent over many rounds verbally rather than representing them physically.  It's why people use diagrams and maps in the real world rather than simply describing everything in text.  There is a point at which maps and diagrams are simply a more efficient way to convey the information accurately and consistently.  As a result, the verbal descriptions can wind up simplifying and abstracting the situation to the point where details aren't considered.  Do you commonly see players engaging in sophisticated movement, taking advantage of facing, ganging up, and taking advantage of range and terrain features in verbal-only combat encounters?  In my experience, once players start heading down that road, the GM quickly switches over to a map grid and counters to manage it all.

Quote from: Marleycat;545399That's my view.  I rarely if ever use the ignore feature either.

I use it as a tool to remind me that specific posters are not worth replying to.

And as a measure of changes in site population between visits. With but a couple of exceptions, most the people I put into the ignore list a few years back during my last visit have left this board or been banned from it. It's an interesting result, but I'm not sure it means anything other than there is significant turnover on these types of boards.

Quote from: John Morrow;545235My contention is that it's more efficient to accurately convey the information visually than verbally (I think your diagram also illustrates this) such that getting an accurate and rich understanding of a complex situation will be easier and more reliable with a diagram than with a verbal description, (B) diagrams with some sort of grid or hex convey scale and proportion better than a diagram without a grid or hex, (C) unless the player has a comprehensive understanding of the situation and what their character is and isn't capable of doing it will inevitably require a lot of questions to the GM to determine what their character can or can't do if they want to assess a variety of options (in effect, "20 Questions" or "Mother May I"), and (D) the primary way of escaping the problem of conveying details between player and GM seems to be to not have them, to make them mechanically irrelevant, or for the choices and decisions of the players to be very simple.

(A) is a statement I think nobody disagrees with, in the sense that a grid helps in regards to the accuracy of characters placement, terrain features and the like. Whether it is more efficient depends on what we are talking about. More efficient towards which goal? If it is "accurately tracking various elements on the battlefield" then yes, I'll agree. If it is "actually immersing oneself in a situation and playing a role playing game" then that's not true for everyone. Some people will feel visual representation and grids and rules going into details to track all the elements of a battlefield will actually detract from the immersion in the game world.

(B) in particular is a point of contention, even amongst people who have no trouble using visual aids in a role playing game (such as myself). For some, the grid is a sine qua non condition of accuracy. I have seen the grid being detrimental to some people's immersion however, when the abstraction of movements and actions on the mat become the game instead of the events in the game world they are supposed to describe. The board becomes a side-game aside from the game world for these people, and that's a problem. I find it for this reason much more efficient towards immersion to not use a grid or have the grid (like it appears on Dwarven Forge pieces) and just not care about it as such, beyond a sense of scale, and/or use rulers and strings if some exact movement rates or ranges are in doubt.

(C) if I felt I must have a comprehensive (as in complete, involving all possible variables) understanding of a situation before being able to make any meaningful choice in the way to approach it, I might agree with you there. This is, however, not what I require to make decisions, for one thing: what I require is the critical information my character ought to know, and nothing more. I actually feel that in situations where it takes split seconds to take decisions, it is actually more conducive of immersion to me to not have a bird's eye view on the situation but instead to have a description of the important factors and elements of the situation so that then I can precise the picture in my mind by asking targeted questions. I feel more in situation that way. Visual representations and information overload are actually more likely to put me out of character in the position of a general moving pawns on a chess board, and that is not what I am looking for when playing a role playing game. I must also precise that I have never, ever seen the back-and-forths between GM and players assessing a situation verbally going on to the point you would reach that mythical "20 questions" theoretical issue. It's just something I have never witnessed myself.

(D) What amount of details and relevant elements you want in the resolution of a particular situation will vary from situation to situation in practice. There is an excluded middle between the complete lack of information that leads to players having no choices at all and having all the elements exposed in a bird's eye view so you can manipulate your puppet on the battlefield as though you were a God's eye general above. The DM will strive to propose situations that can potentially be dealt with in a variety of fashions, the players will then act or ask for key precisions to help them make a decision, and lest we forget, they will do absolutely anything they want from there, because this is a role playing game, and part of the fun, for players and DM, is that you can get out of the map, out of the boundaries established by the situation on paper or in the original plans of the DM to get off the rails and deal with it as though it was real in your mind's eye.

Quote from: John Morrow;545235And that is very different problem than the grid or miniatures, themselves, slowing down the game or replacing imagination.  It also raises the question of why players would behave that way if it didn't give them something that they wanted and are, in effect, being denied by the elimination of the tools.

I guess I disagree. I have seen the grid and five foot steps and attacks of opportunity, the board and miniatures themselves becoming the game, with the actual game world being a secondary consequence from what results when you play that mini-game primarily. I'll repeat myself that it's fine for me if some people don't have a problem with this and don't feel like there is a discrepency or change in the focus of the game occurring at all, but that does not change the fact I've seen it occur several times with my players. This is a fact, as far as I'm concerned. And taking the grid away (or ignoring it when it's there), acting in the game world first, as you picture the situation in your head, to then either resolve the situation live using various means of adjudication (including the rules obviously) or represent these actions at the level of the visual representation used at the game table if any (miniatures, tokens, sketches whatnot) frees these people's imagination. The rules become a secondary tool of adjudication, they are not the focus of the game. That's actually what a role playing game IS, to me.

Quote from: John Morrow;545235One of my pet peeves with this hobby is how strongly games and GMs work to restrict the environment and options of the players to limit what they can do.  Adventures happen in dungeons that have restricted pathways through them and which have to be entered and exited in a specific way.  Characters are restricted to classes, professions, or clans that fill certain roles.  Characters are often assumed to be traveling through places they've never been before so what they know is restricted to what they learn in the course of the game and they can't use information that they might already know.  Combat effectively boils down to a handful of optimal choices that the players choose again and again.  All of that, to me, is what truly stifles the choices that players make.

I hear you. I think many people actually like it that way, in the sense that the game's rules and design propose a structure you can use to imagine yourself in the game world doing something exciting. The key word here being "structure". Classes and archetypes, the dungeon and the wilderness, and so on basically provide a structure to visualize the game world. There is such a thing as "too many choices", where a game becomes so open it becomes vague and, in the end, useless to most people who want to have a starting point and aids for them to build the games of their imaginations. I think, for instance, that the structure of the dungeon, the fact that the DM builds one with a sheet of graph paper in one hand and a pencil in the other, is a fantastic element of the game that is nothing short of a stroke of genius that makes it stand apart compared to any other type of game (role playing and otherwise) out there. I think people enjoy playing with games that provide them with these types of structural elements they can grab and use for themselves, however they see fit, even if that means breaking them and looking beyond them after a while. That's the power of role playing games right there.

Quote from: John Morrow;545235I can see that and I've even been guilty of it, myself, but the problem isn't the tools but how players use them.  But the alternative has negative side effects, too.  Consider the pejorative "Mother May I" as the flip side of the pejorative "minigame" and claims of it destroying immersion.  Where you see players dropping immersion to game the combat to their advantage, I've seen GMs game judgement calls over things like range and movement to manipulate the outcome of the combat.  When the player asks, "Can I charge through that gap in the middle of the guards and attack the evil priestess?" and the GM has to subjectively decide whether the character can reach the NPC and attack in a single turn and subjectively decide whether it draws attacks from the guards who might close to stop it, the temptation for the GM to make those decisions based on how they want the combat to go rather than simply the situation at hand is strong.

OK couple of points. I don't think my argument here has anything to do with a power struggle between players and DM. I did not say that players were "dropping immersion to game the combat to their advantage," I said that the players just didn't immerse anymore to instead play a different kind of game, which is the interaction of the rules on the board in front of them. Some players like to play that way evidently, if we judge by the affection some of the 4e fans have for that aspect of their game, while others will not like it and feel like they're playing a different game, a tactical board game, that isn't what they were signing up for in the first place. Both approaches exist, and remember my contention is that because you feel a certain way about it doesn't mean that everyone else ought to see it your way.

As for GMs taking advantage of situations that are described verbally and manipulating the game behind the scenes with elements in mind that have nothing to do with actually representing what happens at the game table, basically engaging in a form of illusionism, bait and switches and the like, sure, there is a possibility of that occurring, if the GM doesn't have his act together and acts like a poor referee.

Quote from: John Morrow;545235And you need to physically get rid of the map board and markers to do that?

As far as the actual example I gave goes, that you just tell them about the abstraction and to make an effort to visualize stuff first in their mind's eye to then apply it on the diorama, no, you won't need to take those tools away. It'll work with some people (worked with the people I played 3.5 Ptolus with (http://praemal.blogspot.com)).

In some other instances you might have to, however. It totally depends on the players who are sitting at the game table and what they're actual needs to feel immersed in the game are. If I was playing with you a D&D game, for instance, I would know I have to incorporate some form of visual representations in a regular basis for you to feel like you can visualize stuff and make meaningful decisions regarding what your character is doing. I'd work with that, and blend it with what the other people want, to come up with a consensus hopefully working for everyone involved.

Quote from: John Morrow;545235I don't doubt that it works, but how complex are their choices?  What kinds of tactical choices to the players typically make in combat and how much information do they need to make those choices?

I'd guess it varies from player to player. Usually, I'd say players might ask one or two questions before starting to either strategize about what they're going to do, which might spawn one or two more questions, or starting to actually act on the spot. My experience is that it doesn't take much to convey the key points of a particular situation. The imagination of the players fill in the blanks, if they feel something's lacking or they'd better know about a particular point they ask, and I try to answer fairly and thoroughly. It works well. As for the actual choices players have in combat, I'm honestly tempted to answer "whatever choices they come up with", because I really don't script events in the game in such a fashion as to make it some type of check list of available choices before hand. I basically respond to whatever the players choose to do as I'm basically visualizing and role playing the environment myself, much like a player does with his or her character. I feel that players generally feel pretty confident that their choices are open in the way they choose to approach the game world.

Quote from: John Morrow;545235I've seen quite a bit of it, even with people I've played with for decades.  Heck, one of the two retcons that I remember was the result of a verbal-only encounter where differences between how the GM understood the situation and how I understood it led to my character's death.  After realizing the misunderstanding, we replayed the scene.  See also the Usenet message by Mary Kuhner that I referenced in this reply (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=544807&postcount=880) in the other thread for another form of the problem, in that example between a husband and wife who played one-on-one games extensively together.

That must suck when that happens. I can honestly say I have never experienced this type of situation myself, and you'll just have to believe me I guess when I say I played with tons of people myself, as I'm sure you did. Judging by most role playing games in France and the US actually not using grids and miniatures as a baseline of game play, I'm tempted to say that's the experience of a lot of people out there, and that the complete communication breakdown you guys are talking about actually does not occur nearly as often as you suppose or imply it does here on this thread (which seems to be "systematically" to me, which is where I'm saying "hold on a minute here, no").

Quote from: John Morrow;545235What are the meaningful tactical choices that the players in your room-with-a-pit example could make without asking for more detail from the GM (i.e., "20 Questions") about the situation and the rules implications of the choices?  And how many of the questions, including a few that you gave in your example, would they not have to ask with a scale drawing on a grid or hex map where they could see the terrain and character positions and calculate distance and range on their own?  I'm not seeing that point as a matter of mere opinion or taste.

Well based on what's being talked about in the example, they already have multiple tactical choices I can see as a DM: they can retreat in the corridor where they came from; they can engage the cultists around the pit in any particular manner they want, with range weapons, spells, in contact and so on; they could ask if it's possible to sneak past the cultists as they concentrate on the pit in front of them, to which I'd say something like "Yes, they seem to be focused on the pit, you might have a chance at sneaking past the room without being seen at all", they might wait until the ceremony is over to interact with these people, or interrupt whatever rite they are performing in hopes to do the same... and certainly other choices depending on what occurred before in other areas, the particular imagination and inclinations of the players, and so on, so forth.

In my experience, most people just get along with the make-believe, visualize the situation fine with a sketch like this, ask maybe one or two questions that seem relevant to them about the situation and then decide to do something about it. Moments of confusion might occur occasionally "wait, as here, or there?" which is addressed in the same manner as any other question by myself as DM or other players who were following what was going on, but nothing anywhere close to the communication breakdown you guys keep talking about.

Quote from: John Morrow;545235No.  I'm making the claim that understanding options and the implications of choices come from understanding the situation and the rules that will be used to resolve those choices.  If I know how far my character can move in a turn, I can understand which movements options are possible and what their implications might be.  If I know the range of my character's weapons and whether or not I can shoot through other characters obstructing my target, I can understand what my target options are and how those choices might turn out.  If can't assess a choice unless I know it's possible and what it might mean and if I can't know that without querying the GM, the choices are either "Mother May I"/"20 Questions" to assess what my choices are or keeping those choices really simple based on the limited facts that I do know.

Assessing range and possibilities doesn't take, to most people, a zillion questions really. In my example Xarbathos's player could ask "would it be possible for me to shoot the leader of the cultists in the back from here?" and I would answer "yes, you are about 20 feet away, you absolutely can take that shot". Most players I know are content with such information and can decide from there whether they want to take the shot or not. It's really not rocket science.

Quote from: John Morrow;545235Great, but what about the players who don't know that high ground offers than an advantage or doesn't think flaming oil is an option to hold an enemy at bay, either because they assume the oil fire will be small and ineffective or they assume the enemy willing and able to jump through it?  Those are exactly the sorts of problems I've seen with assumption clash, even when dealing with casual players who don't care much about the rules.

Well when you are playing the game for the first time you explore not only the game world but what your character can and can't do. It'll happen whether you use miniatures and boards and diorama or not. Some of the things we mention are actually common sense to some people (fire burns) which leads to questions from the newbies (can I use flaming oil on the ground to create a barrier of fire?), which is also mitigated by any veteran player being already there to answer these questions at the game table (most groups I've played with in the last 10 years included a large number of newbies, actually). I've not run into any particular problem of the sort for the past .. oh I don't know. Maybe 15 years? So can you have a clash of assumptions or something like it occurring from time to time? Sure. Does it take long to resolve? No. Does it critically break the game when and if it occurs? Not especially that I've seen, no. If it does break the game critically, doesn't it mean that people can't possibly play that way at all? Don't be silly now.

Quote from: John Morrow;545235Then don't use rules that take that level of detail into account.  I've used maps and markers with pretty vanilla Fudge.  That's not a problem with the map grid and markers but with the rules being used with them.

Some people have a problem with the map grid and markers themselves. I explained that above.

Quote from: John Morrow;545235And if the rules don't explicitly have things like Whirlwind Attacks and Cleaves, how often do you see players use them, what mechanical effect do they have on the game, and who gets to decide that?  How does a GM decide how a Whirlwind Attack or Cleave works without rules defining that and how do those rulings remain consistent?

Actually, when the players understand they actually can attempt anything that comes to mind, and that the immersion/emulation is effective for them at the game table, you'd be surprised to see how long it takes for a complete newbie at RPGs to get it and start doing stuff like throwing bottles at people, swinging from chandeliers, using planks and tables to charge several people at the same time and so on. Answer: really, really fast, as a matter of fact.

I'd actually add that for some people, being able to do exactly that, i.e. whatever comes to mind, is actually the point in them playing and enjoying playing a role playing game in the first place.

Quote from: John Morrow;545235I'm sure it's true for some people and I even gave you an example where it was true for me.  But it doesn't change the fact that if it were really true for a significant number of people that radio dramas wouldn't be a largely dead art form which suggests that quote is of limited value.  Nobody is tuning in their radio at 8PM to listen to the latest episode of Gray's Anatomy or Once Upon A Time.  Why do you think that is?

For a variety of reasons that escape me. What I do know is that a lot of people playing role playing games actually feel that way, that the theater of the mind actually provides them with a better picture than any visual aids would provide them. Whether these are the descendants of people who enjoyed radio drama and genes would be somehow involved in this phenomenon is unknown to me, but the fact remains. ;)

Quote from: John Morrow;545235I'm not claiming it is.  What I'm saying is that it's a choice with consequences and things are lost when accuracy and consistency are sacrificed and when it comes to immersion in character and setting, there seem to be plenty of people who find immersion difficult to maintain without detail and consistency.

Well sure, I don't deny these people exist at all. Now whether you are ready to stop denying that people might actually feel the opposite way, that the theater of the mind actually frees them from the constraints of the board and rules and buffers between them and the game world, and that they feel like they have a greater freedom of choice when they are imagining what's going on in their mind's eye, I'd like to know.

Only the DM should know the rules because otherwise the players might get ideas about what they can do.

ITT: textwalls textwalling textwalls that don't even know they're textwalls.

Quote from: John Morrow;545426Yes, this can happen, but why not take a look at why it happens rather than take the tool away?  It's similar to the complaint that Steffan O'Sullivan makes in his Fudge designer's notes (http://www.panix.com/%7Esos/rpg/fud-des.html) about a player who would insist on looking up precise modifiers rather than leaving it up to GM fiat.  Why is the player doing that and is simply taking the tool away the right solution?

Thanks for posting this, John - I found some of it quite interesting, albeit not primarily for the bits currently under discussion.

Quote from: John Morrow;545410So at one extreme, we have rules for everything and a game that looks like ASL: The RPG.  At the other extreme, we have rules for nothing and the GM just makes it all up as they go.  Since most role-playing games exist between those extremes, one should conclude that there is both a value to having rules and a point at which the rules will hit a point of diminishing returns and some things will have to be handled on an ad hoc basis.

I think we can all agree to this, thread closed, yay?

Quote from: Aos;545518ITT: textwalls textwalling textwalls that don't even know they're textwalls.

You are posting in a textwall thread.

Quote from: John Morrow;545560You are posting in a textwall thread.

