TheRPGSite

http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/matthew-finch/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/ebook/product-3159558.html

Controversy of the day...

My group has been discussing this free booklet, and especially this quote.

My feeling is that this interpretive. Finch, you are no Jack Kennedy.

The rules exist to provide a framework for the GM and players, and if the GM wants to change something, he's free to patch the system. But if he patched the system, he'd tell you about it.

Otherwise you fall into a mother-may-I system that is more modern that clone.

I am not disagreeing with all of his points, but this one particularly stood out. What do you all think?

The Quick Primer to Old School Gaming is something that's been written to allow people who've never ever played old school games to get an idea of how these games without skills and rules holes and all that might function in game play when compared to a game like 3rd edition D&D and its avatars. It's a starting point, not an end. It shouldn't be construed as some sort of "manifesto of OS gaming". It really isn't.

Quote from: Benoist;650055The Quick Primer to Old School Gaming is something that's been written to allow people who've never ever played old school games to get an idea of how these games without skills and rules holes and all that might function in game play when compared to a game like 3rd edition D&D and its avatars. It's a starting point, not an end. It shouldn't be construed as some sort of "manifesto of OS gaming". It really isn't.

I  get your point of intent, but do you have a different opinion on this specific point?

I can tell you what happens at my AD&D game table: I am very much the referee of the game, and the rules and their application are indeed my province. There is no copy of the Dungeon Master's Guide on the players' side of the screen. Somebody bringing such a book to the table would be asked to let it rest in the backpack. I decide what people roll and when. Players don't have attack matrixes in front of them, because figuring the monster's AC is *NOT* the point of the game. I don't reveal circumstantial modifiers on attack rolls and the like, I might substitute six-siders in the rules for twelve or hundred-sided dice while keeping the same relative odds, and back and forth.

What the players know about the game is what they discover through the act of play. A MU player knows how his spells work, a fighter knows the function of weapons and armor, and there is a copy of the PH on the table for them to look up stuff if need be, but that's no guarantee that things will turn out the way the rules say "because rules."

Either you trust me to do a fair, consistent job as a DM, and know what it is I am doing without switching the tables around or engaging in illusionism or whatever else, or you don't. If you don't, there's really no point in playing together, and I'm cool with that.

Quote from: Benoist;650064What the players know about the game is what they discover through the act of play. A MU player knows how his spells work, a fighter knows the function of weapons and armor, and there is a copy of the PH on the table for them to look up stuff if need be, but that's no guarantee that things will turn out the way the rules say "because rules."

Either you trust me to do a fair, consistent job as a DM, and know what it is I am doing without switching the tables around or engaging in illusionism or whatever else, or you don't. If you don't, there's really no point in playing together, and I'm cool with that.

You also have a PH on the table, and as you say, you are not "switching the tables around", and the players know how their functions work. Should the players have a reasonable assumption that if they read the PH about these things that they can rely on it, unless you tell them you are house-ruling it?

If you make a house-rule that modifies something in the PH (something that wouldn't otherwise be a hidden DM roll), wouldn't you also make an effort to communicate that to the players, and support that as a "patch" to the rules?

Quote from: Lynn;650068If you make a house-rule that modifies something in the PH (something that wouldn't otherwise be a hidden DM roll), wouldn't you also make an effort to communicate that to the players, and support that as a "patch" to the rules?

At my table the players tell me what they're doing in the game and I tell them what to roll/what they need to do etc...

Any explicit reference to the rules on the players part is the exception rather than the rule.

Players say, "I run up and try to grab the Orc and bear him to the ground"

NOT

"I use the Bullrush maneuver on the Orc"

Which rules to use and how to use them is my call, not the players. Similarly what the character is actually doing in the fiction is the players call, not the rulebooks's.

Quote from: Piestrio;650069At my table the players tell me what they're doing in the game and I tell them what to roll/what they need to do etc...

Any explicit reference to the rules on the players part is the exception rather than the rule.

Players say, "I run up and try to grab the Orc and bear him to the ground"

NOT

"I use the Bullrush maneuver on the Orc"

Which rules to use and how to use them is my call, not the players. Similarly what the character is actually doing in the fiction is the players call, not the rulebooks's.

Pretty much my approach.

Quote from: Lynn;650068You also have a PH on the table, and as you say, you are not "switching the tables around", and the players know how their functions work. Should the players have a reasonable assumption that if they read the PH about these things that they can rely on it, unless you tell them you are house-ruling it?

Reasonable assumption? Yes.

If I have a specific house rule the players will know about it. For instance, I allow weapon specializations for fighting types but not at level 1. I'm actually very open about the way I like to run the game and questions are always welcome. There will be a pre-game session where we discuss about such things and basically make sure we all play the same game. Communication is one of the keys of trust.

That said, no, just because the PH says it works one way doesn't mean it'll work that way in every single instance in the game. Take an attack roll for instance. You know the basic procedure of rolling a d20, but you don't know what modifiers might affect the roll after the fact. You know that a natural 20 might accomplish something incredible, but that's not a guarantee that it will always be a hit and always be awesome. You know your sword does 1d8 damage, but against this or that opponent it could be half damage or whatnot.

You can always ask a question in the game, and I generally will answer from the point of view of what your character would know. For instance: "looking at the chasm in front of us, is it possible for me to jump over it? How much of a chance would I have to make it?" I could answer something like "You trust your good legs, but the chasm is relatively wide. You think you could possibly make it, with enough distance to run before the jump. With that in mind, you could make it, perhaps, one time out of three. Maybe less."

All these things you look at in the PH basically give you an idea of how the world works from a rules standpoint, like a still picture of the world's physics in a book, something abstract, more of a broad generality than anything else. It's a reasonable assumption to think it will usually work this or that way, but it's not always how it'll turn out in practice.

Quote from: Lynn;650068If you make a house-rule that modifies something in the PH (something that wouldn't otherwise be a hidden DM roll), wouldn't you also make an effort to communicate that to the players, and support that as a "patch" to the rules?

Yes. For instance, if I don't use the weapons vs. AC table, I'll say just that to the players up front. Or the way I interpret the minimum and maximum spells per level on the Intelligence table. Those kinds of things.

Quote from: Piestrio;650069At my table the players tell me what they're doing in the game and I tell them what to roll/what they need to do etc...

Any explicit reference to the rules on the players part is the exception rather than the rule.

Players say, "I run up and try to grab the Orc and bear him to the ground"

NOT

"I use the Bullrush maneuver on the Orc"

Which rules to use and how to use them is my call, not the players. Similarly what the character is actually doing in the fiction is the players call, not the rulebooks's.

Yes.

Quote from: Piestrio;650069At my table the players tell me what they're doing in the game and I tell them what to roll/what they need to do etc...

Any explicit reference to the rules on the players part is the exception rather than the rule.

Players say, "I run up and try to grab the Orc and bear him to the ground"

NOT

"I use the Bullrush maneuver on the Orc"

Which rules to use and how to use them is my call, not the players. Similarly what the character is actually doing in the fiction is the players call, not the rulebooks's.

Right, I didn't say that. This isn't about players dictating rules at all, or changing DM's right to fiat. It is a much simpler question than that. When you create a house rule, do you explicitly tell players there's a house rule?

For the most part, I also follow the same format that you outline above, but the 3.x complexity causes some problems because its jam packed with all sorts of variants and alternatives.

Ive been playing in and running a LotFP game, and there are a limited number of types of maneuvers in that system. That narrowness of focus makes interpreting rather easy. You only have one type of "Charge" for example - its more than just running up and striking. If a player want's to charge, then they need to convey that in some way, rather than just saying something about running up and striking - because not all attacks are charges.

Quote from: Lynn;650052http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/matthew-finch/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/ebook/product-3159558.html

Controversy of the day...

My group has been discussing this free booklet, and especially this quote.

My feeling is that this interpretive. Finch, you are no Jack Kennedy.

The rules exist to provide a framework for the GM and players, and if the GM wants to change something, he's free to patch the system. But if he patched the system, he'd tell you about it.

Otherwise you fall into a mother-may-I system that is more modern that clone.

I am not disagreeing with all of his points, but this one particularly stood out. What do you all think?

You are right and wrong.

Yes, you don't want to create a 'Mother may I' situation at your table.
No, because Finch explicitly states that the referee is to use their authority to apply common sense solutions.

Page 2

QuoteThe referee, in turn, uses common sense to decide what happens or rolls a die if he thinks there's some random element involved, and then the game moves on

 I feel that older D&D is best run as realistic emulation but on a more abstract level than say GURPS. That how I have been refereeing my side by side Swords & Wizardry campaign and GURPS campaign. The characters do the same things for the same reasons in both campaigns. GURPS has the detailed options and S&W doesn't.

And one reason for this is that most of my GURPS players are novices and they wind up doing the same thing as in my S&W. Namely describe their action and ask me what the rules are.

It depends on a couple of things. First of all is the GM's style - some like to be the sole and whole interface for the world and rules, even to the extent of rolling the dice for the players. That's an extreme example but you're talking about a technique to help achieve deep immersion. Others like the players to get more involved which I maintain doesn't hazard immersion as long as the players are familiar enough with the rules.

Secondly of course the players are going to be familiar with the rules one way or another. They have character sheets and the letters and numbers on them are going to need meaning, unless the GM takes them away too, and maybe some do. So a broad statement like "Rules are a resource for the referee, not for the players" is meaningless really.

I differentiate setting and rules, and put things like monsters into the setting box. The players shouldn't be familiar with all of the monsters, or monsters should be adjusted to make them unfamiliar if that's what's needed. Spells are also in the setting box, but players should be at least passingly familiar with the ones they might be using.

Whether or not players bring the rules into actual play is a seperate issue - saying something like "I use the Bullrush maneuver on the Orc" instead of "I run up and try to grab the Orc and bear him to the ground" could be seen as clarifying for the GM exactly what the character wants to do. There are other examples which are far less clear cut.

And although the mantra is 'if you don't trust your GM don't play with them', the bottom line is some people are just dicks. And some people become dicks when given lots of power. Meek and mild mannered friend by day, Stanford prison experiment guard by night.

Not trying to start a ragefight here at all, but I wonder is the popularity of the OSR with this kind of GMing style due to the relative simplicity and familiarity of these systems to those GMs. I mean it basically places all of the crunch burden on the GM, and that can start grating really quickly if you aren't using a simple system that you know back to front. It gets really hard.

Something to think about, maybe I'll set up a poll to get an idea of the cross fertilisation between the 'GM as world and rules' group and the OSR fanclub.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Quote from: Lynn;650078Right, I didn't say that. This isn't about players dictating rules at all, or changing DM's right to fiat. It is a much simpler question than that. When you create a house rule, do you explicitly tell players there's a house rule?

In most cases yes if it is something they would know as their characters or need to know to make a character.

Quote from: Lynn;650052The rules exist to provide a framework for the GM and players, and if the GM wants to change something, he's free to patch the system. But if he patched the system, he'd tell you about it.

Otherwise you fall into a mother-may-I system that is more modern that clone.

YMMV in experience, depending on where you played in the '70s.

What the pioneers in fact wrote on the subject at the time, however, makes your "more modern" quip look misinformed. Your way is not the way that Arneson, Gygax, St Andre, Hargrave, Perrin, etc., advocated.

What's more 'modern' -- albeit present all those decades ago -- is your (and others' on all sides') insistence on a One True Way, on criticising as 'wrong' the way other people play.

Quote from: Benoist;650072That said, no, just because the PH says it works one way doesn't mean it'll work that way in every single instance in the game. Take an attack roll for instance. You know the basic procedure of rolling a d20, but you don't know what modifiers might affect the roll after the fact. You know that a natural 20 might accomplish something incredible, but that's not a guarantee that it will always be a hit and always be awesome. You know your sword does 1d8 damage, but against this or that opponent it could be half damage or whatnot.

Yes, indeed. There's the physics of the world that are unknowable to players and characters.

Quote from: Benoist;650072You can always ask a question in the game, and I generally will answer from the point of view of what your character would know. For instance: "looking at the chasm in front of us, is it possible for me to jump over it? How much of a chance would I have to make it?" I could answer something like "You trust your good legs, but the chasm is relatively wide. You think you could possibly make it, with enough distance to run before the jump. With that in mind, you could make it, perhaps, one time out of three. Maybe less."

All these things you look at in the PH basically give you an idea of how the world works from a rules standpoint, like a still picture of the world's physics in a book, something abstract, more of a broad generality than anything else. It's a reasonable assumption to think it will usually work this or that way, but it's not always how it'll turn out in practice.

Yes, exactly. There character expectations of randomness, and the actual unknowable-to-players randomness that gets applied to any roll.

Quote from: Benoist;650072Yes. For instance, if I don't use the weapons vs. AC table, I'll say just that to the players up front. Or the way I interpret the minimum and maximum spells per level on the Intelligence table. Those kinds of things.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me, too, and what I do. The original quote seemed a little too one sided to me - a little too "Mother May I".

Quote from: Lynn;6500783.x complexity causes some problems because its jam packed with all sorts of variants and alternatives.

The problem with 3.x and 4.0 is that the gaming culture got altered so that the expection to view all official rule books as core and thus permitted.

If you don't buy into that and lay down the law about what is permitted and what then the variant are not an issue.

And to be fair I realize it is not quite as simple as I am making it. As using rule books 'as is' is very convenient. Writing Majestic Wilderlands into a form easily understandable was a lot of work and many do not have the time or inclination to do that with any rule system.

Which is why it is important no only design a good system for your RPG but a good presentation as well.  

I went with the Swords & Wizardry core rules because to me they represented the essence of classic D&D.  Allowing the Majestic Wilderlands to focus on additions rather saying don't use this, etc.

Quote from: The Traveller;650080Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Ain't that the truth, heh? :)

Quote from: Lynn;650087The original quote seemed a little too one sided to me - a little too "Mother May I".

It really only makes sense when you put it in contrast with the other play style the Primer is talking about, which is basically the take on "the rules are the game" and "the rules override the GM" that have become so ubiquitous in some gaming circles. So the Primer basically caricatures both this "old school" and that "new school" styles to contrast them against each other and highlight the basic differences. It's a "Primer" really, and it is stereotypical by design, to make the contrast clear to new players/GMs. It's not a "manifesto" or "Thou Shalt GM That Way Or Die, Grognard!"

Quote from: Lynn;650078Rules are a resource for the referee, not for the players...

Personally, I disagree with this.

Roleplaying is a shared game, with the GM as much a player as the other people at the table. Rules should be clear and available to everyone in the game.

I know many players who know the rules inside out and it helps them play the game. They know which tactics to use, what spells to use, what the effects of spells are and so on. It makes it a faster and more fun game.

Quote from: Lynn;650052http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/matthew-finch/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/ebook/product-3159558.html

Controversy of the day...

My group has been discussing this free booklet, and especially this quote.

Presumably the quote in the title - the post is quite difficult to understand otherwise as you don't seem to be making a point.

Quote from: Lynn;650052My feeling is that this interpretive. Finch, you are no Jack Kennedy.

The rules exist to provide a framework for the GM and players, and if the GM wants to change something, he's free to patch the system. But if he patched the system, he'd tell you about it.

Otherwise you fall into a mother-may-I system that is more modern that clone.

Surte, if the GM changes a rule that the players could use then he should tell you. If he changes a 6th level spell and the PCs are all 1st level wizards then what is the point of telling them?

Quote from: Lynn;650052I am not disagreeing with all of his points, but this one particularly stood out. What do you all think?

Without actually buying the book, it is difficult to know what you mean.

Quote from: Lynn;650068You also have a PH on the table, and as you say, you are not "switching the tables around", and the players know how their functions work. Should the players have a reasonable assumption that if they read the PH about these things that they can rely on it, unless you tell them you are house-ruling it?

Yes. See above.

Quote from: Lynn;650068If you make a house-rule that modifies something in the PH (something that wouldn't otherwise be a hidden DM roll), wouldn't you also make an effort to communicate that to the players, and support that as a "patch" to the rules?

Depends on the circumstances. Of it is a rule that the players could reasonably use then yes. Otherwise why?

Quote from: Lynn;650078Right, I didn't say that. This isn't about players dictating rules at all, or changing DM's right to fiat. It is a much simpler question than that. When you create a house rule, do you explicitly tell players there's a house rule?

If you had phrased the original post in this manner it would have been a lot easier to read and understand.

Quote from: Piestrio;650069At my table the players tell me what they're doing in the game and I tell them what to roll/what they need to do etc....

Which rules to use and how to use them is my call, not the players. Similarly what the character is actually doing in the fiction is the players call, not the rulebooks's.

That's the way I learned to play back when the game was new, and the way my friends who entered the hobby a decade later also learned (despite the preponderance then of books sold to players).

Some of them also enjoy playing, for instance, Pathfinder with more attention to the abstraction.

The preferred mode seems to be partly a generational distinction, later adopters coming more from a board-game background than from the old miniatures scene or other less 'consumer' oriented, more truly 'hobbyist' aspects of hobby gaming.

Quote from: Phillip;650085What the pioneers in fact wrote on the subject at the time, however, makes your "more modern" quip look misinformed. Your way is not the way that Arneson, Gygax, St Andre, Hargrave, Perrin, etc., advocated.

How so?

Quote from: Phillip;650085What's more 'modern' -- albeit present all those decades ago -- is your (and others' on all sides') insistence on a One True Way, on criticising as 'wrong' the way other people play.

What One True Way?

Quote from: Lynn;650078If a player want's to charge, then they need to convey that in some way, rather than just saying something about running up and striking - because not all attacks are charges.

Well, what is, then? What phenomenon, in the world the role I'm playing in inhabits, does your game-mechanical gadget represent?

If I can't play my role using plain English, without reference to your abstraction, then in my view it's simply too abstract!

Quote from: Lynn;650052The rules exist to provide a framework for the GM and players, and if the GM wants to change something, he's free to patch the system. But if he patched the system, he'd tell you about it.

Otherwise you fall into a mother-may-I system that is more modern that clone.

Quote from: estar;650079Yes, you don't want to create a 'Mother may I' situation at your table.
No, because Finch explicitly states that the referee is to use their authority to apply common sense solutions.

If everyone is agreed on the match-up of rules and fiction as truly common sense, then it doesn't matter whether the referee is choosing the rules option or the player is.  However, sometimes common sense differs - particularly when using abstract rules like one-minute-long rounds and hit points.  The real question is what to do in the case where:

(a) if they knew the rules, the players really would want X;
(b) the referee decides based on their description that they are doing Y instead.

Personally, I like to make things simple to the players but also transparent.  So they should expect what the rules result is such that the above doesn't happen.  If they don't, then I'll inform them of their options under the rules and let them decide.  

So, for example, if I'm playing AD&D1 and the player says that he rushing at the opponent with his sword, then I might describe the "charge" option to him (+2 hit, no DEX bonus to AC, initiative based on weapon length) and ask if that's what he wants.

Quote from: Phillip;650096If I can't play my role using plain English, without reference to your abstraction, then in my view it's simply too abstract!

And that is why dissociated mechanics suck ass, in my view.

Quote from: Lynn;650068You also have a PH on the table, and as you say, you are not "switching the tables around", and the players know how their functions work. Should the players have a reasonable assumption that if they read the PH about these things that they can rely on it, unless you tell them you are house-ruling it?

First, all new players are told that my games do not have "rules" (no matter what the official books might say, the "rules" are simply "guidelines for the GM"). This tends to make players who are rules lawyers or who expect to play RAW to decide to find another campaign to play in. This is an excellent thing, IMHO, as I have personally have no desire for rules lawyers or for players who only weant to play using the RAW in my campaigns.

However, for common things, sure, I tell players about them. I'll cover changes to stuff that comes up all the time in advance. However, it may be very general coverage. For example, I always tell players that game world reality trumps rules every time (e.g. you can't trip a gelatinous cube or otherwise make it "prone" no matter what the rules might say). If I was forced to run 3.x, I'd tell players that feats that try to make special snowflake powers out of something anyone can try to do with some chance of success are not required to try to do such things, they'll only give a bonus to success -- however, I would not feel any need to go through every 3.x rulebook that we might ever use and make a list of all feats that fall in this category. If I were not using some parts of the rules that regularly come up in play (like weapons vs armor in 1e), I'd let players know.

For uncommon things that might come up once in 10 or 20 sessions, I probably would not even think to tell them in advance nor would any players who would enjoy playing in my games want to deal with that level of rules minutia. Rules lawyers or players who expect the play RAW are simply never going to be happy at my table so I see no reason to burden myself or other players with trying to please them.

QuoteIf you make a house-rule that modifies something in the PH (something that wouldn't otherwise be a hidden DM roll), wouldn't you also make an effort to communicate that to the players, and support that as a "patch" to the rules?

Major new or changed rules are written down and are available in a notebook at the table that players are free to look at (or even make copies of if they want to pay for photocopies). However, these rules are just like the rules in the "official" rulebooks: guidelines for the GM that are subject to being trumped by game world reality, etc.

In my games, its more "Motherfucker, may I?" :)

I tell all my new players to "try anything that makes sense for your character" and I will deal with the mechanics if they are not immediately obvious. I don't get the "mother may I", instead I get "I try to trip him with my spear and pin him, what do I roll?"

In my OD&D game, you make an attack roll, if successful your foe is tripped and you have set vs. charge if your opponent and auto-initiative if they try to attack or get up. There may be some modifiers to your attack roll based on size, your foe's DEX, etc.

And what if you got pinned by the spear? You may have an idea about distracting the foe, grabbing the spear and quickly rolling away. Sounds cool, make a Saving Throw and there will be modifiers based on relative STR scores, how you are doing the distraction, etc.

Quote from: Piestrio;650069Which rules to use and how to use them is my call, not the players. Similarly what the character is actually doing in the fiction is the players call, not the rulebooks's.

Yes.