I hate to admit this, John, because i know that you have a lot of good stuff to say about gaming, but it's the textwall and endless links that stop me from engaging with you.

Shallow, i know, but i simply don't have the time to get involved in such back and forths, and it makes me a little sad. :(

Quote from: John Morrow;545560You are posting in a textwall thread.

It's what I do John, when I'm not trying to take over the world that is. ;)
Look I used a smiley!

Quote from: One Horse Town;545561I hate to admit this, John, because i know that you have a lot of good stuff to say about gaming, but it's the textwall and endless links that stop me from engaging with you.

Shallow, i know, but i simply don't have the time to get involved in such back and forths, and it makes me a little sad. :(

For me it's a lack of energy. A few years ago I would have done it, but grad school essentially killed my attention span.

Quote from: Aos;545563For me it's a lack of energy. A few years ago I would have done it, but grad school essentially killed my attention span.

What's this thing you call 'grad school?'

Quote from: One Horse Town;545564What's this thing you call 'grad school?'

It's a gateway to bitterness and unemployment.

Quote from: John Morrow;545410That's not the problem, as I see it.  The problem is a matter of degree.

Ideally, yes. But when I see people bitching on ENWorld because the playtest documents include "mother-may-I" features like guidelines for assigning DCs not listed in the rulebook, I'm forced to conclude that the "degree" in question has reached idiotic proportions.

QuoteIn this old Usenet message Mary Kunher discusses how players and GMs may assess situations differently and how relying on the GM to make that assessment can be unsatisfactory...

Mary was a special flower whose ability to roleplay could be disrupted by someone breathing the wrong way at the gaming table. I always respected her ability to articulate her perspective and her needs, but her experience is way out on an extreme. Unless I'm actually playing with Mary Kuhner, I'm not going to use her experience as any kind of guideline for what needs to happen at a tabletop.

Furthermore, quoting Mary is an interesting choice. IIRC, she didn't use a tabletop grid or miniatures. The "objective mechanical system" she's talking about is, in fact, the exact same mechanics that Benoist and I are talking about.

The idea that the only way a GM can communicate an objective mechanical model of the game world which the player can then manipulate through objective mechanics is through a battlemap is false.

Quote from: John Morrow;545426Yes, this can happen, but why not take a look at why it happens rather than take the tool away?

Because it is specifically the tool that causes the problem: It is the presentation of a map on a grid that triggers the problem in these players. In order to solve the problem, you have to take away the process of measuring distances on the tabletop.

QuoteCan you give a specific example of what they did that you didn't like with the map and markers and did differently without them?

It's difficult to find a direct apples-to-apples comparison because they didn't interact with the exact same scenarios.

But, for example, these players would generally confine their movement on a grid to the default mechanics for moving around the grid (by counting out spaces). When the grid wasn't present, they would interact with their environment in a much more dynamic and varied way. Present them with the map of a rope bridge and they walk across the bridge; present them with the description of a rope bridge and they'll do things like shake the bridge to knock people off or cut through the ropes.

A common malady is the perception of the world in two dimensions because they're looking at a two-dimensional map. Remove the map and these players would suddenly start swinging on chandeliers.

QuoteThe problem is not that non-verbal depictions are required to take them into consideration.

Not in my experience. For example, just a couple sessions back in my OD&D campaign I had players making decisions like "we'll wait for them to go past and then attack them from behind" (facing), "do they have any ranged weapons? no? then we'll stand on this side of the rope bridge and hit 'em with ranged attacks" (range), and "we'll spread some oil around so that when they charge us they'll be slipping and sliding" (terrain features).

You and Gleichman are both very, very limited in your approach to these issues. You obviously like to interact with information in one very specific way and apparently have a great deal of difficulty believing that other kinds of information and other kinds of communication can exist.

I'm not trying to attack you with that statement. But I am trying to make you understand that you're operating under a very bizarre supposition in which a GM using graphic aids is communicating with players but a GM using words is not. The reality is that both forms of communication are valid and both forms of communication are capable of objectivity (and also capable of a lack of objectivity).

Quote from: Aos;545563For me it's a lack of energy. A few years ago . . .

tl;dr

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598But, for example, these players would generally confine their movement on a grid to the default mechanics for moving around the grid (by counting out spaces). When the grid wasn't present, they would interact with their environment in a much more dynamic and varied way. Present them with the map of a rope bridge and they walk across the bridge; present them with the description of a rope bridge and they'll do things like shake the bridge to knock people off or cut through the ropes.

A common malady is the perception of the world in two dimensions because they're looking at a two-dimensional map. Remove the map and these players would suddenly start swinging on chandeliers.

I have noticed this as well.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;544996Unless they have been given ample reason not to trust the guy a few feet away from him...in which case you wonder why they're sitting at THAT table to begin with, but it does happen.

Well exactly, but that's a more important difference than it looks at first glance.  If the guy calling the shots is the GM, then if you don't like how this GM runs the game, you can just find another GM to run the game.
If the guy calling the shots is the game designer, then if you don't like how the designer thinks the game should go, you just can't play the game.

If game designers get to call the shots, then every single game of RIFTS would feature a -10 penalty and no bonus to dodge ranged weapons, every single Vampire game would be about dealing with your humanity, and every single game of LotFP would be full of whatever bullshit idea Raggi defines as "weird fantasy".  There'd be no Dark Albion, there'd be no vampires with uzi-and-katana trenchcoats, and there'd be no surviving RIFTS characters.

Fuck that. Speaking as a successful game designer, its the GM who MUST be the boss in an RPG group.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Planet Algol;545607I have noticed this as well.

I've said this more than once but I have been subtle.  To be concise and specific I have mild CP. I can walk with braces but a scientific fact about some forms of CP is that your multitasking ability degrades sharply after 3-4 inputs.  So yes, grids and Dwarven Forge stuff combined with battlemats and miniatures literally causes overload and shutdown for me. I just don't need that many different simulation vectors to immerse myself in the situation via rpg's and the more you add the more locked in I get until either total boredom or shutdown arrives.

Quote from: B.T.;545517Only the DM should know the rules because otherwise the players might get ideas about what they can do.

Absolutely. Players become far more lame and uncreative once they think they know what they can or can't do.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;545621Absolutely. Players become far more lame and uncreative once they think they know what they can or can't do.

RPGPundit

I am so glad you have a sense of humor and recognize irony and stupidity all at once.:D

Quote from: Mistwell;544725I think the "pleading, subservient tone" is a vast exaggeration on the part of the people making the argument.  I have seen convention and game store games where I can at least see some players perceiving the events are playing out that way.  I don't tend to think like those particular players, but I think that's where it sources to.

I think the assumption that this never exists is false, I just think it's not a common thing, nor do I think a set of rules should be written with the lowest common denominator in mind.  But I do think bad DMs are fully capable of making this happen.  I think you're giving too much credit to just how bad some DMs can be.  And, how bad some players can be.  I am not fond of the "badwrongfun" type of argument, but there definitely are some truly fucked up DMs and players out there (however rare they might be).  The thing is, I don't think any rules can solve for that problem - not even if you had 5000 page tomes dealing with every conceivable situation.

Sorry the thread has moved on since this, but I have living to do on the weekends, so I respond when I get to it :D Anyway, I suppose I can agree with you here, but still stand by the view that the "mother may I" non-argument is a fallacy made in bad faith that uses the problem you're describing as an excuse by folks who don't actually like RPGing anyway. This is a people problem, and trying in any way to blame the game is at best a mistake and at worst an outright lie. It's not even a very good lie. However, it makes assholes that use it, like Gleichman for example, stand out really well. Kinda like a big neon sign indicating who's going to lie, denigrate, and belittle (it's sad really, because they feel the need to drag others down to feel better about themselves, but if they can't take responsibility for their own issues I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over their emotional pain) rather than discuss anything in good faith or get the therapy they desperately need.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;545299It's a cooperative storytelling game, and in order to cooperate or add anything, each player has to be in control of their own additions to the story.

:forge:

While it can be,and is played that way by some, cooperative storytelling isn't D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;545719:forge:

While it can be,and is played that way by some, cooperative storytelling isn't D&D.

It's so sad that the Forge has ruined a perfecting good term like "cooperative storytelling"... because left to my own- that's how I'd define* my own Age of Heroes game.

Sigh.



*The forge itself couldn't make up it's mind. They kept moving it between Simulationist and Gamist, almost on a whim.

The Forge does not own the words "cooperative storytelling", David Fucking Arneson Does (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/24/obituary-david-arneson-dungeons-dragons-creator). You fucking twat.

-Frank

Ooh, the very rarely observed trollfight.

Quote from: One Horse Town;545745Ooh, the very rarely observed trollfight.

This is funny all I see is Frank talking to air.;)

Quote from: Marleycat;545749This is funny all I see is Frank talking to air.;)

Trust me. Frank is going to join your legion of shadows, sooner or later. He's really 'good' that way.

I played in a (heavily houseruled) D&D game that Mary Kuhner GMed when she was studying in Berkeley, and I also participated in discussion on rec.games.frp.*.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598Mary was a special flower whose ability to roleplay could be disrupted by someone breathing the wrong way at the gaming table. I always respected her ability to articulate her perspective and her needs, but her experience is way out on an extreme.

Based on my memory of r.g.f.a I can understand why Mary might come across this way, but I think her "extremeness" (which IMO she shares with John M.) had more to do with pushing "immersion" into an extreme concept of "deep IC". Her actual games, which involved a group of players including her husband, were pretty normal procedurally. In any case, your characterization of her tastes is unnecessary to your argument since you're basically right about what you wrote next:

QuoteFurthermore, quoting Mary is an interesting choice. IIRC, she didn't use a tabletop grid or miniatures. The "objective mechanical system" she's talking about is, in fact, the exact same mechanics that Benoist and I are talking about.

I think there were small combats where we didn't use any visual aids. (E.g. I'm remembering an ambush by a single enemy against the group.) For anything involving several combatants on both sides, Mary would draw a rough diagram on a chalkboard. It was very similar to the way I'd use a hidden piece of looseleaf, except it was in plain view. There was no exact scale; it basically just showed relative positions with at most a very rough sense of distance.

In general, I like knowing what my character can and cannot do.  It helps me decide how to act in character.

Quote from: B.T.;545768In general, I like knowing what my character can and cannot do.  It helps me decide how to act in character.

Me too, but I find there's a point, when things become too codified, that people stop thinking about anything other than those strictly codified options. I've experienced this with both DMs and Players.

Quote from: Bobloblah;545775Me too, but I find there's a point, when things become too codified, that people stop thinking about anything other than those strictly codified options. I've experienced this with both DMs and Players.

I agree with this.  Give me a theme to work with, but don't give me rules for every little thing.  As you say, all too often what happens is people look to see if their character has a skill, and if not, they assume they can't do it, or won't bother trying to do it.

It's like a while ago when someone brought up, "My fighter doesn't have the highest diplomacy skill, the cleric does, so I feel left out during role-playing with NPCs because I can't contribute."  Who says you can't contribute?  Because you're scared you'll fail a roll when the cleric has the better chance?  Having lower diplomacy skills never stopped anyone from giving their $0.02 in real life, why should a game be any different.  Say what you want to say, and I as the DM will...gasp...roleplay it out.  If I'm on the fence, then I'll have you make a check.  But if you're reasonable, I'll go with it no check necessary.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;545778I agree with this.  Give me a theme to work with, but don't give me rules for every little thing.  As you say, all too often what happens is people look to see if their character has a skill, and if not, they assume they can't do it, or won't bother trying to do it.

It's like a while ago when someone brought up, "My fighter doesn't have the highest diplomacy skill, the cleric does, so I feel left out during role-playing with NPCs because I can't contribute."  Who says you can't contribute?  Because you're scared you'll fail a roll when the cleric has the better chance?  Having lower diplomacy skills never stopped anyone from giving their $0.02 in real life, why should a game be any different.  Say what you want to say, and I as the DM will...gasp...roleplay it out.  If I'm on the fence, then I'll have you make a check.  But if you're reasonable, I'll go with it no check necessary.

That depends on the system being used. If you're using the system you are describing, then anyone who has a good idea or a pleasing voice out of character can contribute to diplomatic scenes. The corollary of course, is that someone actually spending resources on Diplomacy doesn't really get much for whatever they spent if someone else can achieve the same results without even rolling dice for free just by being more likeable in person.

But in a game where you roll first and are then expected to roleplay out a good or bad result, those resources spent on diplomacy will seem a lot more justified - but making the attempt when your diplomacy skill is poor is downright dangerous. If poor rolls are likely, it is equally likely that you'll be asked to roleplay some kind of diplomatic gaffe. At the extreme end is 4th edition D&D: where the entire party gets a finite number of rolls in social situations, and the gruff battlerager making a diplomacy attempt of any kind really literally takes away diplomatic actions from Bardy McFancypants at the rate of 1 to 1.

I can see the merit of both kinds of play. And if people who are playing in the second type of game tell you that the mechanics intimidate them into not attempting to take diplomatic actions when they are not playing diplomatic characters, I don't think they are wrong.

-Frank

In either circumstance, isn't it the GM who decides if this should be a roll before the role-playing or a roll after the role-playing?


I do not see the merits of having the players role-play after the skill roll. It denies Player input by making the role-playing secondary to the dice roll, thus defeating any possibility of positive or negative modifiers from good role-playing by the Player. It is this type of GMing that empowers idiocy like the Diplomancer.

Quote from: jeff37923;545791In either circumstance, isn't it the GM who decides if this should be a roll before the role-playing or a roll after the role-playing?


I do not see the merits of having the players role-play after the skill roll. It denies Player input by making the role-playing secondary to the dice roll, thus defeating any possibility of positive or negative modifiers from good role-playing by the Player. It is this type of GMing that empowers idiocy like the Diplomancer.

Yeah...can't say I have ever had or seen anyone forced to roleplay it after the role (as in, their character; seen and done it plenty as a DM), though occasionally people have of their own volition, generally for comedic effect.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;545778I agree with this.  Give me a theme to work with, but don't give me rules for every little thing.  As you say, all too often what happens is people look to see if their character has a skill, and if not, they assume they can't do it, or won't bother trying to do it.

It's like a while ago when someone brought up, "My fighter doesn't have the highest diplomacy skill, the cleric does, so I feel left out during role-playing with NPCs because I can't contribute."  Who says you can't contribute?  Because you're scared you'll fail a roll when the cleric has the better chance?  Having lower diplomacy skills never stopped anyone from giving their $0.02 in real life, why should a game be any different.  Say what you want to say, and I as the DM will...gasp...roleplay it out.  If I'm on the fence, then I'll have you make a check.  But if you're reasonable, I'll go with it no check necessary.

See I have no issues with the fighter blundering into the diplomatic conversation calling the other party a wanker and asking him to take it outside. We can't all be diplomats can we ?
I might actually have an issue if the charming and eloquent player comes up with a perfect diplomatic solution , pitches it in perfect prose as if his PC a 8 Chr and zero diplomacy fighter would have said it just like that. Role play is after all a 2 edged sword.

Quote from: jibbajibba;545802I might actually have an issue if the charming and eloquent player comes up with a perfect diplomatic solution , pitches it in perfect prose as if his PC a 8 Chr and zero diplomacy fighter would have said it just like that. Role play is after all a 2 edged sword.

Is the Player role-playing in character then? If no, disallow it.

Quote from: Bobloblah;545775Me too, but I find there's a point, when things become too codified, that people stop thinking about anything other than those strictly codified options. I've experienced this with both DMs and Players.

If one has a complete and well designed combat system, there is no need to think outside of it.


Added: except to add detail fluff

Quote from: jeff37923;545807Is the Player role-playing in character then? If no, disallow it.

This.

Quote from: gleichman;545856If one has a complete and well designed combat system, there is no need to think outside of it.


Added: except to add detail fluff

I conjecture Mr. Gleichman does not understand the meaning of the word "complete". And indeed never has thought more than 30 seconds about modelling reality to begin with. Complete. Oh boy. I shame myself in taking this guy seriously in the Naughties.

Quote from: gleichman;545856If one has a complete and well designed combat system, there is no need to think outside of it.


Added: except to add detail fluff

Complete and well designed are 2 different things.  You can never had a complete combat system in a tabletop RPG.  At least you shouldn't.  That's because in an RPG, the possibilities for scenarios are literally endless.  The best you can do is have a good set of guidelines that provide context, but you'll never have a book that has a rule for everything.  Nor should you, in my opinion.  The more rules people have to memorize or look up, the harder it is to get new people to play and it slows the game way down.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;545870Complete and well designed are 2 different things.  You can never had a complete combat system in a tabletop RPG.  At least you shouldn't.

Of course you should have a complete combat system and of course it is actually possible to cover everything in rules.

Some systems just make the matter a bit more counter-intuitive than others.

For example neither Age of Heroes nor D&D (in the versions I've read) have rules for throwing sand in your opponent's face. But yet, both games do cover that very action- it's just been abstracted out of the way.

It's that abstraction that allows you the freedom to describe things as you want, as you can fill it with detail missing from the rules. The point is: Well Designed Rules have all the possible details abstracted in the results (mostly the resulting die rolls).


Once the battle (in D&D's case, and the time lag there is a problem for people like myself) or the individual action (in Age of Heroes) is resolved- one can go back and put in the sand throwing at will.


For example, from AoH:


Player: I thrown sand in his face and lunge for his gut

GM: Make your attack roll (applies *no* modifers and alters the normal combat action resolution in *no* way).

[complete the normal mechanical steps- results are a solid strike hitting the left leg for 13 points of damage]

GM: The sand in the face cause your opponent to flail wildly backwards, and while you missed his gut- your lunge caught his leg shattering bone. He's now prone and stunned.



Easy. If he had missed or done insignificant damage- there no difference, you just describe the outcome as needed.