I want immersion in our story, not noses in rulebooks.

Quote from: Lynn;650078When you create a house rule, do you explicitly tell players there's a house rule?

Depends.

If I houserule stuff that affects the only NPC side of the system, affect how monsters may work, I don't tell the players. But when I am running 4e, I use +1W for damage against bloodied targets and bloodied foes make a Save or Flee, so I let the players know that up front. AKA, you will be taking more damage once you are hurt, but your foes may decide to live another day if you are winning.

Quote from: The Traveller;650080Not trying to start a ragefight here at all, but I wonder is the popularity of the OSR with this kind of GMing style due to the relative simplicity and familiarity of these systems to those GMs.

Ragefight!!!

I agree with you somewhat. Rules-light games mean that everyone can easily grasp the crunch without the nose-in-book syndrome and rule-checking that has killed every 3e campaign I have played.

For me, I won't tolerate rules bitching at my table when I GM. Fuck that shit. This is my fun time too. My "solution" is to give the players the benefit of the doubt and bend toward saying Yes more than No to their crazy ideas...and then sending more monsters.

Also, a lot of it is the freedom of getting off the grid. I use minis, but only for relative positioning and visualization.

Quote from: Phillip;650096If I can't play my role using plain English, without reference to your abstraction, then in my view it's simply too abstract!

Players in my games are expected to describe what their characters are doing in plain English -- with as little "rulespeak" as possible. It makes for much more immersive play and puts rules experts and very casual players on the same footing. Of course, to me, a good set of RPG rules is one that facilitates this by getting out of the way and fading into the background. If the game requires a lot of thinking and speaking in terms of the rules, then chances are good I will not be playing that game.

Quote from: RandallS;650105First, all new players are told that my games do not have "rules" (no matter what the official books might say, the "rules" are simply "guidelines for the GM." This tends to make players who are rules lawyers or who except to play RAW to decide to find another campaign to play in. This is an excellent thing, IMHO, as I have personally have desire for rules lawyers or for players who only weant to play using the RAW in my campaigns.

I am of a like mind.

In the early days, they were explicitly not "rules" but suggestions. That's not merely to the extent of, "If you want to make up your own methods, then you need to publish a definitive codex for players to peruse."

It's to the extent of not considering such an artifact obligatory at all, even for the GM's private reference. Formal collections of algorithms are either useful or not, but it is not necessary to follow them slavishly.

It's also perfectly fine to have such a text, if that's how people like to play.

As a commercial interest, it's certainly great if you can get thousands of people to consider it not only actually meaningful, but even quite important, whether the game at hand is fairly described as Mausoleums & Misanthropes Version 12.7.4, with specified sections of Supplements I and III, Annex 5, Modules A, B and F, ad nauseum.

It's not so great if people simply enjoy playing "Sally's campaign," discovering how the world works through exploration in play, blissfully uninterested in the details of the machinery behind the GM screen.

Quote from: Spinachcat;650110I don't get the "mother may I", instead I get "I try to trip him with my spear and pin him, what do I roll?"

Same here. The people in my group usually don't care about what number-crunching went into assigning a probability; they just want to toss the dice!

The thing with rules lawyers is that when they happen not to like a probability, they turn it into a pretty dreary argument. Someone who has more common sense reasons for suggesting other odds tends in my experience both to raise disputes less often and to do so more constructively.

"Rules are for the referee", much like "rulings not rules" a style of play. Its not everyone's style of play. Its a style of play that tends to appeal to older gamers, as well as those who have been gming for a long time. Its a style that pisses of a lot of people who don't understand it. Its a style that makes powergamers feel helpless and angry.

I have a hard time picturing a game of Champions or D&D 4E (a session involving combat, anyhow) without the players directly addressing the abstraction.

1. It would be a hell of a lot of work for the GM, expect perhaps with really good computer assistance.

2. That's a big part of "where the game is" in those cases, starting with the "character build" system.

3. Although many things in Champions could with some labor translate to/from plain description, a lot of strategy has to do with using more precise information than we get (at least consciously) in real life. With D&D 4E, I -- and I gather many other people -- find that the relationship between the domain of pure game and the domain of imagined reality is a lot harder to discern.

I'm in the "rules are a referee resource" camp. The players should be describing what their characters *do*, not what rules they're using. Anything that shifts the focus to the system instead of the fictional situation is BAD.

The players can ask "Can I do X?" That's not against the rules in OD&D. From the way some people talk, it seems to be against the rules in new school play. I'm referring to people who post angry screeds about players who won't learn the rules; there's usually one of those threads on some forum or other every six months.

Do I tell players what house rules I'm using? Only if it directly affects their choices. Usually, it's nothing more than assurances "you can try anything" or suggestions that I have custom character classes or something like that. Or when they say they're going to try something, I tell them what the risks are. "You're firing an arrow into melee? There's a chance you may hit your friend instead. Still want to do that?" I don't tell them the actual mechanics of anything, unless a player wants to learn that in their spare time, just out of curiosity, or if they want to adapt that rule into games they run.

If I had a house rule that was something like "in my game, clerics have to roll 2d6 every hour; on snake eyes, they explode into flames because of divine ire," I'd tell players about that before they chose a cleric. But then, why have a rule like that?

In contrast, if I change a rule about monsters, I won't tell them the mechanics, but if their characters would be aware of the change in monster behavior, like "trolls can smell Lawful characters from a hundred yards away," I'd tell them that.

Rules are not there to make the game fair. They are there to make fictional stuff happen.

Rules should be for the ref, at my table I prefer my players to know just what is needed to get by. This is why I run OD&D, because the rules are so scant that players really don't need to know anything. I have my players tell me what they are trying to do and I work the mechanics out on my end.

I have met with mixed levels of success with this approach. The last few games I ran were for my wife, brother, and a couple of close friends. Only one of them had any prior gaming experience, with no preexisting expectations it worked out fantastically. I walked them through character creation and that was it, after that they told me what they were trying to do and if needed I told them what to roll. The games flowed smoothly, the players consistently thought outside the box and great fun was had by all.

I however have ran a few games for friends that were gamers, mostly 4e and 3.X/Pathfinder players and it was difficult to get them on board. They wanted to know how everything worked and one player bitched constantly that he didn't like that OD&D didn't have a system for adjudicating every little situation. There was a lot of complaining that there was no way to customize their characters, I got a lot of "well I want to play X kind of fighter so how do I make him like a dual wielding death cultist that specializes in katanas?". Part of the problem I am sure was just the group but it is the sort of thinking that makes me prefer playing with non gamers to gamers.

Quote from: Arkansan;650244I however have ran a few games for friends that were gamers, mostly 4e and 3.X/Pathfinder players and it was difficult to get them on board. They wanted to know how everything worked and one player bitched constantly that he didn't like that OD&D didn't have a system for adjudicating every little situation. There was a lot of complaining that there was no way to customize their characters, I got a lot of "well I want to play X kind of fighter so how do I make him like a dual wielding death cultist that specializes in katanas?". Part of the problem I am sure was just the group but it is the sort of thinking that makes me prefer playing with non gamers to gamers.

Assuming the players know how their PCs work, I am not sure what else they need to know.  I guess they feel limited, when in actuality, they can TRY anything.  I dunno.  That feels a lot more free than a sundry list of what I can and can't do. (Style preference, I know, but I've played both ways--just feel like simpler is peferable).

I agree, I think the problem is more one of mindset, there is this mentality I have come across from time to time that if it isn't on the character sheet it simply can't be done. That is what I like about the non gamers I have played with, they don't have that mindset when I tell them they can try anything they take me at my word and run with it.

Do the players need to know the riles in the book? Not necessarily, and several games can be run that way. But do they need to be working under a shared set of rules and assumptions? Hell. Yes. And you can look to almost any failed Supers or Pulp campaign to see why.

Personally, I do not differentiate between 'hard' and 'soft' rules. They both modify behavior to the same degree, just one is less explicit about it.

Quote from: jhkim;650099If everyone is agreed on the match-up of rules and fiction as truly common sense, then it doesn't matter whether the referee is choosing the rules option or the player is.  However, sometimes common sense differs - particularly when using abstract rules like one-minute-long rounds and hit points.  The real question is what to do in the case where:

(a) if they knew the rules, the players really would want X;
(b) the referee decides based on their description that they are doing Y instead.

Communicating these expectations explicitly is exactly what the rules should be doing in the first place. The problem is that rules are still too complicated and they shift player priorities to playing in the mechanics as opposed to the fiction. And since I love fighting zombie horses, I'll add that it wasn't Storygames which caused this shift, but the evolution of D&D, and if people were happy with the state of 'old school', they wouldn't have changed.

Quote from: Spinachcat;650110I want immersion in our story, not noses in rulebooks.

Nothing breaks immersion faster than a disconnect of expectations.

Quote from: TristramEvans;650174"Rules are for the referee", much like "rulings not rules" a style of play. Its not everyone's style of play.

It's not a style of play, it's outright nonsense. Rulings require rules, and players need to be aware of a set of rules in order to form intent and take appropriate action. Perhaps these terms are deliberately hyperbolic to support a point, but they've become meaningless slogans and battlecries at this point.

For me, playing a role playing game has fuck all to do with contributing to some piece of fiction. Looking at it as a piece of fiction is the kryptonite of the actual point of playing a role playing game in the first place, from my standpoint, which is the immersion in the "now" of the game world, as though it were real in your mind's eye.

THIS is the rift guys like you Anon with their heads so far up their asses into hipster fiction-writing story-telling "RPG as a writing/movie-making medium" whatnot can't seem to understand, though it does indeed predate the Forge's story games, and has been going on for decades, point of fact (hi, Margaret Weis). It's just that the Forge and its friends (hi, Robin Laws) took it to the next step and actually designed game mechanics specifically built with the intent to build a piece of fiction, as opposed to playing a role playing game. Hence, actual story games.

Just my two cents.

I assume you grind the axe against Trail of Cthulhu in Robin's case. It is more into ensuring that the story is told than creating one, so if anything, it's more guilty of old WoD sins. I found the tools there interesting, though I've never bothered with some of the more railroad mechanics. Ultimately I've mostly resigned from using it because the Stability checks and the whole "say how many points you spend to add to roll" were a bit too byzantine for me.

I'd still say that ToC is a worth purchase, if only as an interesting guide to CoC. Not all things one may agree there, but there is advice there worth reading. I've adapted some of GUMSHOE's principles to the CoC games, without much of the odd baggage of it.

Other than that, the thread's another spin of the same wheel.

Quote from: TristramEvans;650174Its a style that makes powergamers feel helpless and angry.

Amen.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;650265Nothing breaks immersion faster than a disconnect of expectations.

I fully agree.

That's why even at convention games, I give a quick speech about how I am a freeform GM who is more interested in them doing cool stuff than worrying about the exact rules. My interest is in the wild tale of our adventure when the session is done.

This has gotten me lots of sighs of reliefs from gamers and over the years, a couple people have gotten up and left, which then led to more sighs of relief at the table.