It harder for D&D due to the HP abstaction. Basically a man cannot swing a sword and have a physical effect on his opponent until he reduces him to zero HP or less.

That means that tossing sand (a far less forceful action) can't have a physical effect either. The HP abstraction mechanic is in the way.

But once the foe is down, the GM and/or player can then put as much sand in his eyes as they wish and claim it was a cause for his defeat.

Quote from: Marleycat;544764You caught me while I was editing. Phone posting is hard. Anyway so you're trying to say the term is trying to make a grey collaborative area, one that is the very basis of RPG'S into a black and white competitive game like a MMORG.

I have no net access from home for another week (week three).  So, you have my sincerest sympathy for having to do phone posting :)

That is a perfectly fine system for handling sand in the eyes, but it seems like it involves thiniing about the rules and coming up with an on-the-fly solution, since you said the book doesn't cover the situation dirctly (unless I misunderstand). I am fine with that, but it doesn't seem to be what you were talking about earlier (having a system that covers everything so you don't have to think about it or make judgment calls). Not every GM is going to handle sand in the eye in the same way unless is it specifically detained in the rules.

Quote from: jeff37923;544773You are an idiot.

You may be agreeing with me about "mother-may-I", but I took to task your paranoid assumption that if you do not know a person's playstyle (DM or Player) that you must assume that they are going to be bad.

I did not make that assumption, ever.  You made that strawman argument about what I said, and ran with it even though it was patently false and nobody saw what you saw in what I wrote.  It was, from my perspective, a rather bizarre interpretation of what I had said.

QuoteThe followup to this that you will have an awful experience if there are not rules to curtail the badness is what led to some of the mistakes of 4E.

I agree.  To a lesser extent it was a problem with 3e as well.  But yes, fear of the DM seems to have played a negative role in the "rule for everything" approach of 4e (and, to some extent, 3e).

QuoteAt least get that right while you hoist yourself up on the cross.

No martyrdom here mang.  You're still pissed that I called you a fatty.  I get it.  Had I known it would strike such a nerve I never would have done it - but I doubt an apology at this point would do any good.  For what it is worth, I am sorry for called you a fatty Jeff.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545877That is a perfectly fine system for handling sand in the eyes, but it seems like it involves thiniing about the rules and coming up with an on-the-fly solution, since you said the book doesn't cover the situation dirctly (unless I misunderstand).

I think you're close, but not quite there in catching the concept.

The point is that 'sand in the eyes' isn't directly covered by the rules, but the game has an abstraction layer where many details are hidden.

And we know sand in the eyes can work (and is common actually in fiction).

Therefore sand in the eyes must be part of the abstraction.

All that remains is to determine the combat result as normal (i.e no thinning of the RAW)- and adding description detail reflecting the use of the sand in the eyes.


This is a very subtle concept, it took me a while to understand it. And unless I had done my own game design- I don't think I would have.


ADDED: this process is more or less difficult depending upon the game and the individual. I require detail equal to HERO and Age of Heroes to pull it off for myself. I can't do it myself in D&D although I understand it can be done.

Quote from: gleichman;545881I think you're close, but not quite there in catching the concept.

The point is that 'sand in the eyes' isn't directly covered by the rules, but the game have an abstraction layer where many details are hidden.

And we know sand in the eyes can work (and is common actually in fiction).

Therefore sand in the eyes must be part of the abstraction.

All that remains is to determine the combat result as normal (i.e no thinning of the RAW)- and add detail reflecting the use of the sand in the eyes.


This is a very subtle concept, it took me a while to understand it. And unless I had done my own game design- I don't think I would have.


ADDED: this process is more or less difficult depending upon the game and the individual. I require detail equal to HERO and Age of Heroes to pull it off for myself. I can't do it myself in D&D although I understand it can be done.

I misunderstood, i thought the prone result was added in for the sand, but re reading your post it looks like that is the standard result from a regular attack?

So this is just reskinning. Again that is fine, but if it is just adding fluff on top of the mechanic, then it didn't really matter if the player threw sand at his opponent or flung sand in his eyes, the result would be the same. Personally, i would prefer the Gm have the ability to actually factor in how the sand itself changes the outcome of the attack (for example if the game has a blinding condition, i would probably rule a succesful attack roll results in no damage but blinds the opponent for one round). Its possible I am missing something here but it looks like you are essentially saying just layer the sand fluff on top of the standard roll, but the mechanical outcome doesn't change.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;545778It's like a while ago when someone brought up, "My fighter doesn't have the highest diplomacy skill, the cleric does, so I feel left out during role-playing with NPCs because I can't contribute."  Who says you can't contribute?  Because you're scared you'll fail a roll when the cleric has the better chance?

If they are used to 4th edition skill challenges, I can totally understand why they would adopt that mind set, because failing is twice as bad as succeeding is good.

Which is one of the most broken things about that system.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545886I misunderstood, i thought the prone result was added in for the sand, but re reading your post it looks like that is the standard result from a regular attack?

So this is just reskinning.

Correct, although reskinning is a poor word choice IMO.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545886Again that is fine, but if it is just adding fluff on top of the mechanic, then it didn't really matter if the player threw sand at his opponent or flung sand in his eyes, the result would be the same.

No, the desciption would have been different.

And I would think that you of all people would understand how much description fires the imagination. and makes the game come alive.

This method fully engages the game system, and welcomes it's abstraction layer as freedom for creativity.

> Personally, i would prefer the Gm have the ability to actually factor in how
> the sand itself changes the outcome of the attack (for example if the game
> has a blinding condition, i would probably rule a succesful attack roll results
> in no damage but blinds the opponent for one round).

This has two serious negative effects IMO:

First it that causes players to all throw sand in people's faces, or to spend their effort coming up with some other detail to give themselves an edge.

Players are thus rewarded for *not* playing the game, but with coming up with wild ideas as wild ideas are more effective than the core combat system.

Some game designs run with this concept like Hong Kong Action Threatre and Feng Shu (if I'm remembering correctly). They are built upon a nearly free form system that rejoices in the concept.

Other games do not.


And to return to the thread title, as making things up that the GM agrees to is now the core activity of players- it may accurately be called "Mother May I" gaming by those who disagree with the style.



Second, in the case of D&D, it's breaking the HP abstraction layer completely- allowing tossed sand to do more impactful stuff than 6 lbs of well aimed and forcefully applied sharpened steel (as long as the HP remain positive).

That completely breaks suspension of debelief for people like myself. Why am I am in a world that lets me do stuff with sand that I can't do with a sword? Why can some things have physical effects when others that should don't? Why aren't these things consistent?

For people looking for consistent resolution, the simulation of the world is quickly broken.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;545752Based on my memory of r.g.f.a I can understand why Mary might come across this way, but I think her "extremeness" (which IMO she shares with John M.) had more to do with pushing "immersion" into an extreme concept of "deep IC". Her actual games, which involved a group of players including her husband, were pretty normal procedurally.

I'm going to take this opportunity to emphasize that, although I may have come across as sardonic or sarcastic in my original post, when I said that I respect Mary Kuhner I really do mean that I respect her. Her ability to clearly articulate what she enjoys and how she can accomplish that was excellent. And, for me personally, it was an object lesson in the positive effect that theory can have when it's properly understood and applied.

And her games always sounded fantastic. I envy you the opportunity to play with her.

Quote from: B.T.;545768In general, I like knowing what my character can and cannot do.  It helps me decide how to act in character.

What seems to be getting discussed here are two different but related problems:

(1) If one character has the Swing Sword special ability which allows him to swing his sword, it implies that other characters are not allowed to swing swords. Add on additional abilities in the system like Sword Chop, Sword Slice, and Sword Block and you suddenly have a situation where nobody can do anything with a sword unless they have a special ability.

(2) The effect also happens in the opposite direction: If I have five or six specific abilities on my character sheet, there is an implication that those five or six specific things are the only specific things that I can do.

The solution, IME, is to:

(a) Define character capabilities in broad terms instead of specific terms. (Be suspicious of any character ability which spells out a single, specific action that can only be mechanically resolved in a single way and with a single, limited effect. This is not a hard-and-fast maxim, but a point of caution.)

(b) Never require a character to have a special ability in order to perform an action which any character should logically be able to attempt. (Special abilities may make you better at those tasks, but should not be required for the attempt. This is a hard-and-fast maxim.)

Quote from: gleichman;545873GM: Make your attack roll (applies *no* modifers and alters the normal combat action resolution in *no* way).

[complete the normal mechanical steps- results are a solid strike hitting the left leg for 13 points of damage]

GM: The sand in the face cause your opponent to flail wildly backwards, and while you missed his gut- your lunge caught his leg shattering bone. He's now prone and stunned.

Note that we have now gone completely down the rabbit hole: For Gleichman to be satisfied, your system not only requires a gridded battlemap but it also cannot have special rules for a character being prone. Because, if it did, the players would suddenly be reduced to asking "mother-may-I" to have their sand-based attacks render opponents prone (or, alternatively, the GM's sudden decision to allow such a thing would render it impossible for players to make truly relevant tactical decisions).

"Prone", of course, is only pertinent to this particular example. What Gleichman is claiming is that any potential mechanical variance in the outcome of an attack -- for example, if the GM is free to determine whether "thrown sand" should be resolved as nothing more than a basic attack or if that attack should have additional consequences (a blinded condition or prone status, for example) -- results in a game of "mother-may-I".

It's all complete nonsense, of course.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545931(1) If one character has the Swing Sword special ability which allows him to swing his sword, it implies that other characters are not allowed to swing swords. Add on additional abilities in the system like Sword Chop, Sword Slice, and Sword Block and you suddenly have a situation where nobody can do anything with a sword unless they have a special ability.

(2) The effect also happens in the opposite direction: If I have five or six specific abilities on my character sheet, there is an implication that those five or six specific things are the only specific things that I can do.

The solution, IME, is to:

(a) Define character capabilities in broad terms instead of specific terms. (Be suspicious of any character ability which spells out a single, specific action that can only be mechanically resolved in a single way and with a single, limited effect. This is not a hard-and-fast maxim, but a point of caution.)

(b) Never require a character to have a special ability in order to perform an action which any character should logically be able to attempt. (Special abilities may make you better at those tasks, but should not be required for the attempt. This is a hard-and-fast maxim.)

Apropos of nothing, this is exactly my problem with (and suggested solution for) effects-based point buy systems.

To briefly put on my new school hat, the whole "we can't let fighters have powers because we want combat to be creative" feels very much like pointless grognardery to me.  The wizard has a selection of predefined spells to use in combat and no one bats an eye at that, but suggesting the fighter should have an attack that does additional damage once per encounter results in rage.  Rather hypocritical, and I feel that it results in effectively punishing players who aren't creative (or who game with DMs who aren't that lenient).  The wizard can throw out a fireball for 10d6 whenever he wants, but the fighter needs to beg and plead for a little extra damage each round, at which point the DM is forced to make up rules on the fly and hope that everything works out well.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545931Note that we have now gone completely down the rabbit hole: For Gleichman to be satisfied, your system not only requires a gridded battlemap but it also cannot have special rules for a character being prone.

You misread my post, and failed to see the correction I already made to such a misreading in a later post. In fact you so misread it and jumped to a such a insane conculsion that I really think you're just making stuff up.


To be clear- a prone condition does indeed exist in Age of Heroes. It is the natural result of a number of actions covered in the rules- including getting one's leg shattered by taking 13 points of damage.

In concept I have no problem with rules that didn't have that condition in included (such as some versions of D&D, although my memory is fuzzy on that). Personally however, I need a ruleset with enough detail to account for a prone condition.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598Ideally, yes. But when I see people bitching on ENWorld because the playtest documents include "mother-may-I" features like guidelines for assigning DCs not listed in the rulebook, I'm forced to conclude that the "degree" in question has reached idiotic proportions.

That may be the case, then.  But the "Mother May I" complaint can also be a legitimate complaint where guidelines largely replace rules or examples, which is what I was assuming people were concerned about and which plenty of rules-light and story games do actually do.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598Mary was a special flower whose ability to roleplay could be disrupted by someone breathing the wrong way at the gaming table. I always respected her ability to articulate her perspective and her needs, but her experience is way out on an extreme. Unless I'm actually playing with Mary Kuhner, I'm not going to use her experience as any kind of guideline for what needs to happen at a tabletop.

Given that I play from a perspective very similar to Mary's (thinking in character as the ideal), though perhaps not to the degree that Mary did it, her experiences and comments were often quite relevant to me.  That said, the point she was making was from a player and GM perspective and not from a thinking in character perspective and thus I think it has broader applicability to the issue of why a player might hard rules rather that GM assessments in combat.  I was not looking to provoke a specific response to Mary's role-playing style here because I don't really think it's relevant to the example.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598Furthermore, quoting Mary is an interesting choice. IIRC, she didn't use a tabletop grid or miniatures. The "objective mechanical system" she's talking about is, in fact, the exact same mechanics that Benoist and I are talking about.

There are two issues being discussed side by side here.  One is the use of hard fixed rules as opposed to GM assessments to determine how a situation is resolved and the other is the use of a grid and some sort of marker as a communications, comprehension, and consistency tool.  They are largely separable issues, though there is some correlation between the two.

But I will add that while I have not played with Mary like Elliot has, many of her games with her husband were one-on-one and the GM bandwidth situation in a one-on-one game are different than those with several more players.  Playing "20 Questions" with a GM on a one-on-one game does not mean that other players are sitting around twiddling their thumbs while waiting to ask their own "20 questions", so it's far more viable in that context.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598The idea that the only way a GM can communicate an objective mechanical model of the game world which the player can then manipulate through objective mechanics is through a battlemap is false.

So it's a good thing I wasn't claiming that.  What I was claiming is that I believe a graphical representation is, in general, a more efficient way of communicating accurate and objective spatial information than a verbal description once things get beyond a superficial level of complexity.  It is the reason why modules include dungeon maps rather than text descriptions of the rooms and hallways only.  It's why Benoist's room with a pit example eventually went to a sketch on a white board.  It's why Elliot mentioned Mary using a sketch on a chalk board.  After a fairly low level of detail, a picture often is worth a thousand words or even more and that's why people use them.The next step of precision is to add a grid or hexes behind that map.  

If you really believe there is something wrong with my reasoning here, feel free to write and publish an adventure that includes no maps -- only text descriptions of every room and encounter -- and see how it's received.  Remember, I'm only talking about communication and precision here, not player perception or psychology or how it affects play, and I think that's where a lot of things are being muddled together here.  

I'm trying to understand why what should be an effective communication tool becomes a problem, disrupts how players think about the game, and slows games down because that does not always happen.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598Because it is specifically the tool that causes the problem: It is the presentation of a map on a grid that triggers the problem in these players. In order to solve the problem, you have to take away the process of measuring distances on the tabletop.

That's one way to do it, but eliminating something entirely is generally a fairly blunt solution to any problem, and I think it skips over the questions of why players are measuring distances when given the capability to do so and what does it mean to take that capability away from them.  If I don't know how far the evil cultists are from my character and don't have some idea of how far my character can run in a turn or how well they could hit a target at that range with a thrown knife, how do I make decisions about whether to throw a knife at them, charge into battle with them, etc.?  In other words, counting squares lets the player assess the situation and determine what their characters can or can't do and get some idea of what the odds of certain options are.  That has to either be replaced by verbal GM communication without a graphical representation or the player is making decisions with less information.  If there is a fault to my argument here, please identify it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598But, for example, these players would generally confine their movement on a grid to the default mechanics for moving around the grid (by counting out spaces). When the grid wasn't present, they would interact with their environment in a much more dynamic and varied way. Present them with the map of a rope bridge and they walk across the bridge; present them with the description of a rope bridge and they'll do things like shake the bridge to knock people off or cut through the ropes.

So would that same problem occur for those people, even with a sketch on a white board or chalk board and without a grid, because the rope bridge is depicted as a fixed and immovable object?  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598A common malady is the perception of the world in two dimensions because they're looking at a two-dimensional map. Remove the map and these players would suddenly start swinging on chandeliers.

While I don't doubt that's true, I've also seen the same miraculous transformation simply by having a player or NPC give the players an example to follow.  If the bad guys are shaking the rope bridges, swinging from chandeliers, and engaging with the environment or another PC is, the players can learn from that, as well.  I'm curious whether you've seen the reverse happen, which is players who were swinging from the chandeliers stop doing so because a two-dimensional map is being used in the game.  I can imagine that happening but I'm curious if you've seen it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598Not in my experience. For example, just a couple sessions back in my OD&D campaign I had players making decisions like "we'll wait for them to go past and then attack them from behind" (facing), "do they have any ranged weapons? no? then we'll stand on this side of the rope bridge and hit 'em with ranged attacks" (range), and "we'll spread some oil around so that when they charge us they'll be slipping and sliding" (terrain features).

The attack from behind is a one time consideration which does not require turn-by-turn management of multiple facings and waiting for them to go past implies a corridor encounter which is effectively one-dimensional.  The rope bridge is really an example of the one-dimensional encounter, which I've acknowledged are suitable for verbal-only treatment, since the only range consideration is how quickly they can close the distance to engage the PCs.  And by "terrain features", what I was really looking for is a turn-to-turn consideration of position and established terrain to impact the results of the combat.  In your oil example, assuming we were not taking about a one-dimensional corridor encounter, the question would be whether everyone kept track of where the slippery area was and tried to use it to benefit them after the charge and across many rounds of combat.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598You and Gleichman are both very, very limited in your approach to these issues. You obviously like to interact with information in one very specific way and apparently have a great deal of difficulty believing that other kinds of information and other kinds of communication can exist.

I have no difficulty believing other kinds of information and communication can exist.  I'm talking about efficiency.  

For example, a GM could hand each player a text description of each encounter and wait for them to read them and people certainly play whole campaigns via text chat so I know that's possible.  Heck, you can role-play via email if you really want.  I played a D&D game where the GM used email role-playing for between session side issues.  I hated it but it can be done. But is it more efficient than sitting around a table face-to-face and just talking?  I don't think so.  Sure, you could write an adventure module entirely in text with no maps and convey the information needed to run the adventure, but would it be more efficient than including a map with the adventure?  I don't think so.

And that's where I think two issues are being muddled together here.  That diagrams, maps, and grids produce an undesirable psychological effect in some players that degrades the quality of their play is independent of how efficiently those tools convey complex and accurate information to the players.  And what I'm questioning, in light of the old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words, is that people seem to be claiming that the words are faster and better, even though every published module I've seen includes exactly the sort of map with grid that people are complaining about precisely because it's a more efficient and accurate way to convey the rooms and layout of the setting.  So what I'm getting at is that the words may produce a more desirable style of play for some groups but I think that's despite the fact that less information is being conveyed less precisely, not because the information is identical and only presented in a different way.  

And I also find myself wondering if the players think it important to count squares or (in the Fudge Designer's Notes example) look up exact modifiers, what does it mean to take that away?  If they don't miss it, then why were they doing that in the first place?  Even if figuring it out doesn't solve anything and the conclusion is the same, I think that's an interesting question to consider and understand.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598I'm not trying to attack you with that statement. But I am trying to make you understand that you're operating under a very bizarre supposition in which a GM using graphic aids is communicating with players but a GM using words is not. The reality is that both forms of communication are valid and both forms of communication are capable of objectivity (and also capable of a lack of objectivity).

Again, that's not the assumption I'm making and I don't think Brian is making that claim, either.  The claim is that the verbal communication may be, to varying degrees of each, less precise, more complicated, more prone to misunderstanding, and can lead to players having to ask questions of the GM before making decisions.  As I've said, I've seen verbal-only misunderstandings that have resulted in character deaths.  I've played the "20 Questions" game -- in fact when that starts during an encounter is when I've normally seen someone at the table (player or GM) say, "Let's go to the map."  

As I also mentioned, based on Benoist's example, from the verbal description I would have assumed that the pit was square and the cultists were clustered around the leader rather than the edge of the pit, both points readily clarified by his drawing.  The shape of the pit would likely be a trivial misunderstanding but the locations of the cultists is fairly important.  Yes, one can convey very complex information objectively and without misunderstanding verbally but the difficulty in doing so increases with the complexity of the information and it can be very difficult for anyone to catch when there has been a misunderstanding, unless someone acts on it in a way that makes the misunderstanding clear.

Quote from: gleichman;545881The point is that 'sand in the eyes' isn't directly covered by the rules, but the game has an abstraction layer where many details are hidden.

This is one of the reasons why I think it's stilly for games to include specific combat moves and modifiers for things like feints, parries, and other maneuvers that affect one's chances of hitting or being hit.  It is my assumption that all of those things are what creates a character's combat skill level and a character would naturally be doing those things as needed as part of their attack or defense.  My way of describing it is, "It's in there."  And I can see where things like sand in the eyes are pretty much the same thing.  And I also agree that once something like throwing sand in the eyes is given a positive modifier, there is little reason not to use such tactics every time the character is in combat.

Quote from: John Morrow;545946And I also agree that once something like throwing sand in the eyes is given a positive modifier, there is little reason not to use such tactics every time the character is in combat.

Well, maybe one is fighting on a stone floor without sand, but I can easily see players bringing there own when they find out how well it works.

The White Knight eyed the Ogre standing in his way and frowned, "Squire! My sword, and bucket of sand now!" he shouted.

Quote from: John Morrow;545946This is one of the reasons why I think it's stilly for games to include specific combat moves and modifiers for things like feints, parries, and other maneuvers that affect one's chances of hitting or being hit.  It is my assumption that all of those things are what creates a character's combat skill level and a character would naturally be doing those things as needed as part of their attack or defense.  My way of describing it is, "It's in there."  And I can see where things like sand in the eyes are pretty much the same thing.  And I also agree that once something like throwing sand in the eyes is given a positive modifier, there is little reason not to use such tactics every time the character is in combat.

The reason not to do it all the time, is you most likely forgo doing damage.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546009The reason not to do it all the time, is you most likely forgo doing damage.

Three things...

First
What you're implying is that the GM judgement remains balanced even through he has exceed the scope of the combat system, and that he is capable of doing this on the fly with quick judgements and rulings.

That this would be true even most of the time is highly questionable, let alone that it would be true often enough to meet any reasonable standard of fairness (between players and their ideas) and balance (of the game).


Second
This answer fails to take into account the impact of teamwork. While one character has given up the option to do damage, others on this team now have a significantly increased chance to do more damage.

In games where target focus is advantageous or are focused on tactical maneuver (i.e. position and movement like Age of Heroes) the result can be immediate and overwhelming.

RPG are all about teamwork, and I find that GMs and even designers forget about that fact all too often.


Third
Perhaps the worse result from your PoV (not mine) is that if you for some mystical reason are able to balance it nearly 100% of the time. For in that case there is no reason at all to do your special out of the box action as it has provided no benefit. The exact opposite of your stated claim upfront that you were rewarding your players for these actions.

Quote from: gleichman;546013Three things...

First
What you're implying is that the GM judgement remains balanced even through he has exceed the scope of the combat system, and that he is capable of doing this on the fly with quick judgements and rulings.

That this would be true even most of the time is highly questionable, let alone that it would be true often enough to meet any reasonable standard of fairness (between players and their ideas) and balance (of the game).

A good GM can handle these kinds of judgments effectively. I it perfect? No, of course not. There is a certain subjectivi in such judgments. But IMO that is no reason to dissallow actions not covered by the rules (which is end result if you are folding sand-in-the-eyes into regular attack as a reskinning). I see no reason to forever be afraid of human fallibility here.

QuoteSecond
This answer fails to take into account the impact of teamwork. While one character has given up the option to do damage, others on this team now have a significantly increased chance to do more damage.

In games where target focus is advantageous or are focused on tactical maneuver (i.e. position and movement like Age of Heroes) the result can be immediate and overwhelming.

Sure, but in real life if you blind someone in a group attack, they will be overwhelmed. Heck in real life if you team up on one person they are toast. Throwing sand in a person's eye will be a good tactical choice in such situationa. When the group is split between more foes or in a 1 on 1 it is less optimal. The trick is to place realistic limitations on it. Obviously. You need to be close to the opponent to throw the sand, and grabbing the sand in the first place might (in 3e for example) cost a move action. Usually what I do in such cases when a player asks do something unusual is say what I think is a fair procedure (i.e. If you want to throw sand it will take a move action to grab the sand and you will make an attack roll at -1 to blind the opponent for one round). Of everyone agrees we go with it. If it is something that comes up regularly, then I establish a houserule for it. But lots of things come up very rarely, so you are unlikely to have a mechanic before hand. I dont think this means you should prohibit them provided they are reasonable actions.

QuoteThird
Perhaps the worse result from your PoV (not mine) is that if you for some mystical reason are able to balance it nearly 100% of the time. For in that case there is no reason at all to do your special out of the box action as it has provided no benefit. The exact opposite of your stated claim upfront that you were rewarding your players for these actions.

Not at all. Such actions should result in the same kind of trade off they would in real life. That is why simulation rather than ure mechanical balance is usually my guide when making these decisions. In some situatoins they should be effective, in others less so. In two decades of play, I haven't really found the problem you describe here (except in cases where my ruling is a bad one). I am not saying there is anything wrong with your approach (there isn't). But if your group wants their creative tacical choices to matter, it helps if you can apply the existing rules in new ways.

Quote from: gleichman;546013In games where target focus is advantageous or are focused on tactical maneuver (i.e. position and movement like Age of Heroes) the result can be immediate and overwhelming.
.

I have take a look at your Age of Heroes page and despite our debate it does interest me. I recently made a game that took a similar approach to hit points and defenses with very good results (though i dont know if it will be shelved or released at this stage). While I prefer no grid, if the game is pretty much meant for one (like 3E for example), am happy to use one (playing 3E without the grid never worked very well in my opinion).

Between here..

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546016A good GM can handle these kinds of judgments effectively. I it perfect? No, of course not.

And here..

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546016Sure, but in real life if you blind someone in a group attack, they will be overwhelmed.

... you went from basically saying
"Special stuff is easily balanced so there's no reason to do special stuff all the time"

to saying
"Special Stuff is supposed to be overwhelming thus meaning that smart players will all do it"

In the same post. Amazing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546016Usually what I do in such cases when a player asks do something unusual is say what I think is a fair procedure (i.e. If you want to throw sand it will take a move action to grab the sand and you will make an attack roll at -1 to blind the opponent for one round). Of everyone agrees we go with it. If it is something that comes up regularly, then I establish a houserule for it.

Are your players so blind or uncaring to the advantages gained that they won't take advantage of the windfalls you're providing them by making them standard actions? If so, you're a musician playing to a deaf audience.

Or are you inducing dozens and dozens of house rules on the fly into the game design? At what point to you feel house rules makes the game a different game than the published one? Do the players have a list of these house rules in front of them to consider before every combat action or must they depend upon solely your memory of (or secret written list) of the additions?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546016In two decades of play, I haven't really found the problem you describe here (except in cases where my ruling is a bad one).

It took longer and factors beyond many farmer's immediate control to realize that not rotating crops is a bad idea. The "I haven't noticed" is a weak defense, because all it proves is that "you haven't noticed".

A stronger statement is "I and others have specifically look for these effects and not found them", but even that is rather weak as the sample size is so small.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546016I am not saying there is anything wrong with your approach (there isn't). But if your group wants their creative tacical choices to matter, it helps if you can apply the existing rules in new ways.

You make two horrible errors here.

1 - Not all rewards for choices are reflected in the game mechanics. Indeed I'd claim most rewards in the RPG world are not.

2- It is indeed very possible to very creative while staying within fixed and limited rules. Just look at Chess, backgammon, Go and other games, and the vast differences in skill (i.e. creative approaches) between people playing those games.

Quote from: gleichman;546021... which is basically saying
"Special stuff is easily balanced so there's no reason to do special stuff all the time"

to saying
"Special Stuff is supposed to be overwhelming thus meaning that smart players will all do it"

In the same post. Amazing.

Do you understand the difference between a group of PCs all ganging up on one opponent vs each PC having to fight one or more opponents?

Not everyone can understand context. Its ok.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;546023Do you understand the difference between a group of PCs all ganging up on one opponent vs each PC having to fight one or more opponents?

Not everyone can understand context. Its ok.

You've just told me that teamwork doesn't exist in your games, or is not allowed to exist.

Very nice, I hope that works out for you. But for me, teamwork is the reason table RPGs are a group activity.

Quote from: gleichman;546025You've just told me that teamwork doesn't exist in your games, or is not allowed to exist.

Very nice, I hope that works out for you. But for me, teamwork is the reason table RPGs are a group activity.

Do you have Aperger's Syndrome? I ask, because you regularly appear to be a high-functioning autistic in these discussions.

Quote from: gleichman;546025You've just told me that teamwork doesn't exist in your games, or is not allowed to exist.

Very nice, I hope that works out for you. But for me, teamwork is the reason table RPGs are a group activity.

WTF?

All I was saying is that teamwork can be used bythe PCs but that it can also be used against them by their opponents.

I suppose it needs to be spelled out for the reading impaired: having numbers on your side is a good thing.

Thus, if the PCs were fighting one tough dude, then one team member forgoing damage to help the team by blinding the enemy is good teamwork.

If a group of 4 PCs were fighting 12 dudes then having one PC on blinding duty is less useful. In fact the enemies might use the tactic against the PCs because they have the numbers to do so.

How you got teamwork not existing from that is a complete mystery.

Quote from: gleichman;546021Between here..



And here..



... you went from basically saying
"Special stuff is easily balanced so there's no reason to do special stuff all the time"

to saying
"Special Stuff is supposed to be overwhelming thus meaning that smart players will all do it"

In the same post. Amazing.

There you go again.....

Quote]Are your players so blind or uncaring to the advantages gained that they won't take advantage of the windfalls you're providing them by making them standard actions? If so, you're a musician playing to a deaf audience.

Any ruling like this is a doule edged sword and can be used against the pcs as well a a later point (since I ruled x happened when you threw sand in the guard's eyes, when the gladiator throws sand in your eyes...).

QuoteOr are you inducing dozens and dozens of house rules on the fly into the game design? At what point to you feel house rules makes the game a different game than the published one? Do the players have a list of these house rules in front of them to consider before every combat action or must they depend upon solely your memory of (or secret written list) of the additions?

In my own group house rules are agreed upon collectively and retained by memory. If something keeps coming up for example, the rulings morph into a basis for houserules and people don't forget them.

For my own games, which I run most of the time, i take notes and keep them in a document. Any houserule like this I go over with the players verbally but am happy to send them the text as well (my experience is most players dont want additional reading though), since these usually form the basis of new optional rules in later books (a lot of the agency guide for terror network was developed this way for example, when it became clear I needed an abstract and consistent mechanic for sending in strike teams....before this was literally played out at the table which took too much time and often the player characters werent even on the scene).

QuoteIt took longer and factors beyond many farmer's immediate control to realize that not rotating crops is a bad idea. The "I haven't noticed" is a weak defense, because all it proves is that "you haven't noticed".

A stronger statement is "I and others have specifically look for these effects and not found them", but even that is rather weak as the sample size is so small.

Games are not farms. GMs not farmers. Ultimately groups need to use what works for them, not what works for gleichman or bedrockbrendan. If i dont encounter a problem running games a certain way over twenty years, I am not going to change my style because gleichman has issues with it.

QuoteYou make two horrible errors here.

1 - Not all rewards for choices are reflected in the game mechanics. Indeed I'd claim most rewards in the RPG world are not.

2- It is indeed very possible to very creative while staying within fixed and limited rules. Just look at Chess, backgammon, Go and other games, and the vast differences in skill (i.e. creative approaches) between people playing those games.

1- most players in my groups want choices like throwing sand in a person's eye to yield mechanical results.

2- i am not very interested in creative metagaming (if that is what you are suggesting) much more interested in creative stuff arising within the game setting.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;546029WTF?

All I was saying is that teamwork can be used bythe PCs but that it can also be used against them by their opponents.

From your post of course, go back read it and the post of mine you replied to.

If you can't figure it from that, I'm not going to draw you map. So you're going to have just go through life confused.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546030There you go again.....?

Or as I would say, "There you went again".

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546030Any ruling like this is a doule edged sword and can be used against the pcs as well a a later point (since I ruled x happened when you threw sand in the guard's eyes, when the gladiator throws sand in your eyes...).

Interesting...

So your NPCs are also allowed to go outside the rules and gain special benefits that advantage them (sometime greatly enough to crush the players).

Do they do this as often as the players?

Do they too have the ability to access completely new and never before seen special actions?

Or are the players special snow flakes allowed to do this more often, and/or to create new special actions?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546030In my own group house rules are agreed upon collectively and retained by memory. If something keeps coming up for example, the rulings morph into a basis for houserules and people don't forget them.

So you have a group of players with infallible memory.

I envy you such a gift. I must make do with lesser players who are unable to recall every detail of the even the written rules at times.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546030For my own games, which I run most of the time, i take notes and keep them in a document. Any houserule like this I go over with the players verbally but am happy to send them the text as well (my experience is most players dont want additional reading though), since these usually form the basis of new optional rules in later books

That's rather cool and is a huge advantage for someone like you (and me) during a game. On the spot ruling can become 100% official and part of the actual game text.

But you should note that all the points I'm making here are not done from that view point. But rather from the end user- be it GM or player. This is a disadvantage unavailble to such people.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546030Games are not farms. GMs not farmers.

And human nature does not apply to them as a result? Please, being a gamer does not make one immuned to the flaws mankind displays in all his works.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546030Ultimately groups need to use what works for them, not what works for gleichman or bedrockbrendan. If i dont encounter a problem running games a certain way over twenty years, I am not going to change my style because gleichman has issues with it.

A pity.

I on the other hand actually listen to people and have learned new things upon realizing they have pointed out something that I've missed or overlooked. I'm able to step back and look at things with a bit prompting and sound arguement and realize they were right.

It's the reason for some of the rule changes in Age of Heroes 5.0, and has help me become a better GM and players over the years.

But by all means, if you were born perfect- don't change.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;5460301- most players in my groups want choices like throwing sand in a person's eye to yield mechanical results.

Of course, everyone likes unearned advantages and freebies. We are flawed creatures that way.

I'm sure people make illegal moves in chess for much the same reason.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;5460302- i am not very interested in creative metagaming (if that is what you are suggesting) much more interested in creative stuff arising within the game setting.

Hmm, techanically you're the one metagaming (i.e. using stuff not in the rules to mechanically affect those rules). I'm talking about rewards like those felt by skilled play within the rules, the joy of colorful description, and immersion in a consistent world.

Simply put...

Rulings Not Rules means one thing to me: The players play the GM instead of the Game and enjoy it.

I rather the players played the game, and enjoy it.

This thread has gone way downhill.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546044This thread has gone way downhill.

This thread started with nothing but a dog pile whacking on the phrase "Mother-My-I" in a way that clearly showed that people had no understanding of what the phrase meant.

It couldn't have gone downhill from that starting point.

Quote from: gleichman;546046This thread started with nothing but a dog pile whacking on the phrase "Mother-My-I" in a way that clearly showed that people had no understanding of what the phrase meant.

It couldn't have gone downhill from that starting point.

Yeah....no.

Quote from: gleichman;546039Of course, everyone likes unearned advantages and freebies. We are flawed creatures that way.