You absolutely must have buy-in from the players with clear explanations to achieve immersion and that does include a general agreement on how the game rules work in regards to the players.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650268I assume you grind the axe against Trail of Cthulhu in Robin's case.

Actually not. Laws wrote other games besides GUMSHOE. ToC is just a blip on the radar in that regard.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650268It is more into ensuring that the story is told than creating one

RPGs aren't about "telling stories."

PS: You know what? This is stuff we've been talking about on this Site for years now. Regulars who still claim to not see what this is about will either never get it or never recognize they've already gotten it a long time ago. So it's basically a waste of time to start this back-and-forth all over again. It's best for me to just move on and do something more productive with my time.

In my games I always make all the rules available to the players, and I always answer honestly and openly about any question they may have. Also, I encourage them to read as much about the game and seting as they wish.

90% of them never bother doing shit.

Quote from: Imperator;650297In my games I always make all the rules available to the players, and I always answer honestly and openly about any question they may have. Also, I encourage them to read as much about the game and seting as they wish.

90% of them never bother doing shit.

I played for a while in a sci-fi hero-system game where the GM had written about a text book on history for his setting, and would regularly provide quizzes to the players with experience awards based on their performance.  Nothing drastic, but it served as a prod to get the players to read some of the stuff.  I used it to come into the game late and catch my character up with the rest of the players'.

Quote from: TristramEvans;650174Its a style that makes powergamers feel helpless and angry.

Yup. Let them play with other powergamers and enjoy thier dick measuring wankfests. I won't miss them.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;650265It's not a style of play, it's outright nonsense. Rulings require rules, and players need to be aware of a set of rules in order to form intent and take appropriate action. Perhaps these terms are deliberately hyperbolic to support a point, but they've become meaningless slogans and battlecries at this point.

Bullshit. If players "need to be aware of rules to form intent" then roleplaying games would never have gotten off the ground and become popular in the first place. I have introduced new players to the game with no more rules instruction other than telling them to just play thier character and do whatever they would like to do.

Forming intent comes naturally to people. Perhaps not always choosing the most rule optimal actions, but always doing that and only that is push button mechancs manipulation, not a roleplaying game. Computer and console games handle this better and reward this kind of play so there isn't any reason to reduce interaction with real people to that level of repetitious drudgery.

Quote from: Arkansan;650244Rules should be for the ref, at my table I prefer my players to know just what is needed to get by. This is why I run OD&D, because the rules are so scant that players really don't need to know anything. I have my players tell me what they are trying to do and I work the mechanics out on my end.

I have met with mixed levels of success with this approach. The last few games I ran were for my wife, brother, and a couple of close friends. Only one of them had any prior gaming experience, with no preexisting expectations it worked out fantastically. I walked them through character creation and that was it, after that they told me what they were trying to do and if needed I told them what to roll. The games flowed smoothly, the players consistently thought outside the box and great fun was had by all.

I however have ran a few games for friends that were gamers, mostly 4e and 3.X/Pathfinder players and it was difficult to get them on board. They wanted to know how everything worked and one player bitched constantly that he didn't like that OD&D didn't have a system for adjudicating every little situation. There was a lot of complaining that there was no way to customize their characters, I got a lot of "well I want to play X kind of fighter so how do I make him like a dual wielding death cultist that specializes in katanas?". Part of the problem I am sure was just the group but it is the sort of thinking that makes me prefer playing with non gamers to gamers.

Yes, this is exactly the axis of tools and purposes I was talking about earlier. Simpler game systems make the freeform GMing style a lot easier, which is why it can be baffling for people who've never run across it. It would be quite difficult for one GM to run an entire game in a more complex system - not impossible but not fun, probably even for the players.

It's not the only way to play though (and that doesn't mean powergamers are the alternative).

Quote from: Imperator;650297In my games I always make all the rules available to the players, and I always answer honestly and openly about any question they may have. Also, I encourage them to read as much about the game and seting as they wish.

90% of them never bother doing shit.

Agreed fully, this has been my experience.

Quote from: Benoist;650271RPGs aren't about "telling stories."

PS: You know what? This is stuff we've been talking about on this Site for years now. Regulars who still claim to not see what this is about will either never get it or never recognize they've already gotten it a long time ago. So it's basically a waste of time to start this back-and-forth all over again. It's best for me to just move on and do something more productive with my time.

I agree on both counts, so you're attacking the wrong tree. As I pointed out, if anything GUMSHOE was adhering to the other problem with design, one that WoD shared (except WoD, while made to supposedly "tell stories", didn't even do that properly, resulting in...something), rather than storygames.

No one in our group GM's all the time and we play lots of different games that many of us have run at one time or another so most of us are familiar with the rules for quite a few games.

Can't really see the point in players not knowing the rules, it generally makes games run much smoother in our group, though we tend to make rulings on the fly if it means the game isn't interrupted with someone flipping through a rulebook for 10 minutes.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650341I agree on both counts, so you're attacking the wrong tree. As I pointed out, if anything GUMSHOE was adhering to the other problem with design, one that WoD shared (except WoD, while made to supposedly "tell stories", didn't even do that properly, resulting in...something), rather than storygames.

I got nothing against you, personally.

Quote from: Imperator;650297In my games I always make all the rules available to the players, and I always answer honestly and openly about any question they may have. Also, I encourage them to read as much about the game and seting as they wish.

90% of them never bother doing shit.

My experience too, sort of.

Out of my 5 "always there" players, two like fiddling with the rules.

One is a fucking genius. The other... not so much.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;650332Yup. Let them play with other powergamers and enjoy thier dick measuring wankfests. I won't miss them.

In practice, over the years I've found that powergamers come in two large distinct stripes.  (Maybe even more stripes).

One is the powergamer who insist everything is done by the book as holy writ, with very little to no DM discretion when it comes to rules procedural execution.  Essentially they were looking for a DM that wasn't much more than a "computer".  As far as I could tell, 4E D&D was their "heaven" on earth.

The other type of powergamer were the ones who constantly argue with the DM, in attempts to get the DM to interpret the rules in their favor.  These were the individuals who were looking for the equivalent of a "god mode cheat".  Their game of choice was typically 3E/3.5E/Pathfinder.


For previous TSR editions of D&D/AD&D, I'm not familiar with the 2E AD&D powergamers.  For 1E, the powergamers I knew of typically attempted to manipulate the chargen process by insisting on their own homebrew point-buy system for stat generation.  In a few weird cases, I did come across a few individuals who would even cheat in the stat generation stage, like using illegal dice which would roll all 6's, 5's and 6's, etc ...  (Hard to believe somebody would go to such extremes, and thinking they were going to get away with it).

Quote from: Imperator;650297In my games I always make all the rules available to the players, and I always answer honestly and openly about any question they may have. Also, I encourage them to read as much about the game and seting as they wish.

90% of them never bother doing shit.

This nails it!

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;650265It's not a style of play, it's outright nonsense. Rulings require rules, and players need to be aware of a set of rules in order to form intent and take appropriate action. Perhaps these terms are deliberately hyperbolic to support a point, but they've become meaningless slogans and battlecries at this point.

This is demonstratively false by looking at one of the best and most popular RPGs: D&D Basic set.  It doesn't have nearly the rules of AD&D, relies a lot on rulings, and yet is an excellent game.

Quote from: Benoist;650271RPGs aren't about "telling stories."
.

Indeed.  RPGs are about creating stories, not regurgitating existing ones.

Quote from: Lynn;650052http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/matthew-finch/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/ebook/product-3159558.html

Controversy of the day...

My group has been discussing this free booklet, and especially this quote.

My feeling is that this interpretive. Finch, you are no Jack Kennedy.

The rules exist to provide a framework for the GM and players, and if the GM wants to change something, he's free to patch the system. But if he patched the system, he'd tell you about it.

Otherwise you fall into a mother-may-I system that is more modern that clone.

I am not disagreeing with all of his points, but this one particularly stood out. What do you all think?

I think it depends on the specific group style and the specific game premise.

There are groups where the players like to know the rules as much as the GM, and actually understand or use it consciously every time its needed. While there are players who prefer that only the GM takes care of it.

On the other hand, I feel the more gamist games tend to incentive the players to learn and even "master" the rules and its intrincacies.

All approaches are valid (of course), but I prefer the one where the players also know and actively use/are conscious of exactly what to expect, every time the rules are used.

EDIT:

I see Anon already described the way my group prefer..

Quote from: Anon Adderlanplayers need to be aware of a set of rules in order to form intent and take appropriate action.

Yup, this.

Thinking again,

If there was a game system where the rules translated real life actions and results with more fidelity, it wouldnt be necessary for the players to learn the rules.

Unfortunately, I dont think such a game exists. First because even the more "realistic" games right now (Gurps, Runequest, etc) have idiossincrasies that do not translate exactly to real life (or are at least questionable) , and second because even in real life we have a lot of different assumptions regarding the same matters, making it difficult for a single system to reflect.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650370Indeed.  RPGs are about creating stories, not regurgitating existing ones.

I can understand that standpoint much better already (with story games basically providing rules tools to create that story).

I'm not setting up to create a story when I play a role playing game, personally. I play the game as though I was there. It's not a story, it's the reality of the game as I play it, whether I role play my character (as a player) or the environment (as a GM). The fact that the game results in a story that could be told to other people after the fact, after the game is all set and done, is not my primary, nor my secondary really, goal in playing an RPG.

Quote from: silva;650373If there was a game system where the rules translated real life actions and results with more fidelity, it wouldnt be necessary for the players to learn the rules.

What? That's like LARPing without the RPing. It doesn't make any sense, it's like saying 'if cars were as good as walking nobody would learn to drive', gibberish.

Personally, I think players should be familiar with the rules.  Since interpreting complex actions into simple die rolls can create massive chances for failure above and beyond what is true in real life, a player should have an understanding of what the rules will do before attempting it.

For example - in 3.x there are rules for jumping and there are mechanics for increased speed.  

So, if you had a bicycle in a standard d20 fantasy game, you'd have basic resolution to determine how far you could jump with a successful jump check.  

But there's no rules that indicate what effect a ramp will have on leaping with a bicycle.  

Now, some people might have a sense of how far they can jump a bike with plenty of time to get up to speed and a ramp.  Let's just call it 30 feet in reality.  

Will the rules provide the same odds of success as reality?  Without a clear guideline the DM will need to make a determination.  Based on the rules and guidelines, the DM is most likely to overpenalize the character attempting the jump.  

Announcing an action when you think you have a 90% chance of success and then finding out that you have a 35% chance of success makes a big difference.  Ultimately, it discourages players from trying 'interesting things' because they don't know what the possible consequnces might be.  The more arbitrary they appear, the more conservative players tend to be (characters represent a significant investment of time and emotion).  

So, for really exciting games, the more transparent the physics resolution is, the better.  That means everyone knowing what rules will govern their action before they attempt it.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650383Announcing an action when you think you have a 90% chance of success and then finding out that you have a 35% chance of success makes a big difference.  Ultimately, it discourages players from trying 'interesting things' because they don't know what the possible consequnces might be.  The more arbitrary they appear, the more conservative players tend to be (characters represent a significant investment of time and emotion).  