I'm sure people make illegal moves in chess for much the same reason.

If a move has a risk and an opportunity cost, how is that unearned or a freebie?

Comparing the possibilities of actions in an rpg to chess moves means that either you don't understand possibilities based on imagination or you have the imagination of a turnip, or both.

Quote from: gleichman;546039Hmm, techanically you're the one metagaming (i.e. using stuff not in the rules to mechanically affect those rules). I'm talking about rewards like those felt by skilled play within the rules, the joy of colorful description, and immersion in a consistent world.

Simply put...

Rulings Not Rules means one thing to me: The players play the GM instead of the Game and enjoy it.

I rather the players played the game, and enjoy it.

So the game is nothing beyond the rules then? If so, then computer games should be more than sufficient to fill all gaming needs. There is no flawed human standing between the player and the game, just the pre-defined rules and opportunity for skilled play within them.

No thanks.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;546054If a move has a risk and an opportunity cost, how is that unearned or a freebie?

Because it's not in the rules, but made up on the spot in response to a player request.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;546054Comparing the possibilities of actions in an rpg to chess moves means that either you don't understand possibilities based on imagination or you have the imagination of a turnip, or both.

I see that you've never been a chess player.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;546054So the game is nothing beyond the rules then?

There is much more to an RPG than the rules.

I doubt you'll click on the link, but this is a overview  (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2009/01/elements-layers-of-design.html)of what makes up an RPG.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546047Yeah....no.

Pretty much this thread makes me seriously consider if Gleichman has some form of autism.  The thread itself? Beyond stupid.

Yes, YES!

I see that you guys are still grinding the organ and the monkey is still dancing! :D

Quote from: gleichman;546039Interesting...

So your NPCs are also allowed to go outside the rules and gain special benefits that advantage them (sometime greatly enough to crush the players).

Both player characters and NPCs can take actions not covered by the rules that are within reason and make sense in the setting.

QuoteDo they do this as often as the players?

Depends on the NPC and the players. These things arise naturally during play and are pretty case by case.

QuoteDo they too have the ability to access completely new and never before seen special actions?

If something comes up, that is perfectly reasonable to do, and it ought to have special mechanical effects, I usually allow it. But these are not gamebreaking. Just like in real life there is a reason you are not constantly throwing sand in someone's eyes during a fight. As I said if you use "what would happen in real life if he tried that" as your basis for decision making it usually makes sense and ends up being pretty balanced on the whole.

QuoteOr are the players special snow flakes allowed to do this more often, and/or to create new special actions?

Like I said way back, they are double edged swords. If the PCs can do something, no reason the NPCs can't.

QuoteSo you have a group of players with infallible memory.

I envy you such a gift. I must make do with lesser players who are unable to recall every detail of the even the written rules at times.

Hardly. But if a ruling comes up enough that we have to adopt it as a house rule we find we don't forget. It isn't like we have a massive tome of the things that come up outside the rules on a regular basis. It is a pretty small list.

QuoteThat's rather cool and is a huge advantage for someone like you (and me) during a game. On the spot ruling can become 100% official and part of the actual game text.

But you should note that all the points I'm making here are not done from that view point. But rather from the end user- be it GM or player. This is a disadvantage unavailble to such people.

Even if folks are not publishing their own games, they can still produce a document of houserules if they like. The only difference between me and any other GM using the Network system is my houserules usually make it into later supplements (though I am thrilled when folks send me their own houserules by email). I think houserules are great because games are written for a general audience but each group is different. In some groups sand in the eyes will never come up, in others it will be the kind of thing that routinely happens and they will need a rule for it that suits their group's sensibilities.

QuoteAnd human nature does not apply to them as a result? Please, being a gamer does not make one immuned to the flaws mankind displays in all his works.

No. But our needs are much more immediate. Like I said, if gleichman runs into problems using GM on the spot rulings and I don't over more than two decades of time, I see no reason to alter my gaming style. If it isn't broken don't fix it. And in this case whether it is broke or not is very much a matter of perception (unlike crop rotation).

QuoteA pity.

I on the other hand actually listen to people and have learned new things upon realizing they have pointed out something that I've missed or overlooked. I'm able to step back and look at things with a bit prompting and sound arguement and realize they were right.

Seriously I think it is debatable how well you listen to others:). Of course I am open to feedback from other people, but I am only going to listen feedback that I can see makes sense in play. Gaming is a matter of finding what works for you, not what works for strangers on the internet. If I embraced techniques and approaches based soley on people making solid arguments I would probably be running a third person story game or something. At the end of the day the final measure of what is best, is does it enhance your experience in a good way at the table (not can Gleichman make a good argument for it on therpgsite).

QuoteIt's the reason for some of the rule changes in Age of Heroes 5.0, and has help me become a better GM and players over the years.

But by all means, if you were born perfect- don't change.

I wasn't saying this at all. But if you want to interpret it that way be my guest. I am very calpable of taking in feedback of my GMing style and of my games. Just ask anyone who has given us a critical review. I make a point of listening to critiques. But I don't implement a change until I actually see it work in play. Especially something as big as we are talking about here, which is really a fundamental style choice.

You also seem to be operating under the assumption that I haven't tried your approach. I have played 100% by the book. When I ran a campaign for players who prefered that approach, that is how I ran the game. It just isn't my own preference.

QuoteOf course, everyone likes unearned advantages and freebies. We are flawed creatures that way.

I'm sure people make illegal moves in chess for much the same reason.

Who said anything about them being unearned? And any move like that isn't going to be ideal in every case.

QuoteRulings Not Rules means one thing to me: The players play the GM instead of the Game and enjoy it.

I rather the players played the game, and enjoy it.

Okay. If that is how you feel. I am not persuaded at all by your arguments so far.

Quote from: Drohem;546078Yes, YES!

I see that you guys are still grinding the organ and the monkey is still dancing! :D

The premise itself is a complete fallacy given all rpg's have some degree of MMI. If not all you're playing is a card/boardgame. But it's interesting to watch the monkeys dance. :D

Quote from: John Morrow;545946This is one of the reasons why I think it's stilly for games to include specific combat moves and modifiers for things like feints, parries, and other maneuvers that affect one's chances of hitting or being hit.  It is my assumption that all of those things are what creates a character's combat skill level and a character would naturally be doing those things as needed as part of their attack or defense.

Some gamers prefer chess to checkers.

When I was thinking about running a cape-and-sword campaign, I considered using AD&D - hit points are an elegant way of handling the thrust-and-parry of dueling. But part of the fun - for me, at least - of playing a swashbuckler is making those decisions for my character. It captures the feel of swordplay better than simply narrating the action the way I would with AD&D's higher-level abstraction of combat.

Quote from: John Morrow;545946. . .

• nce something like throwing sand in the eyes is given a positive modifier, there is little reason not to use such tactics every time the character is in combat.

Throwing sand in someone's eyes is an action covered under Flashing Blades' combat rules. If you succeed, you gain a stun on an opponent, which costs them the rest of their actions in the current round and reduces them to one action in the next. Throwing sand means using one of your own actions in the current round, and it comes after other sorts of attacks, so the tradeoffs are, if you throw sand in your opponent's eyes, you're giving up a different attack or a parry, plus it may not work.

In FB it's also considered a dirty trick, and as such it can result in a social stigma outside of combat. A character who routinely resorts to dirty tricks may find himself ambushed rather than challenged, frex - sauce for the goose.

Quote from: gleichman;546013What you're implying is that the GM judgement remains balanced even through he has exceed the scope of the combat system, and that he is capable of doing this on the fly with quick judgements and rulings.

That this would be true even most of the time is highly questionable, let alone that it would be true often enough to meet any reasonable standard of fairness (between players and their ideas) and balance (of the game).

It's playing a game. It ain't rocket surgery.

Does your mistrust of others' judgement and fairness carry over into other parts of your life? I'm not asking to be snarky - I'm genuinely curious. Does it make you uncomfortable to be in a care when someone else is driving, frex?

I wish this term would be nuked out of existence.

Now I think we should come up with some sort of award for Brendan too, because he is demonstrating the patience of a fucking saint on this one. I don't know how he does it, but I'd like a taste of that magic potion some time.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;546088Does your mistrust of others' judgement and fairness carry over into other parts of your life? I'm not asking to be snarky - I'm genuinely curious. Does it make you uncomfortable to be in a care when someone else is driving, frex?

It's not an issue of trust, for example I will sub out parts of the larger battles to my players in order to speed things up basically turning over all my power as a GM to them for that- because I trust them to stay within the rules.

And I like to ride rather than drive a car. Comes I imagine from not being able to afford a car until I was in my mid-20s.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546083Like I said way back, they are double edged swords. If the PCs can do something, no reason the NPCs can't.

I find this exceedingly difficult to believe (as in it actually happens and is accepted by the players), but I'll take you at your word.

Some people can be talked in to accepting just about anything. And getting whacked by something they had no idea was even possible in the game ranks as insignification compared to many real events.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546083Okay. If that is how you feel. I am not persuaded at all by your arguments so far.

I'm not doing this to persuade you. Not in the least.

I'm doing to to explain what "Mother-My-I" means, and why some people are willing (and correct) to use the term.

Nothing more.

Quote from: gleichman;546096I'm doing to to explain what "Mother-My-I" means, .

I know exactly what it means.  It's from a children's game where the "children" cannot move or do anything without asking permission from the "mother" first.

There is no reasonable reason why it should ever be used in RPGs unless you're trying to be a dick and use hyperbole to attack another playstyle, rather than use legitimate arguments.

Changing it to mean something else just so you have an excuse to be more hostile is weak sauce.

Quote from: gleichman;546057Because it's not in the rules, but made up on the spot in response to a player request.

So it is free and unearned because a game designer didn't think of it first?

Quote from: gleichman;546057.

I see that you've never been a chess player.

[/QUOTE]

You do? How ever do you make these leaps of logic? I have played chess, not an expert or anything, but I have played enough to know that it is a competetive game, and thus has little if anything in common with rpgs.





There is much more to an RPG than the rules.

I doubt you'll click on the link, but this is a overview  (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2009/01/elements-layers-of-design.html)of what makes up an RPG.[/QUOTE]

I skimmed over it briefly. I will give it a longer look when not at work.

Let me try and inject a little signal into the noise.

Something I've been musing about a fair bit over the last little while is how unlike RPGs are from any other medium, including the ones that they take inspiration from and evolved from.

Now, medium matters; you can't watch a film adaptation of a novel without noticing that.  While RPGs may have started out as a sort of single unit tactical wargame that assumed the use of miniatures and battlemaps[1], that certainly isn't the case any more.  I've seen Champions, a game that explicitly requires hex grids and minis, played without any physical tokens.

John Morrow's right: GMs make a lousy UI for precise spatial information transfer.  Visual representations are always going to be objectively better at conferring spatial information.  That's just the way it is; we're a visual species.  But I honestly think part of that is that as a hobby, we're trying to transfer the wrong kind of information through that interface.  RPGs in practice are a lot more like cooperative improvisational oral storytelling, yet I rarely see any RPGs try to bring techniques from the field of storytelling or oral history into the GM's toolbox. (One of the things that frustrates me most about the story games scene is the use of the phrase "framing the scene".  You're not framing the scene because there is no scene.  You're not actually looking at anything.)


[1] Shut up, Benoist.

Quote from: gleichman;546096I find this exceedingly difficult to believe (as in it actually happens and is accepted by the players), but I'll take you at your word.

I am very clear with my players about how I will run the game and how I will make decisions. If something like this comes up from an NPC's side, I explain to the player what is going on mechanically and why before I make the roll. So far I haven't had any objections.

QuoteSome people can be talked in to accepting just about anything. And getting whacked by something they had no idea was even possible in the game ranks as insignification compared to many real events.

My players just understand there are things that can happen in real life the game mechanics of a system don't always cover very well. They know I am not out to get them. But if something unusual arises they expect me to come up with a ruling that makes sense and doesn't hand wave it out of existence.

Also, you have to understand these are people I know and game with all the time. They have a sense of what I am likely to allow or not, and what sorts of things outside the rules I will be likely to incorporate.

As a GM one of my strengths is I am good about knowing the limits of my own knowledge and more than happy to draw on the expertise of people at the table when that falls short.

But I am also developing stuff for publication at the table as well, so I want these sorts of things to come up and I want a certain amount of experimentation. Lots of times I will come up with a new mechanic and explain it to the players, telling them it will probably feature in the game so I can test it out.

Quote from: gleichman;546046This thread started with nothing but a dog pile whacking on the phrase "Mother-My-I" in a way that clearly showed that people had no understanding of what the phrase meant.

It couldn't have gone downhill from that starting point.

Yes it could and it did.

Pat yourself on the back.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546098Changing it to mean something else just so you have an excuse to be more hostile is weak sauce.

From the other side of the fence (i.e. a different gaming style then yours) I consider these terms to be insulting and hostile:

"Ruling Not Rules"
"Role-playing Not Roll-Playing"
"Role-playing Not War-gaming"


I hear them all the time.

So get used to having your style described as "Mother-My-I", it at least has the virtue of being more true than second and third one in my list above.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546098I know exactly what it means.  It's from a children's game where the "children" cannot move or do anything without asking permission from the "mother" first.

There is no reasonable reason why it should ever be used in RPGs unless you're trying to be a dick and use hyperbole to attack another playstyle, rather than use legitimate arguments.

Changing it to mean something else just so you have an excuse to be more hostile is weak sauce.

Exactly this. It is a loaded term used to shame people out of their prefered style of play. There is a lot of this going around on all sides these days.

Quote from: daniel_ream;546100RPGs in practice are a lot more like cooperative improvisational oral storytelling, yet I rarely see any RPGs try to bring techniques from the field of storytelling or oral history into the GM's toolbox. (One of the things that frustrates me most about the story games scene is the use of the phrase "framing the scene".  You're not framing the scene because there is no scene.  You're not actually looking at anything.)

Looking at what RPGs do that's not like other media, and then trying to make them function more like these other media because that rubs your sensibilities the wrong way. That's an awesome idea, man. Really awesome. And it totally has never ever been tried before. :rolleyes:

:forge:

Quote from: gleichman;546104From the other side of the fence (i.e. a different gaming style then yours) I consider these terms to be insulting and hostile:

"Ruling Not Rules"
"Role-playing Not Roll-Playing"
"Role-playing Not War-gaming"


I hear them all the time.

So get used to having your style described as "Mother-My-I", it at least has the virtue of being more true than second and third one in my list above.

Yeah...the big difference is none of the above is classifying players as children who can't do anything for themselves.  If you seriously can't see the difference than I'm sorry, because it's a VAST difference.

Yes BedrockBrendan, I'm aware that your group accepts such ruling from you. I'm not trying to say they don't.

I'm trying to say that others wouldn't, and they'd see your game as little more than "Mother-May-I" in dress up.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546102But I am also developing stuff for publication at the table as well, so I want these sorts of things to come up and I want a certain amount of experimentation. Lots of times I will come up with a new mechanic and explain it to the players, telling them it will probably feature in the game so I can test it out.

A rather special case, with respect to suggested changes/additions to the rules- I do much the same.

Quote from: gleichman;546108Yes BedrockBrendan, I'm aware that your group accepts such ruling from you. I'm not trying to say they don't.

I'm trying to say that others wouldn't, and they'd see your game as little more than "Mother-May-I" in dress up.

I am sure some might. Every group is different. But as I said I always adapt to my group and will not force my style on players who want to stick 100% to the rules. So far though, playing in multiple gaming groups over the years, I haven't really run into any problems. In fact I have encountered more problems from the opposite end of things (players who felt I was not allowing them to take enough special actions outside the rules), than from people representing your point of view.

QuoteA rather special case, with respect to suggested changes/additions to the rules- I do much the same.

It isn't any different from the longstanding tradition of houseruling systems at the table. I know several GMs, who have no interest or intention of publishing their material, who amass books of houserules for things like D&D.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546107Yeah...the big difference is none of the above is classifying players as children who can't do anything for themselves.  If you seriously can't see the difference than I'm sorry, because it's a VAST difference.

Whenever you have to ask the GM's permission for something, you're in the role of child asking his mother for something.

"May I have a glass of milk?" is in concept indentical to "Can I get something special from throwing sand in his eyes?" A call to the judgement of Mother because *you are unable to determine the answer yourself*.


I should note here that huge chucks of my own fantasy game is "Mother-May-I" as anyone who followed my link to Layers of Design should know. I really don't consider it a bad thing. It's a justified label.

My personal style however is to exclude Mother-May-I from combat. I don't in fact think less of people with a different style (although I will not game with them- but that's for the benefit of both sides).

At least his retarded view only ruins this thread instead of the entire forum.  I am actually frustrated at Brendan right now because all he's doing is giving Gleichman a chance to keep repeating the same retarded shit and prove he neither listens to anybody or actually plays actual rpg's as generally defined by the vast majority.

Quote from: gleichman;546113Whenever you have to ask the GM's permission for something, you're in the role of child asking his mother for something.

"May I have a glass of milk?" is in concept indentical to "Can I get something special from throwing sand in his eyes?" A call to the judgement of Mother because *you are unable to determine the answer yourself*.

es).

Not at all. The GM is only given such authority when the group trusts his abillity to adjudicate. You are not a child asking for milk because you andthe GM are both adults at the table and you can raise objections whenever you like. It is more analagous to a referee than a mother.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546112I am sure some might. Every group is different. But as I said I always adapt to my group and will not force my style on players who want to stick 100% to the rules. So far though, playing in multiple gaming groups over the years, I haven't really run into any problems. In fact I have encountered more problems from the opposite end of things (players who felt I was not allowing them to take enough special actions outside the rules), than from people representing your point of view..

And my experience from the other side the fence matches your. Never a problem.

Which likely means that we have different styles that are both valid for some people (something I never claimed to be otherwise) and not others. And we find people to join our groups who have similar styles.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546112It isn't any different from the longstanding tradition of houseruling systems at the table. I know several GMs, who have no interest or intention of publishing their material, who amass books of houserules for things like D&D.

I like house rules, but fault gamers for saying they're playing game X when after the addition of all their house rules there have long since stopped playing game X and are now playing game Y.

Unless they make this (i.e. extensive house ruling) clear, they are in effect lying when they say that they're playing D&D or whatever the game is in question.

Quote from: gleichman;546120And my experience from the other side the fence matches your. Never a problem.

Which likely means that we have different styles that are both valid for some people (something I never claimed to be otherwise) and not others. And we find people to join our groups who have similar styles.

This is pretty much all I have been trying to say.

QuoteI like house rules, but fault gamers for saying they're playing game X when after the addition of all their house rules there have long since stopped playing game X and are now playing game Y.

Unless they make this (i.e. extensive house ruling) clear, they are in effect lying when they say that they're playing D&D or whatever the game is in question.

with all due respect this seems a bit pedandic and harsh. I mean if a group houserules that you can use CON or STR to modify intimidate in 3E, should I call them "liars" when they ask me to join their game of "D&D". House rules are an longstanding tradition in the game. As long as i can recognize the basic shaoe of the system I am prepared to say it is still D&D. Now if they did something crazy like get rid of vancian casting and give every class special encounter and daily powers, you might have a point:)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546118Not at all. The GM is only given such authority when the group trusts his abillity to adjudicate.

A child may or may not trust his mother, it matters not. It still must ask permission.

The same with the player and his GM. Only unlike the child he is free to leave the gaming group or not join it in the first place. The reason to stay is solely determine by if they enjoy asking permission or not.


In short:  Do the players enjoy playing the GM more than playing the Game

Quote from: gleichman;546125In short:  Do the players enjoy playing the GM more than playing the Game

The game isn't the rules. The rules are not the game. The "game" is what happens in the shared world created by the participants interactions, including the GM. Talking to each other, asking questions back and forth, you know. Playing the game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546124with all due respect this seems a bit pedandic and harsh. I mean if a group houserules that you can use CON or STR to modify intimidate in 3E, should I call them "liars" when they ask me to join their game of "D&D". House rules are an longstanding tradition in the game. As long as i can recognize the basic shaoe of the system I am prepared to say it is still D&D. Now if they did something crazy like get rid of vancian casting and give every class special encounter and daily powers, you might have a point:)

It's a matter of degree.

My own house rules for HERO System are rather long, but very few of them change or add an actual rule (most are merely a different standard of building things within the rules- lower BODY, etc).

But there's a critical point where the the line is crossed and the game is no longer the same. Altering the game's resolution system is the clearest example of this (which btw is exactly you claim to do as standard procedure) but there are others.

Quote from: gleichman;546131It's a matter of degree.

My own house rules for HERO System are rather long, but very few of them change or add an actual rule (most are merely a different standard of building things within the rules- lower BODY, etc).

But there's a critical point where the the line is crossed and the game is no longer the same. Altering the game's resolution system is the clearest example of this (which btw is exactly you claim to do as standard procedure) but there are others.

I would say I am still playing network even with the on-the-fly judgements I allow. Everything is very much by the book andit is only when the book falls short that I make such judgements. Were i suddenly rolling pools of d4s instead of d10s or using different movement rules, then there might be an argument that we are no longer playing network. But the same essential system is in the play.

Quote from: gleichman;546125A child may or may not trust his mother, it matters not. It still must ask permission.

You are missing the point. Child is powerless. The player is not. The mother has authority automatically (whether she is trusted or not trusted). The GM's authority is granted and limited by players (it begins with their trust and they can place limits on what they will except). As a player you always have the power to object or say "no", and you can collectively take away the GM's authority if he makes bad choices.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546135I would say I am still playing network even with the on-the-fly judgements I allow.

Since your the designer of network (I assume you are), I will take you at your word.

To use another example, GMs and players of Feng Shui are also playing that game with such on-fly judgements because that game was designed to use such on-fly judgements in the first place (if I remembering the correct game, I don't have a copy to check).


However if you were using your methods with Age of Heroes or D&D, I'd have to say that you're no longer playing Age of Heroes or D&D.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546136As a player you always have the power to object or say "no", and you can collectively take away the GM's authority if he makes bad choices.

CPS may also take away a Mother's authority. As does the child growing up (hopefully) or their Mother dying.

Lost of authority has no bearing. That can always happen.

What matters is what game the players have agreed to. In your case they've agreed to "Mother-May-I" for combat resolution.

Quote from: gleichman;546137Since your the designer of network (I assume you are), I will take you at your word.

To use another example, GMs and players of Feng Shui are also playing that game with such on-fly judgements because that game was designed to use such on-fly judgements in the first place (if I remembering the correct game, I don't have a copy to check).


However if you were using your methods with Age of Heroes or D&D, I'd have to say that you're no longer playing Age of Heroes or D&D.

I dont feel the designers have any special claim once people buy and play the game. I have heard from lots of folks who tweaked our damage mechanic to make it more lethal or less lethal. I my opinion, they are still playing network.

 Does a game have to explicitly say it allows for creative rule interpretations? And if it doesn't and houserule stuff why are now suddenly not playing the game. I agree there is a certain line where you are not playing the game anymore. But you seem to be setting it exceptionally low.

Quote from: gleichman;546138What matters is what game the players have agreed to. In your case they've agreed to "Mother-May-I" for combat resolution.

In your case it seems like the players have agreed to a competitive game against the GM with both sides restricted to pre-defined rules constructs dictating their in-game actions.

Quote from: gleichman;546138CPS may also take away a Mother's authority. As does the child growing up (hopefully) or their Mother dying.

The introduction of CPS is really twisting the metaphor here. If the child has that power, it isn't mother may i. It is now "mother i am going to". At that point it is no longer mother may i. However if CPS has the authprity, not the child, it is mother may I.

QuoteLost of authority has no bearing. That can always happen.

What matters is what game the players have agreed to. In your case they've agreed to "Mother-May-I" for combat resolution.

it has all the bearing in the world. If the GM's authority is there because the players granted it, his decisions have to weigh how the playerrs will react. He isn't an unelected judge with full power of life and death. "Mother may I" implies a powerlessness that just isn't present in an rpg.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546141I dont feel the designers have any special claim once people buy and play the game.

They certainly have no power to alter the result. But I think they have a right to say that person X isn't playing it the way it was intended to be played (typically followed by cries of "What I have created!" in a doctor frankenstein voice).

One player who played Age of Heroes from a unfinished PDF years ago emailed me and said that he was having a wondeful time with the game, but noted that he didn't use it with a map and minis.

I thought it nice that he was having a great time, but wondered why he picked AoH. The huge point of the design was maneuver on the grid, by taking it out- one is left with a resolution system that that by itself is IMO rather boring lacking even the interest of significant Resource Management.

He wasn't really playing AoH, but was a having a good time even so.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546141Does a game have to explicitly say it allows for creative rule interpretations? And if it doesn't and houserule stuff why are now suddenly not playing the game. I agree there is a certain line where you are not playing the game anymore. But you seem to be setting it exceptionally low.

Such things have to be judged on a case by case basis.

But a quick test is the ability to copy the details of event and see if the results (combat typically) they get in the house ruled game can be smoothly duplicated with RAW.

If there is a significant difference in either process or outcome- you're playing a different game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546143it has all the bearing in the world. If the GM's authority is there because the players granted it, his decisions have to weigh how the playerrs will react. He isn't an unelected judge with full power of life and death. "Mother may I" implies a powerlessness that just isn't present in an rpg.

Have you had children? If so you should understand any mother who's worthly of title the considers how their child will react to their rulings. It's why they avoid (or should) inconsistent or unreasonable ones- for they want to teach their child to be consistent and reasonable.

It's different not in concept, only in degree when you're playing with the type of GM control you've claimed. A GM who fails at Mother-May-I may lose a player, a Mother who fails at the game suffers far worse.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;546142In your case it seems like the players have agreed to a competitive game against the GM with both sides restricted to pre-defined rules constructs dictating their in-game actions.

I do not compete against my players (if I did, I would always win). I'm a neutral refree during combat resolution, nothing more.

I am however bound by the same rules they are, thus making the outcome completely objective. They win or not by their skill (or its lack) at playing the game.

Quote from: gleichman;546160Have you had children? If so you should understand any mother who's worthly of title the considers how their child will react to their rulings. It's why they avoid (or should) inconsistent or unreasonable ones- for they want to teach their child to be consistent and reasonable.

It's different not in concept, only in degree when you're playing with the type of GM control you've claimed. A GM who fails at Mother-May-I may lose a player, a Mother who fails at the game suffers far worse.

The Gross Conceptual Error here that Gleichman refuses to address is that people do not have a choice about their mother while growing up, but do indeed have a choice about their GM when in a game - thus they can always leave a crappy GM's game but cannot voluntarily leave their own mother as a child easily.

Mother=/=GM

Quote from: Benoist;546106Looking at what RPGs do that's not like other media, and then trying to make them function more like these other media because that rubs your sensibilities the wrong way.

Once again, you've got your head so far up your ass you've managed to read the exact opposite of what I said.

Seriously, just shut the fuck up already.

Quote from: daniel_ream;546165Once again, you've got your head so far up your ass you've managed to read the exact opposite of what I said.

Yes, because improvisational oral storytelling is totally what RPGs are actually about. They are the same medium.

Seriously.

:forge:

Quote from: jeff37923;546163The Gross Conceptual Error here that Gleichman refuses to address is that people do not have a choice about their mother while growing up, but do indeed have a choice about their GM when in a game - thus they can always leave a crappy GM's game but cannot voluntarily leave their own mother as a child easily.

Mother=/=GM

Children have other options with a "crappy" (to use your phrase) mother. They are ugly ones, far worse than leaving.

Like all analogies however, the Mother-May-I does not have to match completely because no analogy ever does. It just has to share remarkable similarities- which this one does.

Quote from: gleichman;546168Children have other options with a "crappy" (to use your phrase) mother. They are ugly ones, far worse than leaving.

Like all analogies however, the Mother-May-I does not have much completely because analogy ever does. It just have to share remarkable similarities- which this one does.

You are indeed, an idiot.

Quote from: Bobloblah;546026Do you have Aperger's Syndrome? I ask, because you regularly appear to be a high-functioning autistic in these discussions.

Quote from: Marleycat;546059Pretty much this thread makes me seriously consider if Gleichman has some form of autism.  The thread itself? Beyond stupid.

This thread reeks of it, and I say that as somebody that has a touch of the 'Sperg myself.

Quote from: gleichman;546125A child may or may not trust his mother, it matters not. It still must ask permission.

The same with the player and his GM. Only unlike the child he is free to leave the gaming group or not join it in the first place. The reason to stay is solely determine by if they enjoy asking permission or not.


In short:  Do the players enjoy playing the GM more than playing the Game

Oh cool, here's the free space on the Bingo card of this stupid fucking argument.  Another fallacy that needs to go.

Quote from: gleichman;546137To use another example, GMs and players of Feng Shui are also playing that game with such on-fly judgements because that game was designed to use such on-fly judgements in the first place (if I remembering the correct game, I don't have a copy to check).


However if you were using your methods with Age of Heroes or D&D, I'd have to say that you're no longer playing Age of Heroes or D&D.

Ahhhh, there's where you're confused.  Here, let me help:  D&D was specifically designed, from day 1, to work with on-the-fly rulings by a thoughtful DM, and house rules to taste.  It doesn't really work without them, just like a car doesn't work without oil.  This may be why you're having a problem.

Quote from: gleichman;546160Have you had children? If so you should understand any mother who's worthly of title the considers how their child will react to their rulings. It's why they avoid (or should) inconsistent or unreasonable ones- for they want to teach their child to be consistent and reasonable.

It's different not in concept, only in degree when you're playing with the type of GM control you've claimed. A GM who fails at Mother-May-I may lose a player, a Mother who fails at the game suffers far worse.

Another poster already addressed this. So all I will add is the roles of GM and of mother are very different, as are the conditions of their authority. But we are getting lost in the metaphor once again.

Quote from: jeff37923;546169You are indeed, an idiot.

The years on this board have not worn well on you. It wasn't long ago that you offered far more than petty insults in a thread.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546171But we are getting lost in the metaphor once again.

Only because you wish to remain lost.

Do you at least understand now what one possible meaning of the phrase is when you see it? You don't have to accept it any more than I accept "Role-playing not Roll-playing", I'm only asking if you understand it?

Just know that understand or not, you're likely to see it until traditional war-game inspired RPGs disappear from the hobby. For you, that's a bright side- it shouldn;t take much longer at least from boards like this one.

Quote from: gleichman;546168Children have other options with a "crappy" (to use your phrase) mother. They are ugly ones, far worse than leaving.

Like all analogies however, the Mother-May-I does not have to match completely because no analogy ever does. It just has to share remarkable similarities- which this one does.

No, it is a terrible analogy. Which became apparent the moment you incorporated Child services into it.

Quote from: gleichman;546173The years on this board have not worn well on you. It wasn't long ago that you offered far more than pity insults in a thread.

Pithy insults are all that you deserve based upon your arguement. Fuck you. You are intellectually dishonest and only wish to crap up this thread, which you have succeeded in doing nicely.

Go back to your blog and your basement. All you have earned here is derision.

Quote from: gleichman;546175Only because you wish to remain lost.

Do you at least understand now what one possible meaning of the phrase is when you see it? You don't have to accept it any more than I accept "Role-playing not Roll-playing", I'm only asking if you understand it?

Just know that understand or not, you're likely to see it until traditional war-game inspired RPGs disappear from the hobby. For you, that's a bright side- it should take much longer at least from boards like this one.

Of course I understand what the phrase can mean. I was never objecting to that. I was merely arguing that it is a rhetorical hammer, a loaded phrase meant to make people feel like weak children if they give the GM any authori what so ever. It is generally devoid of substance and only useful in extreme cases where the GM is literally playing a game of mother may I with the players.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546176No, it is a terrible analogy. Which became apparent the moment you incorporated Child services into it.

Then I withdraw the CPS part, it's not key to the analogy.

The rest I stand behind.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546179Of course I understand what the phrase can mean. I was never objecting to that.

Good, at least you'll know what it means when I and others use it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546179I was merely arguing that it is a rhetorical hammer, a loaded phrase meant to make people feel like weak children if they give the GM any authori what so ever.

It only means that your method would make the person using the phrase feel that way.

It has nothing to do with you, and thus you shouldn't take that to reflect on you personally.

Quote from: gleichman;546091And I like to ride rather than drive a car.

And yet, while driving a car is governed by rules, drivers make dozens of judgement calls on how those rules are applied every time they get behind the wheel.

Quote from: gleichman;546091It's not an issue of trust, for example I will sub out parts of the larger battles to my players in order to speed things up basically turning over all my power as a GM to them for that- because I trust them to stay within the rules.

That's distrust, not mistrust. Mistrust is a lack of confidence; distrust presumes dishonesty.

Early on in this thread, when this whole tangent started off, I was kinda with you. I like using minis and terrain to represent a complex situation, as in my experience it aids immersion, rather than dispelling it.

But the more you dug in your heels, and the more stultifying extremes you espoused, the more I realized that your approach is an anathema to me. Your lack of faith in simple human judgement is absurd, particularly over something as trivial as playing game.

I don't want to have anything to do with gamers like you. Seriously, you and others like you are a plague on this hobby, and I wish you'd find something else to do so that you don't spread your irrational, childish hangups to others.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;546209And yet, while driving a car is governed by rules, drivers make dozens of judgement calls on how those rules are applied every time they get behind the wheel.

They drive as well as I do, and are bound by the same laws of physics.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;546209That's distrust, not mistrust. Mistrust is a lack of confidence; distrust presumes dishonesty.

They run games as well as I do, and are bound by the same laws of physics (i.e. the rules).

Nothing to mistrust in either case as physics are in control in both. And in both, they have proven themselves skilled enough to work within those constraints.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;546209I don't want to have anything to do with gamers like you.

You don't have too. And I don't have to have anything to do with you.

Isn't life grand that way?

Quote from: jeff37923;546103Yes it could and it did.

Pat yourself on the back.

I just wanted to take this moment and agree with Jeff.  Gleichman, you're a complete tool.

Yes, it's also the last time in our lives that Venus will appear to cross the sun, from our perspective on Earth.  

I felt it was appropriate to celebrate this fairly unique event by pointing out agreement between Jeff and I . :)

Quote from: Mistwell;546227I just wanted to take this moment and agree with Jeff.  Gleichman, you're a complete tool.

Yes, it's also the last time in our lives that Venus will appear to cross the sun, from our perspective on Earth.  

I felt it was appropriate to celebrate this fairly unique event by pointing out agreement between Jeff and I . :)

It's going to be fun watch Jeff explain how he disagrees with you.

Quote from: jadrax;545888If they are used to 4th edition skill challenges, I can totally understand why they would adopt that mind set, because failing is twice as bad as succeeding is good.

Which is one of the most broken things about that system.

One of the things I "loved" about 4E is that 90% of the things they did to fix "problems" actually made those problems even worse. In many cases, they actually created the problems that they claimed to be fixing (despite the fact that those problems didn't actually exist in previous editions).

Quote from: B.T.;545939To briefly put on my new school hat, the whole "we can't let fighters have powers because we want combat to be creative" feels very much like pointless grognardery to me.  The wizard has a selection of predefined spells to use in combat and no one bats an eye at that, but suggesting the fighter should have an attack that does additional damage once per encounter results in rage.