I'll give a player an estimate of his chances of success if he asks. "That would be a Dex check with a -2 penalty." Or "It's pretty far - you can make it over the pit on a 1-2 on a d6."

Quote from: Haffrung;650384I'll give a player an estimate of his chances of success if he asks. "That would be a Dex check with a -2 penalty." Or "It's pretty far - you can make it over the pit on a 1-2 on a d6."

I would express it from the point of view of the character (as written in a previous example on this thread "you'd say that, with your good legs and a good run before the jump, you could make it one time out of 3, maybe") but yeah, if the player asks for relative chances of succes, I'll answer the question to the best of his character's knowledge.

Quote from: Benoist;650386I would express it from the point of view of the character (as written in a previous example on this thread "you'd say that, with your good legs and a good run before the jump, you could make it one time out of 3, maybe") but yeah, if the player asks for relative chances of succes, I'll answer the question to the best of his character's knowledge.

Pretty much. It's funny how many arguments against "old school" Dming, presumes an almost total lack of fucking communication between the DM and the players. If I were too scared, misanthropic, or too inarticulate to openly communicate with the folks sitting at my table, I wouldn't be DMing.

Quote from: The Traveller;650375What? That's like LARPing without the RPing. It doesn't make any sense, it's like saying 'if cars were as good as walking nobody would learn to drive', gibberish.

Trav, I think you misunderstood my post. Here, this is what I tried to say..

Quote..players should be familiar with the rules. Since interpreting complex actions into simple die rolls can create massive chances for failure above and beyond what is true in real life, a player should have an understanding of what the rules will do before attempting it.

In other words, until a game comes out where the rules reflect with high fidelity real life behaviour ( = never) players should know the rules, even if its only for expectation managing.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650383Announcing an action when you think you have a 90% chance of success and then finding out that you have a 35% chance of success makes a big difference.  Ultimately, it discourages players from trying 'interesting things' because they don't know what the possible consequnces might be.  The more arbitrary they appear, the more conservative players tend to be (characters represent a significant investment of time and emotion).  

So, for really exciting games, the more transparent the physics resolution is, the better.  That means everyone knowing what rules will govern their action before they attempt it.

As a side effect, the only things that get attempted are a safe set of stock moves that are on the character sheet leading to a button mashing playstyle.

It is important that a player be aware of general odds for success/failure before attempting something risky but a codified list of moves and rigid resolution mechanics aren't needed to provide this.

Quote from: silva;650391In other words, until a game comes out where the rules reflect with high fidelity real life behaviour ( = never) players should know the rules, even if its only for expectation managing.

Oh I see, I don't really agree it follows though unless you qualify it with 'simple enough rules for a GM to operate single handedly'. So yeah not very likely, although in that style of GMing the GM makes up for deficiencies in rulesets by their own knowledge and experience. And that can work, very well, but there are tradeoffs as with everything. A good ruleset is enabling rather than constricting, opening up new possibilities, but that doesn't neccessarily mean fewer or simpler rules.

A very competent GM will be able to run their game ad hoc with only a basic framework, but not many people are that good, plus there are other factors to consider, many of which others have already covered in the thread. So more complex rulesets are neccessary, and let a thousand flowers bloom.

I enjoy both rules-heavy and rules-light games at different times, though I'm tending towards more rules-lite these days for social reasons.  I don't think there's any need for one of them to be the one true way - both approaches can be fun.  

Quote from: Exploderwizard;650392As a side effect, the only things that get attempted are a safe set of stock moves that are on the character sheet leading to a button mashing playstyle.

It is important that a player be aware of general odds for success/failure before attempting something risky but a codified list of moves and rigid resolution mechanics aren't needed to provide this.

I think this depends a lot on the GM and the details of the system.  In my Hero System games, we would constantly be trying things outside of the stock moves - and the range of the stock moves gave a good idea about how to handle other variations.  

My limited experience of D&D4 was that combat was limited to stock moves.  Then again, I've also been in many pre-3E D&D games where combat was also limited to stock moves.  Every combat round was just choosing which monster to target or which spell to cast.

Quote from: Benoist;650064Either you trust me to do a fair, consistent job as a DM, and know what it is I am doing without switching the tables around or engaging in illusionism or whatever else, or you don't. If you don't, there's really no point in playing together, and I'm cool with that.

Excellent.

Quote from: Benoist;650266For me, playing a role playing game has fuck all to do with contributing to some piece of fiction. Looking at it as a piece of fiction is the kryptonite of the actual point of playing a role playing game in the first place, from my standpoint, which is the immersion in the "now" of the game world, as though it were real in your mind's eye.

For the record, although I also referred to fiction/fictional situations in my post, I do not mean it in the stricter sense of "some kind of story". I mean it in the broad, original sense of "made-up details". In this case, an imaginary world with imaginary people in it, and we are making decisions about what those imaginary people do in response to things we imagine are happening in the imaginary world.

It's fiction, as in "not real". Perhaps some people get confused between a fictional setting and fiction-as-genre... or they get excited by the idea of playing with genre directly instead of just playing in a fictional world. Either way, that's how storygames started, but that's not what *I'm* talking about.

It's relevant, though, to the topic, because I phrase the conflict between rules for GMs only and rules for players, or the "rulings not rules" debate, in terms of focus on a system of rules vs. focus on fictional situations. When you start getting bogged down in numbers and trying to crank out the best bonuses, you're focusing on system. When you just describe what your character does, and the GM tells you what happens as a result, you're focusing on the fictional situation.

I'd say something here about storygames actually being closer to the first than to the second, but that's getting off topic.

Quote from: Benoist;650266For me, playing a role playing game has fuck all to do with contributing to some piece of fiction.

I believe that completely. I on the other hand am all about creating a work of fiction.

Interesting then that I would be the one to obey the rules and you'd be the one to break them at whim. One would think the reverse would apply, if one didn't look too deep that is.

Quote from: jhkim;650398Then again, I've also been in many pre-3E D&D games where combat was also limited to stock moves.  Every combat round was just choosing which monster to target or which spell to cast.

"I hit with my axe."

The slogan from the OP seems completely obtuse as do some of the responses, such as implying that Dave Arneson didn't know the rules to D&D when he was playing.  

The absurdity is assuming you've got a lot of people still playing AD&D or OD&D that have absolutely no idea what any of the rules are (including potentially the people that co-designed the game).

If you want to get a scenario at your table where rules are only for the 'referee' you definitely don't want to play a published game that has been out for decades among people that have probably been playing that same game for decades, since at this point it's basically impossible.

If it really worked this way you'd see an abundance of say Fighters with their best stat in intelligence who can out-think their opponents that are stronger, tougher and faster than them.  Except in D&D those number actually matter, and Dunning Kruger, the super genius warrior is probably not long for this world.  The players know it and are going to wind up only playing Dunning Kruger when forced to roll down the line after picking their class and get dealt that character.

Players clearly have expectations about the rules based on having read the rules, and if the rules were only for the DM then they really shouldn't have those expectations and Dunning Kruger would probably be a common character type rather than a practically unheard of one.  Just based on a description and not knowing the rules there isn't any reason to not expect the Thief to be able to scrap almost as well as the Fighter, but in reality they aren't that good at it, people at least have a general idea of their hit matrix/thac0 because the game has been out forever, veteran players give the realtalk rundown of what to be able to expect based on those mechanics to the newbs, and people are playing a game by the rules.

The claim just seems hyperbolic and disingenuous.  There is a huge leap from "The DM is the final adjudicator of rules during play" and "The rules of the game that everyone is playing are only for the DM".

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;650489"I hit with my axe."

The slogan from the OP seems completely obtuse as do some of the responses, such as implying that Dave Arneson didn't know the rules to D&D when he was playing.  

The absurdity is assuming you've got a lot of people still playing AD&D or OD&D that have absolutely no idea what any of the rules are (including potentially the people that co-designed the game).

If you want to get a scenario at your table where rules are only for the 'referee' you definitely don't want to play a published game that has been out for decades among people that have probably been playing that same game for decades, since at this point it's basically impossible.

If it really worked this way you'd see an abundance of say Fighters with their best stat in intelligence who can out-think their opponents that are stronger, tougher and faster than them.  Except in D&D those number actually matter, and Dunning Kruger, the super genius warrior is probably not long for this world.

Except: in the original game, those numbers don't actually matter, and you can play your super-genius warrior as much as you want, as long as you, the player, can out-out think your opponent. Because the referee is not going to hand out wins to you based on your Int score, or your Strength score, either.

I suppose you might not have read the original rules and did not know that. And did not know that people, including me, played that way back in the '70s, and people, including me, play that way now. But then, the Old School Primer is specifically addressing the question of how the game was played in the old school days, and how old school people are playing the game when they go back to those rules. So, you shouldn't be surprised when the Primer describes something that doesn't match your experience from later editions.

There's a definite difference in the way the original game was played, and how it changed, first when Greyhawk was added, then when Holmes Basic was written, and again when the AD&D books came out, and so on down the line. The core old school principles don't have to be strictly adhered to, and the way they were used by individual groups varied, often diminishing over time. The AD&D player's manual clearly includes rules that players were supposed to know, and there's much more of them than in the earlier books. And yet, the combat matrices are in the DMG, and there's a warning in that book saying it's DM information only.

Do gamers today know those "forbidden" rules? Sure. No one's saying they aren't. What they're saying is that, if the referee changes or adds or removes a rule, that's the referee's business; there's no *necessity* that the player must learn those rules, if you are playing in an old school fashion.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;650489The claim just seems hyperbolic and disingenuous.  There is a huge leap from "The DM is the final adjudicator of rules during play" and "The rules of the game that everyone is playing are only for the DM".

It's not disingenuous, and it's only hyperbolic when interpreted in an extreme way. The rules are, indeed, only necessary for the DM, but that doesn't mean that a player can't look at the combat matrix, or learn what the default odds of wandering monsters are. All people are saying is that there's no need to learn all that crap, and if the DM is going to change the rules (as they are ADVISED to do,) it would be kind of pointless to learn them all, anyways.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;650265It's not a style of play, it's outright nonsense. Rulings require rules, and players need to be aware of a set of rules in order to form intent and take appropriate action. Perhaps these terms are deliberately hyperbolic to support a point, but they've become meaningless slogans and battlecries at this point.

Nope, its just a concept you don't get. Players need not be aware of the rules of a specific RPG systems, as long as they can make decisions from the PoV of a character. For example, in real life I don't need to know the rules of physics to make the decision to climb a tree, punch a guy, or to know that if I try to jump off a 5 story building and fly, it won't work. If the game system doesn't support this, its a weakness of the game system.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;650332If players "need to be aware of rules to form intent" then roleplaying games would never have gotten off the ground and become popular in the first place.

You seem to have left off the part about 'taking appropriate action' :)

And not only is this necessary to play an RPG, it's necessary to function as a normal human being in what we call reality. Adults in general have a pretty clear idea of what the consequences of their actions are, and they tend to stick to the actions with consequences they feel most certain of. That last bit is VERY important, and it causes new players and even some experienced ones to avoid taking action in games.