The problem is not that fighters get special abilities. It's that 4E-style fighter abilities tend to:

(a) Be dissociated mechanics
(b) Require characters to have a special ability in order to attempt an action that any character should be able to attempt

The wizard's traditional spells, on the other hand, generally DON'T fall into those traps.

There are several ways that you could design fighter abilities that wouldn't fall into those traps. And I'd enthusiastically support it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;546230One of the things I "loved" about 4E is that 90% of the things they did to fix "problems" actually made those problems even worse. In many cases, they actually created the problems that they claimed to be fixing (despite the fact that those problems didn't actually exist in previous editions).

One of the things I disliked about 4e was all the conditions placed on things.  Like marking.  Yeesh, hadn't they declared that they wanted people to have to keep track of even fewer things that edition?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;546230There are several ways that you could design fighter abilities that wouldn't fall into those traps. And I'd enthusiastically support it.

For the curious what would some of these be?

Quote from: Mistwell;546234One of the things I disliked about 4e was all the conditions placed on things.  Like marking.  Yeesh, hadn't they declared that they wanted people to have to keep track of even fewer things that edition?

Yup. That's another key example of the "in order to do X, we're going to do not-X (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4051/roleplaying-games/dungeon-delve-wtf)" methodology that has inexplicably plagued WotC for the past half decade.

It's also something I talked about when I playtested 4th Edition (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1946/roleplaying-games/playtesting-4th-edition-part-2-running-combat). The complexity of a 1st level combat in 4th Edition was equivalent to a mid-to-high level 3E combat. And that's exactly the opposite of what they claimed they were trying to do.

Quote from: Marleycat;546250For the curious what would some of these be?

Well, it depends on what direction you want to take.

Personally, I'd be OK with embracing a variety of "arcane fighter" packages: Fighters with arcane tattoos or totem rituals or mystic weapon katas.

Alternatively: Let the fighter be much, much better and/or let them do a lot more things compared to other classes in combat. The Cleave feats from 3E are an excellent example of that: Anybody can chop down one guy and then immediately try to attack somebody else, but the guy with the Cleave feat is so much better at switching targets that they get an extra attack (or attacks) as a result.

These feed together nicely, by the way. For example, say you have a feint mechanic that allows you to sacrifice one of your attacks to gain a +4 bonus to all of your attacks until the end of your next turn. Anybody can do that (and benefit from it), but if the fighter is the only guy who gets multiple attacks per round then it's fucking epic for him. Toss in an ability where they can double the bonus from feinting (because they're so damn good at it) and suddenly you've got Errol Flynn just flat-out embarrassing entire crowds of opponents.

I asked because I was thinking along those lines. Also something like stances or maneuvers. Which the latter seems exactly what you're describing.

Quote from: gleichman;546175Just know that understand or not, you're likely to see it until traditional war-game inspired RPGs disappear from the hobby. For you, that's a bright side- it shouldn;t take much longer at least from boards like this one.

Wow, really?  Because your combat rules, by your own admission, are a full on Asperger's wet dream, while the 'role-playing' is high octane "Mother-may-I", again, by your own admission.

It's like you are arguing against your own game designs.

Gleichman's brand of tactical game play has fuck all to do with actual wargaming.

If you guys could just quit quoting him I could be in ignorant bliss. Seriously why feed the troll? He hasn't said anything new in days.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;546230The problem is not that fighters get special abilities. It's that 4E-style fighter abilities tend to:

(a) Be dissociated mechanics
(b) Require characters to have a special ability in order to attempt an action that any character should be able to attempt
.

I very much agree with this.  On TBP, I got into an argument over the same thing, using a basketball analogy.

My argument was, if Kobe Bryant can dunk the ball whenever the scenario presents an opportunity (like not being mugged, open path the basket, etc), then why is he being limited to 1 dunk per game (like 1 per encounter)

The counter argument that was being repeated to me was that the power only guarantees a dunk, and Kobe doesn't make that choice, but the player chooses when that attempt is guaranteed.

That's all well and good, but they kept missing the point: If he has the ability and knowledge to do it, and the scenario presents itself, how come he can't do another dunk?  That question was never answered because 4anatics can't answer it because it makes no sense to have that arbitrary limitation.

Well, if you're a trained fighter, repeating certain maneuvers is usually to be avoided if you want to keep your opponent on their toes.

Quote from: Peregrin;546424Well, if you're a trained fighter, repeating certain maneuvers is usually to be avoided if you want to keep your opponent on their toes.

Yeah, unfortunately the system doesn't really mirror that particularly well. Although it is something to keep in your back pocket in games that encourage stunts.

Quote from: jadrax;546429Yeah, unfortunately the system doesn't really mirror that particularly well. Although it is something to keep in your back pocket in games that encourage stunts.

Well, you could do fatigue/penalties towards special actions that are used in sequence or during the same encounter, but that would probably get really fiddly really fast rather than just saying "You can do this once effectively in X period of game time."

e:
I do have my own problems with the 4e power format, but it has more to do with game/fiction elements being influenced by mechanics rather than the mechanics being associated with my character's POV.  And really, I just don't like the format from an aesthetic standpoint, either.

Quote from: Peregrin;546424Well, if you're a trained fighter, repeating certain maneuvers is usually to be avoided if you want to keep your opponent on their toes.

But what if some are SoD's like high level spells?

Quote from: Mistwell;546227I just wanted to take this moment and agree with Jeff.  Gleichman, you're a complete tool.

Yes, it's also the last time in our lives that Venus will appear to cross the sun, from our perspective on Earth.  

I felt it was appropriate to celebrate this fairly unique event by pointing out agreement between Jeff and I . :)

Quote from: jadrax;546228It's going to be fun watch Jeff explain how he disagrees with you.

Obviously, Mistwell knows genius when he sees it.

Or he is trying to get me to let my guard down.

One of the two....

Quote from: jeff37923;546483Obviously, Mistwell knows genius when he sees it.

Or he is trying to get me to let my guard down.

One of the two....

It's an obvious case of "white knighting".:D

Or it's a case of even a broken clock is right twice a day ....

Quote from: Peregrin;546424Well, if you're a trained fighter, repeating certain maneuvers is usually to be avoided if you want to keep your opponent on their toes.

Yeah but that shouldn't translate into once an encounter or once a day (or twice a day). Stuff that is difficult to land should be more about opportunity or taking a penalty when the opportunity isn't present. I should at least be able to attempt it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546508Yeah but that shouldn't translate into once an encounter or once a day (or twice a day). Stuff that is difficult to land should be more about opportunity or taking a penalty when the opportunity isn't present. I should at least be able to attempt it.

Totally agree the awesome fighter should be able to do a move and hit you then when you know he is going to do it again cos you have seen it already he still hits you and then the thrid time when you have worked out what he is doing and how to counter it he still hits you....

Quote from: jibbajibba;546521Totally agree the awesome fighter should be able to do a move and hit you then when you know he is going to do it again cos you have seen it already he still hits you and then the thrid time when you have worked out what he is doing and how to counter it he still hits you....

This is why you impose a penalty if the target is presenting the condition for the power. I can only draw on my experience from martial arts (which I know isn't the same as a medieval sword fight), but to me it just doesn't make sense to limit an attack to once an encounter or once a day (and even if it did those limits dont line up well with the opponent wising up---why cant you use it on a different opponent in the same encounter?). And just because someone figures out a defense against something that doesn't mean you can't land it again. It may get harder but not impossible. A lot of the time the opponent never even figures out how to handle the attack (that is usually why it works in the firstplace---its a weak spot in is game and he isn't going to develop the skill there on the spot). If you want to simulate the learning curve, then give the target a bonus to his ac against the manuever after the first use or give the attacker a penalty. But limiting it to flat 1/encounter or day makes a bput as much sense as a boxer only being able to land a single overhand right in a boxing round or entire fight.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546508Yeah but that shouldn't translate into once an encounter or once a day (or twice a day). Stuff that is difficult to land should be more about opportunity or taking a penalty when the opportunity isn't present. I should at least be able to attempt it.

(1) There's no reason Kobe Bryant can't attempt to dunk every time he goes to the basket.

(2) So why doesn't he?

(3) Because that isn't an ideal scoring method every time he gets the ball.

You can attempt to address that issue by adding an arbitrary and dissociated mechanic (he can only use his "dunk" ability once per game or once per period or it needs to recharge for 10 possessions before it can be used again).

Or you can attempt to better model the realities of a basketball game so that the mechanics actually distinguish between "dunk-appropriate" and "dunk-inappropriate" moments.

Or you can just leave the "dunk vs. any other 2-point shot" distinction as part of the abstraction.

Alternatively, it might be interesting to mess around with a mechanic similar to a critical hit. Maybe use margin of success: If Kobe Bryant gets an MoS of 10 or better on his "approaching the basket" check, then he can use his dunk ability.

Bringing us back to the realm of D&D, this would be another mechanical realm where you could give fighters unique abilities: By building the "this opportunity exists" into the model of the system (using critical hits or MoS or a separate die roll) instead of through dissociated mechanics.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;546665(1) There's no reason Kobe Bryant can't attempt to dunk every time he goes to the basket.

(2) So why doesn't he?

(3) Because that isn't an ideal scoring method every time he gets the ball.

You can attempt to address that issue by adding an arbitrary and dissociated mechanic (he can only use his "dunk" ability once per game or once per period or it needs to recharge for 10 possessions before it can be used again).

Or you can attempt to better model the realities of a basketball game so that the mechanics actually distinguish between "dunk-appropriate" and "dunk-inappropriate" moments.

Or you can just leave the "dunk vs. any other 2-point shot" distinction as part of the abstraction.

Alternatively, it might be interesting to mess around with a mechanic similar to a critical hit. Maybe use margin of success: If Kobe Bryant gets an MoS of 10 or better on his "approaching the basket" check, then he can use his dunk ability.

Bringing us back to the realm of D&D, this would be another mechanical realm where you could give fighters unique abilities: By building the "this opportunity exists" into the model of the system (using critical hits or MoS or a separate die roll) instead of through dissociated mechanics.

exactly. You make the point much more clearly than I did. But this is essentially what I am trying to say. It is very much about doing something at the ideal moment when conditions are favorable. Personally i still like to be able to try in unfavorable conditions with a penalty (think of an MMA fight when one of the fighter keeps throwing spinning back kicks even though he is in the worst possible spot to be doing it from (occassionally he still lands something).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;546665(he can only use his "dunk" ability once per game or once per period or it needs to recharge for 10 possessions before it can be used again).

I've been curious about the dissociative mechanics angle on the 'recharging' abilities.

When we had a brief exchange awhile back on the ToB classes, you concluded that while the Swordsage worked very well as 'magic warrior' type (I agree). The Warblade's recharge mechanic/powers would still not be acceptable as an abstraction of purely martial skill.

Can you elaborate on that at all? I would seem to me that being able to repeat the same kind of technique every other round would not be significantly dissociative. Whereas the 4e 'you can only dunk once' would be, and is.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;546665You can attempt to address that issue by adding an arbitrary and dissociated mechanic (he can only use his "dunk" ability once per game or once per period or it needs to recharge for 10 possessions before it can be used again).

Or you can attempt to better model the realities of a basketball game so that the mechanics actually distinguish between "dunk-appropriate" and "dunk-inappropriate" moments.

Or you can just leave the "dunk vs. any other 2-point shot" distinction as part of the abstraction.

Alternatively, it might be interesting to mess around with a mechanic similar to a critical hit. Maybe use margin of success: If Kobe Bryant gets an MoS of 10 or better on his "approaching the basket" check, then he can use his dunk ability.

Or you could use the margin of success to determine when he gets his 2-point shot in a flashy way vs. a more mundane way, such that an N-point margin of success means he got his basket with the pizzazz of a slam dunk or some other stylistic embellishment that the player might choose or which might be defined as the character's signature style.  (To clarify, the difference is that the roll here would be for actually taking the shot, not simply approaching the basket.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;546665Bringing us back to the realm of D&D, this would be another mechanical realm where you could give fighters unique abilities: By building the "this opportunity exists" into the model of the system (using critical hits or MoS or a separate die roll) instead of through dissociated mechanics.

What I've been experimenting with for a Fudge variant is that a sufficient margin of success creates the opportunity to engage in more advanced attack options such that a higher marginal success creates the opportunity for maneuvers like a disarm, push-back, trip, knock out blow, etc. because it the high margin of success represents the attacker getting a superior position against their opponent.  Instead of choosing to go into the attack as a disarm or push-back or other unusual attack with a modifier and doing nothing else if it fails, this approach assumes characters are always applying their best attack and that can give them the opportunity to do other special things if they do really well, or just more damage if they prefer (Fudge ties margin of success to damage).

Quote from: Kord's Boon;546693The Warblade's recharge mechanic/powers would still not be acceptable as an abstraction of purely martial skill.

Can you elaborate on that at all?

What's the recharge modeling? It's been awhile since I looked at the Warblade, but IIRC the recharge isn't modeling anything at all.

The argument could be made that it's preventing "use it every round" and then randomly determining when the situation comes up again, but this doesn't hold up to close inspection: Once it recharges, it just sits there. So you have a situation where the situation doesn't come up for a random number of rounds, but then makes itself available every single round. (Which doesn't make much sense.)

Generally speaking, in order for the recharge mechanic to be associated it has to actually be modeling something that's recharging: Something is depleted that prevents you from immediately repeating the action, but once that charge is restored you can attempt it at any time.

EDIT: Went and checked the warblade. I was thinking of something else entirely. The warblade has to spend 5 minutes between battles reading their maneuvers and they can reset their readied maneuvers during battle by taking a swift action.

During those 5 minutes... what exactly are you readying? How does it preclude your ability to perform the other purely martial techniques you know? This is Robin Hood spending five minutes thinking about shooting a bow and then, three hours later, suddenly being unable to use his sword as effectively.

When the swordsage uses similar mechanics, he's explicitly readying mystic energy. This is occasionally a mismatch with the descriptions of the actual maneuvers, but it's a lot easier bridging that gap than going the other way.

There are a lot of interesting mechanics in Tome of Nine Swords, but associating them with the game world wasn't given a high priority. (Of course, the same can be said of 4E.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;546743During those 5 minutes... what exactly are you readying? How does it preclude your ability to perform the other purely martial techniques you know? This is Robin Hood spending five minutes thinking about shooting a bow and then, three hours later, suddenly being unable to use his sword as effectively.

I can see that as being problematic. One might be able to argue that those 5 minutes include some kind of Kata review, but I would not think that you would forget the techniques you were using yesterday. It is possible given enough time to forget techniques however.
IIRC the Warblade is able to 'recharge' a maneuver he or she used by spending a standard action which can include a melee attack. So if I perform 'iron strike' and can do so again provided I set my opponent up with a normal attack. In contrast to the above this seems reasonable and to a certain extent comports with my (fairly limited) Kendo experience, which is not to say that practice matches are the same as heated combat.  You are expending a fair amount of physical and mental energy with each strike, and using a more basic/practiced technique to ward off your opponent while you think/recover could be modeled as these 6 second intervals between repeat attempts.

At the very least the back-and-forth applications of different strikes, feints, and maneuvering is replicated rather well, it's also possible to simply run out of tricks, which normally leads to you getting your ass kicked.

Given, many supposedly non-magical maneuvers are not in the realm of possibility, but others like the 'do +100 damage' maneuver (power-word kill on a stick) don't require any more suspension of disbelief then the abstraction of HP already provides. When the demigod hits you, you die, and he or she can do so –almost- on command.

Quote from: Marleycat;546250For the curious what would some of these be?

In my heartbreaker fighters get adotional combat options through mastering styles.
Those would be attacking with a shield edge, trips, pinning weapons, disarms, etc
Additional levels of skill in a style also increase your damage and number of attacks as well as meaning your shield can block more attacks you can use two weapons and a host of other options.
All of these can be used whenever you like obviously.
There are five ranks to each style and currently seven styles, but a toolkit exists that allows the gm to create new styles specific to their setting (the basics already have single weapon, two handed, bow, knife fighting,fencing, weapon and sheild, spear and polearm)
and through that method to build your own martial arts.
So you don't get reaping strike or furious vengeance or copyrighted combat move 6 but you to get more mundane stuff but it kind of fits.
Oh and the styles replace weapon proficiencies with an optional rule about prefered weapons for each style

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546670exactly. You make the point much more clearly than I did. But this is essentially what I am trying to say. It is very much about doing something at the ideal moment when conditions are favorable. Personally i still like to be able to try in unfavorable conditions with a penalty (think of an MMA fight when one of the fighter keeps throwing spinning back kicks even though he is in the worst possible spot to be doing it from (occassionally he still lands something).

You can use combat chains like they do in en garde. Played with several versions of this myself and it starts to get pretty bulky pretty fast

Quote from: jibbajibba;546884In my heartbreaker fighters get adotional combat options through mastering styles.
Those would be attacking with a shield edge, trips, pinning weapons, disarms, etc
Additional levels of skill in a style also increase your damage and number of attacks as well as meaning your shield can block more attacks you can use two weapons and a host of other options.
All of these can be used whenever you like obviously.
There are five ranks to each style and currently seven styles, but a toolkit exists that allows the gm to create new styles specific to their setting (the basics already have single weapon, two handed, bow, knife fighting,fencing, weapon and sheild, spear and polearm)
and through that method to build your own martial arts.
So you don't get reaping strike or furious vengeance or copyrighted combat move 6 but you to get more mundane stuff but it kind of fits.
Oh and the styles replace weapon proficiencies with an optional rule about prefered weapons for each style

Interesting. I definitely like Jason's idea of taking a penalty to do some move instead do it once a day like a wizard. I also love the concept of stances or knacks/tricks. Enter a certain stance and these bonuses or whatever last until to leave it. No particular limit on when or if you use it. Tricks/knacks: Use this weapon and you gain this advantage and can do this particular effect all you want linked to a short feat tree of 3-5 max.
 
Yes anybody can speciallize in say at least one weapon maybe two but fighters can specialize in all or nearly all by the very highest levels.

Quote from: jibbajibba;546885You can use combat chains like they do in en garde. Played with several versions of this myself and it starts to get pretty bulky pretty fast

It should be kept simple in my opinion. Either conditions are ideal for the move or they aren't (if chains in this case means having multiple conditions that have to be met in sequence or something I would say avoid it). If you want to make the move when conditions aren't ideal you just do it at a penalty. so you might have a move that works well when you have the high ground for isntance. But outside that you take a penalty.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;545778I agree with this.  Give me a theme to work with, but don't give me rules for every little thing.  As you say, all too often what happens is people look to see if their character has a skill, and if not, they assume they can't do it, or won't bother trying to do it.

It's like a while ago when someone brought up, "My fighter doesn't have the highest diplomacy skill, the cleric does, so I feel left out during role-playing with NPCs because I can't contribute."  Who says you can't contribute?  Because you're scared you'll fail a roll when the cleric has the better chance?  Having lower diplomacy skills never stopped anyone from giving their $0.02 in real life, why should a game be any different.  Say what you want to say, and I as the DM will...gasp...roleplay it out.  If I'm on the fence, then I'll have you make a check.  But if you're reasonable, I'll go with it no check necessary.

Characters shouldn't know what is on their character sheet; they should know how good they are at something, relative to other people, but that's it.

Of course, that shouldn't stop the character contributing if it's something they would do... but the character shouldn't get a bonus simply because the player is good at something (Or, conversely, be penalised if the player isn't so good...). Players shouldn't be scared of their characters "failing" at things - if they cock it up, that's what happened!

Quote from: Justin Alexander;546665(1) There's no reason Kobe Bryant can't attempt to dunk every time he goes to the basket.

Um, sure there is.  He's not a dunker.

Quote(2) So why doesn't he?

He's not a dunker.

Quote(3) Because that isn't an ideal scoring method every time he gets the ball.

It's an incredibly efficient method of scoring - but only if you are good at it, are built for it, and you can get around the defense to do it.  This generally puts it in the realm of the Power Forward or Center position, not a guard.  Kobe isn't known for his dunking, and he's a guard who is not built well for dunking.  Bad analogy.  You might have wanted to use a good dunker in your example, like Blake Griffin perhaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fnngzh5D1o

Quote from: Mistwell;546908Um, sure there is.  He's not a dunker.



He's not a dunker.

???

QuoteIt's an incredibly efficient method of scoring - but only if you are good at it, are built for it, and you can get around the defense to do it.  This generally puts it in the realm of the Power Forward or Center position, not a guard.  Kobe isn't known for his dunking, and he's a guard who is not built well for dunking.  Bad analogy.  You might have wanted to use a good dunker in your example, like Blake Griffin perhaps?

I think this misses the point at what I was getting at when I made the analogy.  If you have two knowns:

1) person who has the ability and knowledge to do X
2) scenario that presents the opportunity to do X

Then there is no reason why that person can't attempt to do x.  That's the beef I have with 4e.  Even if 1 and 2 are true, you are arbitrarily prevented from doing it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546910???


I think this misses the point at what I was getting at when I made the analogy.  If you have two knowns:

1) person who has the ability and knowledge to do X
2) scenario that presents the opportunity to do X

Then there is no reason why that person can't attempt to do x.  That's the beef I have with 4e.  Even if 1 and 2 are true, you are arbitrarily prevented from doing it.

Really, you're going to stand by the name you used?

Come on dude, let's start with some truths: 1) You clearly are not a basketball fan, or else you would never have used "Kobe" and "Dunking" in the same sentence; 2) You're now distracting from the point I was making (the name you used for your analogy was a bad one) by focusing on a part I was not disputing (the analogy itself, as opposed to the name you attached to it).

Just fucking admit it was an whoops, you're not a basketball fan, but we kinda get what you mean anyway.  In the future, if you use this analogy again, you might want to attach the name Blake Griffin to it, not Kobe Bryant.

Quote from: Mistwell;546913Really, you're going to stand by the name you used?
 
Come on dude, let's start with some truths: 1) You clearly are not a basketball fan, or else you would never have used "Kobe" and "Dunking" in the same sentence; 2) You're now distracting from the point I was making (the name you used for your analogy was a bad one) by focusing on a part I was not disputing (the analogy itself, as opposed to the name you attached to it).
 
Just fucking admit it was an whoops, you're not a basketball fan, but we kinda get what you mean anyway. In the future, if you use this analogy again, you might want to attach the name Blake Griffin to it, not Kobe Bryant.

We get the gist please don't be so pendatic for the sake of it.

I know you're a fan of basketball, Mark, but come on, really? Can we not have this conversation derailed over a point of detail that has fuck all to do with RPGs? Thanks.

Quote from: Mistwell;546913Really, you're going to stand by the name you used?

Come on dude, let's start with some truths: 1) You clearly are not a basketball fan, or else you would never have used "Kobe" and "Dunking" in the same sentence; 2) You're now distracting from the point I was making (the name you used for your analogy was a bad one) by focusing on a part I was not disputing (the analogy itself, as opposed to the name you attached to it).

Just fucking admit it was an whoops, you're not a basketball fan, but we kinda get what you mean anyway.  In the future, if you use this analogy again, you might want to attach the name Blake Griffin to it, not Kobe Bryant.

Actually, not to continue this derail, I'm actually a huge basketball fan.  And while I admit Kobe doesn't have the hops he used to, this was just a couple weeks ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYN-TFU3nqc

so yeah, he can still dunk.  I used his name knowing that not many people are basketball fans, but nearly everyone knows who Kobe is.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546921Actually, not to continue this derail, I'm actually a huge basketball fan. And while I admit Kobe doesn't have the hops he used to, this was just a couple weeks ago
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYN-TFU3nqc
 
so yeah, he can still dunk. I used his name knowing that not many people are basketball fans, but nearly everyone knows who Kobe is.

Thanks given I don't know who Blake Griffin is it was very helpful to me in understanding the analogy.

I think we are getting lost in the analogy here. If mistwell and sacrosanct say they are fans of basketball I believe them both. We don't need to hold a pissing contest over the issue to establish who has more knowledge of Kobe. Personally I know nothing about the sport.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546924I think we are getting lost in the analogy here. If mistwell and sacrosanct say they are fans of basketball I believe them both. We don't need to hold a pissing contest over the issue to establish who has more knowledge of Kobe. Personally I know nothing about the sport.

I agree.  Let's just all agree that 4e's arbitrary limits on martial powers makes no sense and move on ;)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546924I think we are getting lost in the analogy here. If mistwell and sacrosanct say they are fans of basketball I believe them both. We don't need to hold a pissing contest over the issue to establish who has more knowledge of Kobe. Personally I know nothing about the sport.

Doesn't that mean you have to revoke your Boston citizenship?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546925I agree. Let's just all agree that 4e's arbitrary limits on martial powers makes no sense and move on ;)

Agreed, weird thing is I was having the same conversation over at the TBP on the Ranger design goal thread of all places!

Quote from: Marleycat;546927Agreed, weird thing is I am having the same conversation over at the TBP on the Ranger design goal thread of all places!

Whether or not Kobe can dunk?

Quote from: CRKrueger;546928Whether or not Kobe can dunk?

Naw, that Martial Dailes make no sense. At least 4e's implementation of them.

Quote from: Marleycat;546929Naw, that Martial Dailes make no sense. At least 4e's implementation of them.

Well that's not like it's a super original conversation surrounding 4e either, right? Though I liked the whole dunking analogy here.

Quote from: Benoist;546931Well that's not like it's a super original conversation surrounding 4e either, right? Though I liked the whole dunking analogy here.

It was far more original I agree. Thank God he mentioned Kobe or I might have thought the subject was donughts.:)

Quote from: Mistwell;546913Really, you're going to stand by the name you used?

Come on dude, let's start with some truths: 1) You clearly are not a basketball fan, or else you would never have used "Kobe" and "Dunking" in the same sentence; 2) You're now distracting from the point I was making (the name you used for your analogy was a bad one) by focusing on a part I was not disputing (the analogy itself, as opposed to the name you attached to it).

Just fucking admit it was an whoops, you're not a basketball fan, but we kinda get what you mean anyway.  In the future, if you use this analogy again, you might want to attach the name Blake Griffin to it, not Kobe Bryant.

Thread status: Mistwelled.

Quote from: Benoist;546931Well that's not like it's a super original conversation surrounding 4e either, right? Though I liked the whole dunking analogy here.

The biggest drawback of that analogy is now I feel dirty.  I'm a Portland Trailblazer fan, and I hate Kobe.

Quote from: B.T.;546933Thread status: Mistwelled.

Well it's better than a thread getting "BTed" if you want my opinion on that front. :hand:

Quote from: Marleycat;546914We get the gist please don't be so pendatic for the sake of it.

If I were quoting the head of WOTC marketing as being an example of old-school RPG gaming deep-knowledge, you'd probably react.  I mean sure, the person works for an RPG company, but that's not the name you want to use as an example of old-school RPG gaming deep-knowledge, right?

I'm a basketball fan.  Using Kobe as an example of dunking is, to a basketball fan, like using the head of WOTC marketing in an old-school RPG gaming deep-knowledge example.  He used to be able to dunk, and in theory he still can (and on very rare occassion does), but he's not the guy basketball fans would mention when it comes to the topic of dunking (anymore).

Make sense now?  One person's pedant is another's normal fan.

Quote from: CRKrueger;546926Doesn't that mean you have to revoke your Boston citizenship?

Probably. I am one of those people from Boston that never actually goes into Boston (at least I avoid it as much as I can). The only sport I can watch is boxing. Baseball, basketball, football and even hockey put me to sleep. The most boring day of my life was spent at a Red Sox game back when Jim Rice was playing. For all I know my Boston citizenship was never even granted in the first place.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546934The biggest drawback of that analogy is now I feel dirty.  I'm a Portland Trailblazer fan, and I hate Kobe.

You fuckers just stole our general manager!

You're going to love him.  Neil Olshey is very effective.

I hate Kobe too...and from the above I am sure you can tell which team I am a fan of.

Me and my wife actually love watching boxing matches...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546921I used his name knowing that not many people are basketball fans, but nearly everyone knows who Kobe is.

Quote from: Marleycat;546923Thanks given I don't know who Blake Griffin is it was very helpful to me in understanding the analogy.

Don't you people watch Kia commercials?

You DID mistwell the thread Mark, you fucker... :D

Quote from: Benoist;546939Me and my wife actually love watching boxing matches...

Clearly you married the right woman.

Quote from: Mistwell;546940Don't you people watch Kia commercials?

I tend to watch non network stuff. Or DVR it, or just click until I find something that's not a commercial.:)
 
I do like watching baseball and football though.

Quote from: Mistwell;546938I hate Kobe too...and from the above I am sure you can tell which team I am a fan of.

Ah, so your issue with my usage of Kobe isn't so much that I used Kobe, but the fact that I didn't use the guy off of your favorite team and instead used a hated player.  The truth comes out  :)

Quote from: Mistwell;546908Um, sure there is.  He's not a dunker.

(1) He's won slam dunk contests.

(2) Slam dunk stats seem hard to come by, but in the 2007-08 season he was in the Top 30 for slam dunks in the league (link (http://web.archive.org/web/20100323063233/http://www.rotoevil.com/nba/dunk-stats)).

(3) In 2005-06 he had a 94% success (http://www.82games.com/random22.htm) with slam dunks, compared to a 43% success (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html) with all field goals.

(4) Bryant's skill or reputation as a dunker is, in fact, completely irrelevant to the analogy. The more you argue that he doesn't dunk very much (despite being much more successful at dunking than other types of shooting) only confirms the aptness of the analogy.

(5) In short, the only way your complaint could have any merit at all is if Kobe either (a) were physically incapable of dunking and/or (b) literally never did it. Are you arguing that either of these statements is true? Or are you going to admit that you're full of shit?

What it comes down to is, who can't Kobe dunk on, if he really wants to?  The answer: nobody.  :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;546949What it comes down to is, who can't Kobe dunk on, if he really wants to?

A 19-year-old girl.

Quote from: Mistwell;546908Um, sure there is.  He's not a dunker.

Being English, not dunking biscuits in your tea is a crime.

Quote from: B.T.;546958A 19-year-old girl.

He can, it's just costs him a 4 million dollar diamond when he does.

Quote from: CRKrueger;546968He can, it's just costs him a 4 million dollar diamond when he does.

Plus whatever he paid her to drop the charges.

Quote from: One Horse Town;546961Being English, not dunking biscuits in your tea is a crime.

Gah! How common!

Quote from: One Horse Town;546961Being English, not dunking biscuits in your tea is a crime.

Being American and from the South, tea that isn't sweet and ice cold ain't real tea.

Being French, not discarding that tea crap for wine is tantamount to treason.

Beer!

Quote from: Settembrini;547054Beer!

That too. In Northern France at least. :)

Quote from: jadrax;547040Gah! How common!

I'm a gangsta, innit?

I know the thread has moved on to tea and basketball and shit, but skimming the thread there were one or two bits I felt like commenting on.

Quote from: John Morrow;545946And I also agree that once something like throwing sand in the eyes is given a positive modifier, there is little reason not to use such tactics every time the character is in combat.

It really depends on whether you handle sand the way Gleichman describes (allowing the sand and the attack as part of the same action, and appending a bonus). Most of the time freeform combat maneuvering spends a main action or equivalent, allows a save or equivalent, and accomplishes a single specific effect. As a player of 3x I also see a lot of allowing an AoO, or a choice between an AoO or a check to avoid.

Anecdotal and specific to games I play and all that, but given all of the above sand in the eyes isn't better than a basic attack because it doesn't directly get a guy closer to dead, because it might fail entirely, and because it costs an action the same as an attack.

He's spot on about the weirdness of maneuvers in a system without wounds, though.

Quote from: gleichman;546013Second
This answer fails to take into account the impact of teamwork. While one character has given up the option to do damage, others on this team now have a significantly increased chance to do more damage.

In games where target focus is advantageous or are focused on tactical maneuver (i.e. position and movement like Age of Heroes) the result can be immediate and overwhelming.

RPG are all about teamwork, and I find that GMs and even designers forget about that fact all too often.


Third
Perhaps the worse result from your PoV (not mine) is that if you for some mystical reason are able to balance it nearly 100% of the time. For in that case there is no reason at all to do your special out of the box action as it has provided no benefit. The exact opposite of your stated claim upfront that you were rewarding your players for these actions.

I know you can't hear me, but the answer to the third problem is the second problem. If maneuvers are circumstantially useful in defined ways (for instance, if throwing sand in the eyes is more useful the more allies can make follow-up attacks) then they will be used in the circumstances that make them useful and not in the circumstances that make them useless. Then there's planning to make them useful and so on.

Freeform judgement calls won't end up working that way for other reasons, but if people know roughly what conditions they can inflict and roughly what the costs and odds are, and only have to find a way to make it happen (in other words there's a rough framework in place), that tends to work out well.

I feel there's an unwritten and common framework here that usually involves opposed checks, ditched damage, and a spent action. I think in a lot of instances what gets described as freeform uses an unwritten framework, or one based of specific instances (so people extrapolate how most maneuvers work based on how specific maneuvers are written).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;546230The problem is not that fighters get special abilities. It's that 4E-style fighter abilities tend to:

(a) Be dissociated mechanics
(b) Require characters to have a special ability in order to attempt an action that any character should be able to attempt

The wizard's traditional spells, on the other hand, generally DON'T fall into those traps.

There are several ways that you could design fighter abilities that wouldn't fall into those traps. And I'd enthusiastically support it.

I tend to agree with you, but I've seen what B.T. was talking about. I'd really like to see a better fighter, with cool abilities that weren't dealbreakers.

I wonder if 5e will fail to serve this middle ground, with feats and maneuvers aimed squarely at folks not worried about a or b, though. Their healing rules were dissociated, but I would have loved a shorter-term hp management system that wasn't.

Quote from: jeff37923;547042Being American and from the South, tea that isn't sweet and ice cold ain't real tea.

Being from the Pacific Northwest it's coffee not tea, preferably a double shot, short cinnamon latte. From Piccalo's using Seattle's Best not Starbucks. ;)

Quote from: Marleycat;547117Being from the Pacific Northwest it's coffee not tea, preferably a double shot short cinnamon latte.;)

I lived in Seattle for awhile too and I raise you a venti white chocolate mocha with a double shot of godiva chocolate liquor.

Being from Califa, it's coffee with tequila, que no?

Well I was thinking it was for workplace pickmeup but Jeff's idea sounds delicious.

Quote from: Marleycat;547117Being from the Pacific Northwest it's coffee not tea, preferably a double shot, short cinnamon latte. From Piccalo's using Seattle's Best not Starbucks. ;)

A fellow PNWer huh?  I knew there was a reason why I liked you ;)

Although I actually prefer hot chocolate to coffee.

Espresso or tea, because health doesn't permit alcohol.

I miss wine.  And good German brews.  And SoCo.

Quote from: Peregrin;547149Espresso or tea, because health doesn't permit alcohol.

I miss wine.  And good German brews.  And SoCo.

German's do make awesome beers, a bit strong though.

@Sacrosanct, lived over half my life in Western Washington State but I got my taste for cappuccino and expresso and latte's from living in Europe of all places. Even though they do look at you funny when you add milk to a perfectly good Italian expresso. :)

Cut out the off-topic chatter.

RPGPundit