Quote from: TristramEvans;650528Players need not be aware of the rules of a specific RPG systems, as long as they can make decisions from the PoV of a character.

And I'm saying they cannot make decisions from the PoV of a character without being aware of the rules to the specific RPG system.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;650547And I'm saying they cannot make decisions from the PoV of a character without being aware of the rules to the specific RPG system.

Nonsense. They can, as long as they can relate to the game world as though it were real, with relevant information, gaps in the shared world, and questions being discussed between players and GM as the game unfolds. That's what a role playing game *is*.

Quote from: Benoist;650548Nonsense. They can, as long as they can relate to the game world as though it were real, with relevant information, gaps in the shared world, and questions being discussed between players and GM as the game unfolds. That's what a role playing game *is*.

This discussion has apparently never happened:

Player - "I jump the pit, what do I roll?"
DM - "a d20, and add your dex mod"

it CANNOT happen, as the player didn't know the specific rule for jumping he is incapable of making the decision to jump the pit.

Quote from: Piestrio;650549This discussion has apparently never happened:

Player - "I jump the pit, what do I roll?"
DM - "a d20, and add your dex mod"

it CANNOT happen, as the player didn't know the specific rule for jumping he is incapable of making the decision to jump the pit.

Yes, or...

Player: "If I jumped, would I make it?"
DM: "Hard to tell. Hm... with your armor and backpack on, probably not. Though without anything impairing your movement, running towards the chasm and jumping over it, you could maybe make it... one out of three times. Perhaps. It's quite far. You aren't quite sure."
Player: "Hm." *discusses the issue with the other players*
Player: "OK. I try. I lose my Chainmail and backpack - I DO NOT give them to the hobbit - I step a few paces back into the corridor, run... and jump. What do I roll?"
DM: Roll a d6.
Player: *rolls* *excited* 6! Do I make it... or *frowns, suddenly thinking about the other alternative*... totally not?
...

That can't happen. Didn't ever. Right? Right. Probably not. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Benoist;650550That can't happen. Didn't ever. Right? Right. Probably not. :rolleyes:

It happened, but the poor, hapless player in question didn't realize he/she was being abused and deprotagonized, and is probably brainwashed as a result.

Seriously though, if the player is playing a new system that is much more complicated, it's easy for the player to think they have a better chance at something then they actually do in the system.  That's why the GM is there, to tell the player the expression of the rules.  Is this going to be hard, easy, near impossible?

You could write a game that takes all that into account, so if all knew the rules, everyone knows what the chances are, but as long as the GM is forthcoming with the expression of the rules into the roleplay, players can still make informed choices.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;650547And I'm saying they cannot make decisions from the PoV of a character without being aware of the rules to the specific RPG system.

as others have made abundantly clear, this is just a silly claim. People can make decisions from a character's PoV without knowing the rules. And frequently *have*. And aren't bothered by it in the slightest.

Let's take a non-newb example: me. I know a couple systems thoroughly. I barely know anything at all about the Organic Rules Component System (ORCS) that's at the core of several games written by my friend: Fates Worse Than Death, Tibet, In Dark Alleys. I've played in each of those games, didn't know the rules, and yet, somehow, I was able to make decisions from a character's point of view. Which, according to you, is impossible. Am I to believe you, or my eyes and ears?

Just because it bothers you, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Quote from: Benoist;650550Yes, or...

Player: "If I jumped, would I make it?"
DM: "Hard to tell. Hm... with your armor and backpack on, probably not. Though without anything impairing your movement, running towards the chasm and jumping over it, you could maybe make it... one out of three times. Perhaps. It's quite far. You aren't quite sure."
Player: "Hm." *discusses the issue with the other players*
Player: "OK. I try. I lose my Chainmail and backpack - I DO NOT give them to the hobbit - I step a few paces back into the corridor, run... and jump. What do I roll?"
DM: Roll a d6.
Player: *rolls* *excited* 6! Do I make it... or *frowns, suddenly thinking about the other alternative*... totally not?
...

That can't happen. Didn't ever. Right? Right. Probably not. :rolleyes:

Why wouldn't they be able to judge all of this based on the length of the jump (which in this example we still don't know, so at least based on that I'd know the odds of success for the same length jump under the same conditions in the future)?

This is already the default of the d20 system anyway.  The only difference is I'd know if a high roll is a good or bad result immediately, because high is always good.

This is all going against one of the points in the primer though since you are using a character ability in rolling a die to determine the result of the jump rather than having the player's skill at jumping be the determinant factor on rather or not they can make jumps or not.

Quote from: Benoist;650548Nonsense. They can, as long as they can relate to the game world as though it were real, with relevant information, gaps in the shared world, and questions being discussed between players and GM as the game unfolds. That's what a role playing game *is*.

They can, but it also can lead to some idiotic situations.

For example, let's imagine I want to throw a punch at a guy. IRL, if I am not trained I won't probably be able to KO the guy on a single blow, but I think I can at least hit him, even if only weakly. In CoC every PC has a 50% of landing a punch (then your foe may be able to dodge or parry but that's another matter).

OTOH, if you play Kult 1e and you don't know very well how the rules work and you try to do the same, you have a measly 3 as basic score on punching. 3 on a 1-20 scale. Or to say the same, a 15% So you decide to flaill around uselessly acting under the idea that your PC is more competent than he actually is, because you do not understand the rules that govern that setting.

So, inmersing in a setting may require for you to know how rules work. Fighting a gang of 6 foes in RQ is almost always a suicide, but is no big deal in 7th Sea. Some time ago we were playing RQ Vikings and my wife's PC got severely injured because she jumped from the mast of her drakkar into the fray, trying to land over a couple of foes. And she decided that because she had been playing lots of 7th Sea and she forgot that RQ rules are different, so she failed her Jump roll and got severely injured.

Rules define the physics of the setting and your PC is familiar with that. If I am an 8th level warrior in D&D I won't stop if a guy threatens me with a sad crossbow, even if I am unarmored, because I know for a fact that a single shot won't kill me ever. I will rush the guy and laugh the bolt off. I wouldn't do the same in RQ.

Quote from: Imperator;650575Rules define the physics of the setting and your PC is familiar with that. If I am an 8th level warrior in D&D I won't stop if a guy threatens me with a sad crossbow, even if I am unarmored, because I know for a fact that a single shot won't kill me ever. I will rush the guy and laugh the bolt off. I wouldn't do the same in RQ.

That's the point I think. While I have run games sans system references, my experience is that many players do like to have a copy of the rules and understand the physics. Rules are a resource for referees, but also a reference for player understanding - not necessarily for trying to game the system or argue with the GM.

Quote from: Lynn;650579That's the point I think. While I have run games sans system references, my experience is that many players do like to have a copy of the rules and understand the physics. Rules are a resource for referees, but also a reference for player understanding - not necessarily for trying to game the system or argue with the GM.

Most of my players won't ever bother with reading a rulebook, but all of them want to have at least a basic understanding of the system in terms of grittiness, how skilled PCs are, and that kind of things.

Quote from: Imperator;650575Rules define the physics of the setting and your PC is familiar with that. If I am an 8th level warrior in D&D I won't stop if a guy threatens me with a sad crossbow, even if I am unarmored, because I know for a fact that a single shot won't kill me ever. I will rush the guy and laugh the bolt off. I wouldn't do the same in RQ.

Quote from: Imperator;650580Most of my players won't ever bother with reading a rulebook, but all of them want to have at least a basic understanding of the system in terms of grittiness, how skilled PCs are, and that kind of things.

100% agreed. A minimal understanding of how things work is important to most players (I once had a guy try to sink a war galley with a magic missile spell. No Colm, it's not that kind of missile). Again though the complexity of the rulesets are a factor.

Let's say there are thirty combat skills in a game beyond use weapon, one player has leg sweep, salmon leap, vital strike, tai chi, chink, backstab and suckerpunch. Each of the other players has their own set of skills. All of the monsters also have combat skills, and each skill has different effects depending on how you roll.

It's much easier for the GM to let the players look after their corners so the GM can get on with running the game world using a system as sophisticated as that, as opposed to 'one attack roll'. It doesn't affect immersion in my experience.

Quote from: Piestrio;650549it CANNOT happen, as the player didn't know the specific rule for jumping he is incapable of making the decision to jump the pit.

Oh please, as the player is playing a character in a setting with some semblance to real world physics knows that his character can make a jump. That there is a random element that may cause him to slip and fall. That people who have higher dexterity are less prone to misfortune when jumping. That longer distances means a greater chance of failure. And so on.

See the bottle of common sense sitting to right. Sprinkle some of it on.

Quote from: Imperator;650575So, inmersing in a setting may require for you to know how rules work. Fighting a gang of 6 foes in RQ is almost always a suicide, but is no big deal in 7th Sea.

.....

Rules define the physics of the setting and your PC is familiar with that. If I am an 8th level warrior in D&D I won't stop if a guy threatens me with a sad crossbow, even if I am unarmored, because I know for a fact that a single shot won't kill me ever. I will rush the guy and laugh the bolt off. I wouldn't do the same in RQ.

Yes this is a common situation but one not relevant to the overall discussion. It happens every time a group or player transition from one system to a another somewhat similar situation. Represents the same sort of problem when a person trained to deal with X environment now is dealing with Y environment.

The fix is to run sample combat and/or sample encounter so that everybody becomes familiar with the feel and some of the details of the new system.

It also illustrate that for novices the more your game is an emulation of reality the easier it is for them to follow as the assumptions built up by their real life experiences remain valid.

Quote from: Imperator;650575OTOH, if you play Kult 1e and you don't know very well how the rules work and you try to do the same, you have a measly 3 as basic score on punching. 3 on a 1-20 scale. Or to say the same, a 15% So you decide to flaill around uselessly acting under the idea that your PC is more competent than he actually is, because you do not understand the rules that govern that setting.

If I were running this game, I'd just mod the stupid rule on the spot. 15% to hit with your fist? Nope, way too low. Unless the roll is actually "to cause noticeable damage", in which case I'd just narrate things differently, a roll of 1-3 would be an effective hit but a roll up to 10 or 11 would hit but not do anything damage or mechanical effects wise.

Quote from: Imperator;650575Rules define the physics of the setting and your PC is familiar with that. If I am an 8th level warrior in D&D I won't stop if a guy threatens me with a sad crossbow, even if I am unarmored, because I know for a fact that a single shot won't kill me ever. I will rush the guy and laugh the bolt off. I wouldn't do the same in RQ.

Player: "I charge at the guards menacing the helpless old lady!"

GM: "One sec, Nate, remember when I was talking about this game when we made characters?  Even though that was something your fighter in D&D could do without breaking a sweat, in this game it's a bit harder to take on six armored guards at once with a rapier.  You still want to do it?"

Player: "Hmm, thanks.  I draw my sword, but hang back."

Of course, most of my players usually reply with something like "I KNOW" and charge in anyway, just to see for themselves how the system works out.

Quote from: Imperator;650575They can, but it also can lead to some idiotic situations.

Yes it can, but not usually, in my experience. A player tells you he wants to do this or that, you relay information about the potential action, such as "With your armor and backpack on, probably not. Though without anything impairing your movement, running towards the chasm and jumping over it, you could maybe make it... one out of three times."

If indeed there's a doubt the player would do this or that, then you provide the information up front. "OK I jump." "Hold on. The chasm is 20 feet wide. With your equipment and armor on you might not make it to the other side. It's actually more probable that you're going to trip in some fashion or other. If you lose the armor and equipment, the probabilities would be reversed".

Or "I throw a punch at the guy." "The dude's scrawny and everything, but he looks like he could be quick to dodge." "I don't care. He pissed me off".

And so on. You're not sure how that works or there's some piece of information you find missing in the GM's description? Some hypothetical you'd like to be able to judge as your character would in the game world? Ask.

It's about communication between GM and players.

Anybody calling this "mother-may-I" is a moron who drank way too much kool-aid online during the past few years. It's like saying that reality is a bitch because you need legs to run, eyes to see and hands to grab stuff. This is basically what the neutral referee embodies and responds as, in this conversation, in the context of the game world - your senses, and your character's perception of said game world. The imaginations of the participants involved in the shared world do the rest.

Likewise, when in doubt, the GM asks questions to the players: "How are you holding the rope?" "How far away are you standing back?" and so on. Communication is NOT a one-way street in a role playing game.

The players will catch up in no time. It's part of the tuning process which allows players and GM to play the same game and share the same world of their imaginations together.

Hence my initial answer:

Quote from: Benoist;650548Nonsense. They can, as long as they can relate to the game world as though it were real, with relevant information, gaps in the shared world, and questions being discussed between players and GM as the game unfolds. That's what a role playing game *is*.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;650569Why wouldn't they be able to judge all of this based on the length of the jump (which in this example we still don't know, so at least based on that I'd know the odds of success for the same length jump under the same conditions in the future)?

You might, or might not, depending on circumstances and the GM's interpretation, since for instance the whole question of whether you can jump with armor and equipment carried etc might be interpreted in different ways. This is why you have a GM in the first place. In doubt, the best thing to do is just to ask. The GM gives you his interpretation, and you can make a reasonable choice based on this.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;650569This is all going against one of the points in the primer though since you are using a character ability in rolling a die to determine the result of the jump rather than having the player's skill at jumping be the determinant factor on rather or not they can make jumps or not.

OK. Two things.

(1) I don't give a shit about what the Primer says or doesn't say. You're talking to me right now. Not to the Primer.

(2) That said, the Quick Primer is NOT a "manual", a "rules book" nor a "manifesto" of gaming. It's NOT trying to tell you "you MUST do this ALL THE TIME or you are NOT OLD SCHOOL." It is just contrasting two stereotyped play styles to allow people who've never played in a more interpretive fashion to get the gist of it in a general sense, not in a "this must be the LAW" sense. It's not an end. It's a start. It's even in the title: Quick. Primer.

Quote from: Benoist;650635(2) That said, the Quick Primer is NOT a "manual", a "rules book" nor a "manifesto" of gaming. It's NOT trying to tell you "you MUST do this ALL THE TIME or you are NOT OLD SCHOOL." It is just contrasting two stereotyped play styles to allow people who've never played in a more interpretive fashion to get the gist of it in a general sense, not in a "this must be the LAW" sense. It's not an end. It's a start. It's even in the title: Quick. Primer.

The rules-first oriented crowd often has a hard time with anything that doesn't deal in absolutes.

If something is written about old school play anywhere, then the RAW crowd will treat it as THE LAW. It is sad that the subtleties of communications between human beings has eroded so badly. Perhaps too much interfacing with binary devices is the cause.

Quote from: Imperator;650580Most of my players won't ever bother with reading a rulebook, but all of them want to have at least a basic understanding of the system in terms of grittiness, how skilled PCs are, and that kind of things.

Generally even the most rule adverse player will pick up the major concepts during play. Not reading the rulebook doesn't mean that someone lacks basic knowledge.

To be honest, I find most people's opinions here that say knowledge of the rules are unnecessary to be completely without value. The very type of game they play (OSR mostly, and a few other lite systems) does indeed make knowledge of the rules pointless. I'd claim that even the GM doesn't need to know those rules- after all much of the time by their own statements they aren't following them.

Thus their experience is self defining, and what they are saying is meaningless to a group that actually follows a set of rules that matter. It's like blind people talking to me about color, they can be ignored.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;650636The rules-first oriented crowd often has a hard time with anything that doesn't deal in absolutes.

If something is written about old school play anywhere, then the RAW crowd will treat it as THE LAW. It is sad that the subtleties of communications between human beings has eroded so badly. Perhaps too much interfacing with binary devices is the cause.

I've just been told on another forum that I'm not playing D&D because I haven't always used gridded combat.

One thing that strikes me about old versus new play, is there were a lot more casual players back in the old days who didn't want to be bothered learning a bunch of rules and would just as soon see the DM carry that load. As the hobby shrunk, it catered more to hardcore players, where most people at the table are OCD rules as written zealots who love learning and mastering new mechanics. I think a lot of WotC D&D players don't understand the concept of playing D&D as a casual experience among a group of buddies who aren't necessarily hardcore gamers.

Quote from: Haffrung;650649I've just been told on another forum that I'm not playing D&D because I haven't always used gridded combat.

I agree with them.

Quote from: Haffrung;650649One thing that strikes me about old versus new play, is there were a lot more casual players back in the old days who didn't want to be bothered learning a bunch of rules and would just as soon see the DM carry that load.

My experience is the reverse. The old days consisted of wargamers who took the rules very seriously indeed, while what you are calling 'casual' players were completely unseen until the last decade or two.

Quote from: gleichman;650651I agree with them.

.

If you weren't playing with every rule published for AD&D in the books, then you weren't playing AD&D?


That's buckets of stupid.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650654If you weren't playing with every rule published for AD&D in the books, then you weren't playing AD&D?


That's buckets of stupid.

I see you two gentlemen are yet to make your acquaintances. Have a pleasant evening.

Quote from: gleichman;650651I agree with them.




My experience is the reverse. The old days consisted of wargamers who took the rules very seriously indeed, while what you are calling 'casual' players were completely unseen until the last decade or two.

It seems you missed the period between 1980 and 1986 when D&D's popularity grew tenfold, mainly by attracting hundreds of thousands of 10-15-year-olds. Not a lot of 11 year old wargamers in 1981.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;650569This is all going against one of the points in the primer though since you are using a character ability in rolling a die to determine the result of the jump rather than having the player's skill at jumping be the determinant factor on rather or not they can make jumps or not.

Not sure where you're getting that, especially if you actually meant "player's skill."  A player's physical abilities don't translate to their PC. Hence, using the dice to adjudicate, when there's a chance of failure. I have no doubt that Matt Finch never meant to suggest otherwise.

Quote from: Haffrung;650656It seems you missed the period between 1980 and 1986 when D&D's popularity grew tenfold, mainly by attracting hundreds of thousands of 10-15-year-olds. Not a lot of 11 year old wargamers in 1981.

Not to mention, wargames were not played in the monolithic fashion Brian Gleichman seems to imply. There were different types of wargames, and amongst them, in miniatures wargaming, specifically, formal rules sets (which were really more of a bunch of house rules from this or that referee typed and retyped and xeroxed over and over and tweaked at every table they touched than anything else) very much implied the ultimate role of the referee as such, that is, changing rules appropriately according to game circumstances, filling in the gaps where they needed to be filled, and so on. This is this specific tradition of refereeing which was passed on to Chainmail, and obviously from there, D&D.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650655I see you two gentlemen are yet to make your acquaintances. Have a pleasant evening.

Not to mention, he said "D&D", which covers all editions.  I anxiously await the rules in Moldvay's Basic set that infer a requirement of a grid to play.

Quote from: Haffrung;650656It seems you missed the period between 1980 and 1986 when D&D's popularity grew tenfold, mainly by attracting hundreds of thousands of 10-15-year-olds. Not a lot of 11 year old wargamers in 1981.

Ah yes, the children. I see they haven't grown up yet either.

Quote from: gleichman;650670Ah yes, the children. I see they haven't grown up yet either.

I see your Darth Protractor persona finally makes a return. Welcome home.

Quote from: Benoist;650661Not to mention, wargames were not played in the monolithic fashion Brian Gleichman seems to imply. There were different types of wargames, and amongst them, in miniatures wargaming, specifically, formal rules sets (which were really more of a bunch of house rules from this or that referee typed and retyped and xeroxed over and over and tweaked at every table they touched than anything else) very much implied the ultimate role of the referee as such, that is, changing rules appropriately according to game circumstances, filling in the gaps where they needed to be filled, and so on. This is this specific tradition of refereeing which was passed on to Chainmail, and obviously from there, D&D.

Indeed, these were the people I started gaming with. And they took the rules very seriously indeed. Formal house rules are *rules* you know. Treated every bit as important and consistently as the published ones (except for those they replaced).

It was here that all the gaps of original D&D started to be filled in, until that crowd (at least in my part of the world) abandoned D&D for games that didn't need so much filler.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650671I see your Darth Protractor persona finally makes a return. Welcome home.

I've been sitting here on this thread watching you and others insult gamers of my style for post after post. It's time to return the favor.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;650547And I'm saying they cannot make decisions from the PoV of a character without being aware of the rules to the specific RPG system.

And I'm saying that's not the case with the games I play, it wasn't the case with the first rpg on the market, and I would say is a reflection of a bad system or a storygame.

Quote from: gleichman;650672Indeed, these were the people I started gaming with. And they took the rules very seriously indeed. Formal house rules are *rules* you know. Treated every bit as important and consistently as the published ones (except for those they replaced).

Then why are you insisting that people like me are "not playing D&D" and "do not use any rules"? What is it in you that makes you interpret these sorts of things as complete absolutes, all-or-nothing kind of deals, when your own experience apparently should tell you otherwise?

Quote from: gleichman;650675I've been sitting here on this thread watching you and others insult gamers of my style for post after post. It's time to return the favor.

Really? That's what this is about?

Quote from: Benoist;650679Really? That's what this is about?

Are you shocked? Do you think an OCD type will let this stuff slide?

Quote from: gleichman;650675I've been sitting here on this thread watching you and others insult gamers of my style for post after post. It's time to return the favor.

I see you are going full
(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/1yE8Z.gif)
on us today. First of all, since when is a "dissenting" opinion an insult? Second of all, I actually am the middle of the issue - I like when players know the basics of the rules, but I also favour the notion of rule 0. The most important thing to me is when the GM is consistent with the rulings. And I do believe that house rules should be announced - I never bother hiding them from my players, unless they are a surprise house rule (such as Chaos points in Warhammer, for example).

But we've been over this before. You are one of the most condescending assholes on this site, which is an achievement in itself, thought not the kind I'd show a trophy on my wall. You pretend to be the beaten minority, when you openly seek out conflict and insult others.

Let's get this over with and just say that everyone who does not play like you has a kid's imagination, you miser.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650686I like when players know the basics of the rules, but I also favour the notion of rule 0. The most important thing to me is when the GM is consistent with the rulings. And I do believe that house rules should be announced - I never bother hiding them from my players, unless they are a surprise house rule (such as Chaos points in Warhammer, for example).

.

This is pretty much my opinion as well, to a "T".

Quote from: Rincewind1;650686Let's get this over with and just say that everyone who does not play like you has a kid's imagination, you miser.

Fuck that. Kids have some of the best imaginations on the planet. I would say that someone incapable of pretending to be an elf without gridded combat falls short of that by a mile.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650686Let's get this over with and just say that everyone who does not play like you has a kid's imagination,

I can get behind this message. I'd quite like to lose a few years.

Quote from: Benoist;650677Then why are you insisting that people like me are "not playing D&D" and "do not use any rules"? What is it in you that makes you interpret these sorts of things as complete absolutes, all-or-nothing kind of deals, when your own experience apparently should tell you otherwise?

Because you are night compared to the day of those people. Once they laid down a house rule (always before play of the game)- it was followed, consistently and to the letter. They played with sandtables (or a grid) and minis, not with wishful thoughts in their heads to keep track of where everything was.

In short, they were *gamers* and *role-players*. You at least are nothing of the former. And you yourself have actually stated that.

:popcorn:

I guess the only real people who play real D&D are those that play by rules that were there before D&D was a game, and not by the actual published D&D rules.

Interesting.

Quote from: gleichman;650698Because you are night compared to the day of those people. Once they laid down a house rule (always before play of the game)- it was followed, consistently and to the letter. They played with sandtables (or a grid) and minis, not with wishful thoughts in their heads to keep track of where everything was.

In short, they were *gamers* and *role-players*. You at least are nothing of the former. And you yourself have actually stated that.

OK. See, that's where your train is leaving the station in la-la-land, as far as I'm concerned.

I've talked about the importance of communication and how I would communicate house rules to the players right off the bat at the beginning of this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=650072#post650072) (last sentence; for years now, I've also been talking about how I have session zeros at the beginning of my games pointing these kinds of things out).

I've been talking about consistency well, consistently, as soon as we are talking about the qualities making a good DM, the importance of communication and so on. I have mentioned it on this very thread as well, as I always do, as a matter of fact.

I actually do use miniatures and terrain in some games (as shown here on this blog (http://praemal.blogspot.ca/)). I just don't think it's a requirement to play a role playing game, and actually do play role playing game sessions without miniatures and physical representations as well.

So as far as your imagined picture of me exists in your mind, and how hard you want to get at it and rip it apart or whatnot well, that's really just your fantasy-land version of me you're attacking. Good luck with that, I guess. I certainly think you are a gamer and are entitled to your way to run your games RAW, with grids and whatnot, and enjoy them.

Quote from: Benoist;650708I've talked about the importance of communication and how I would communicate house rules to the players right off the bat



I've been talking about consistency well, consistently, as soon as are talking about the qualities making a good DM, the importance of communication and so on. I have mentioned it on this very thread too.


So as far as your imagined picture of me is in your mind

And yet, you're the some person who made this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=650064&postcount=4). Either that post or this one is a lie, they can't both be true.

And given how quickly you insult someone who always uses a grid, and how many times you're hurl OCD and other such comments at me- I know which one to believe.

Why in the world are you trying to back out of it now?

Quote from: gleichman;650709And yet, you're the some person who made this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=650064&postcount=4). Either that post or this one is a lie, they can't both be true.

Actually they can be both true, and are, at the same time.

Quote from: gleichman;650709And given how quickly you insult someone who always uses a grid, and how many times you're hurl OCD and other such comments at me- I know which one to believe.

Nah, I don't think using a grid is bad or obsessive-compulsive. I do think that people who keep ranting about how you SHOULD have a grid otherwise you're not a gamer, as you just did call me "not a gamer" a moment ago, that you CANNOT (as in, it's physically impossible to) possibly play a game without visual representations otherwise you are either DELUDED or LYING, are being extremely narrow-minded and stubborn about their own way to game. Yes, absolutely.

That said, you're obviously a gamer. I wouldn't say otherwise.

Quote from: The Traveller;650614100% agreed. A minimal understanding of how things work is important to most players (I once had a guy try to sink a war galley with a magic missile spell. No Colm, it's not that kind of missile). Again though the complexity of the rulesets are a factor.

Let's say there are thirty combat skills in a game beyond use weapon, one player has leg sweep, salmon leap, vital strike, tai chi, chink, backstab and suckerpunch. Each of the other players has their own set of skills. All of the monsters also have combat skills, and each skill has different effects depending on how you roll.

It's much easier for the GM to let the players look after their corners so the GM can get on with running the game world using a system as sophisticated as that, as opposed to 'one attack roll'. It doesn't affect immersion in my experience.

Oh absolutely. I make a point that everyone needs to understand their PCs skills and/or powers/spells/whatever.

Quote from: estar;650622It also illustrate that for novices the more your game is an emulation of reality the easier it is for them to follow as the assumptions built up by their real life experiences remain valid.

Sure, Rob. Actually, my wife was more familiar with RQ than with 7th Sea, but after a year of playing the second, old habits die hard :D

Quote from: RandallS;650623If I were running this game, I'd just mod the stupid rule on the spot. 15% to hit with your fist? Nope, way too low. Unless the roll is actually "to cause noticeable damage", in which case I'd just narrate things differently, a roll of 1-3 would be an effective hit but a roll up to 10 or 11 would hit but not do anything damage or mechanical effects wise.

Yes, that is what I did, but my point was that the player could have argued that he would not have decided on that course of action because his PC probably would not do that based on how much he sucked, the same way I would not try to pilot an F-18 because I know I don't have any piloting skill.

Quote from: KenHR;650625Player: "I charge at the guards menacing the helpless old lady!"

GM: "One sec, Nate, remember when I was talking about this game when we made characters?  Even though that was something your fighter in D&D could do without breaking a sweat, in this game it's a bit harder to take on six armored guards at once with a rapier.  You still want to do it?"

Player: "Hmm, thanks.  I draw my sword, but hang back."

Of course, most of my players usually reply with something like "I KNOW" and charge in anyway, just to see for themselves how the system works out.

:D Same here.

Quote from: Benoist;650632The players will catch up in no time. It's part of the tuning process which allows players and GM to play the same game and share the same world of their imaginations together.

Hence my initial answer:

Don't disagree on that. Just pointing out that some games make this easier than others.

Quote from: Imperator;650711Don't disagree on that. Just pointing out that some games make this easier than others.

OK, yes. I agree with that.

I'm a real gamer if I'm playing Squad Leader or OCS or something, but not when I'm playing an RPG, apparently.

What the fuck ever. Anyone who talks about being a "REAL gamer" as if it defines their entire being deserves to be shat on in any and every way possible.

Quote from: Benoist;650710Actually they can be both true, and are, at the same time.

Sorry, you can't reserve the right to change or add things upon a whim, to be able to ignore rules, and then claim that you're always *consistent* and have always communicated the house rules.

This are two opposed behaviors. That you would claim both is the reason why I don't trust or believe you in anything.


As to maps and minis, not using them (for a game that needs their use) doesn't mean you're not a gamer. It just means you're not much of one.

Quote from: Benoist;650710That said, you're obviously a gamer. I wouldn't say otherwise.

I don't recall you ever saying otherwise. What you have done is say that I'm not a role-player.

Okay. It's great that you have the time to burn to go about fighting Fantasy-Land Ben and stuff, but I honestly don't have the time, nor the inclination really, to go about another round of a ten-page back-and-forth between you and I.

I wish you good luck against the windmills, though. You're gonna need it.

The problem with lacking a basic sense of the rules is that in an RPG, anything and everything is a possibility.

Take a classic tavern fight.  

Some options off the top of my head

1) Leap to grab the chandelier and swing across the room kicking the bard that insulted the queen's mother in the chest.

2) Flip the table that the three out-of-town foreigners are standing on brawling.

3) Throw the bowl of steaming stew into the face of my nearest antagonist.

4) Wait for the skinny farmer with the broken bottle to get close, then drop to my knees and roll into him, letting him fall over me in the confusion.

5) Take two steps foward and slide on the spilled ale across the floor through the clear space between the tables to quickly close the distance without walking into any of the increasingly random melees.

6) Slash the rope suspending the chandelier, sending it crashing on top of several of the most belligerent brawlers.

7) Draw a weapon and attack someone.  

Now, even in a game when the rules are pretty well-established; and despite how well the GM and player might communicate, running through all of these options and figuring out which ones are possible and which ones are impossible; and further, which ones are likely to be successful and which are only remotely possible would take a long, long, time.  

Option Paralysis.  

Another thing that you tend to see from new players is trying to do too many things.

Example - I leap to grab the chandelier swinging over to the bard that insulted my mother.  I draw my weapon as I swing, holding on with only a single hand.  I drop down and as the chandelier swings away I slash at the rope, sending it carreening into the crowd behind me and preventing the ugly crowd from following me.  I put my sword against the bard's neck and ask him, "What did you call my mother?"  

That'd be cool if it happened in the game, but that's a lot of action by the rules (even in a 1 minute round!!!) so usually it's going to be impossible.  By the time you break the action down into manageable chunks, the likelihood of wanting to continue the initially stated action as the situation develops is pretty small.  

Most players are going to stick to number 7 because the rules on how to resolve that are very easy and very clear.  Anything else gets increasingly complex - and usually in the process of evaluating the options with the GM, the game gets bogged down.

Now, not every game requires effective action from the PCs.  If nobody minds the game playing more like a Three Stooges short, just trying crazy stunts might work - but for most games I've participated in, players focus on the actions that they understand how the resolution will work.

Quote from: deadDMwalkingThat'd be cool if it happened in the game, but that's a lot of action by the rules (even in a 1 minute round!!!) so usually it's going to be impossible

Not so if the system is a more narrative one, or based on conflict-resolution. (Wushu, Risus, Over the Edge, Heroquest, Apocalypse/Dungeon World, etc)

On more simulaionist games though, yes, that would be a problem.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650737Now, even in a game when the rules are pretty well-established; and despite how well the GM and player might communicate, running through all of these options and figuring out which ones are possible and which ones are impossible; and further, which ones are likely to be successful and which are only remotely possible would take a long, long, time.  

Option Paralysis.  

To be honest with you, never had that problem in almost 35 years of gaming.  Here's why:

Some options off the top of my head

1) Leap to grab the chandelier and swing across the room kicking the bard that insulted the queen's mother in the chest.
* Make a Dex check to grab the chandelier, then an attack roll to kick the bard.

2) Flip the table that the three out-of-town foreigners are standing on brawling.
* Sorry, but your strength doesn't allow you to lift 600+ pounds.

3) Throw the bowl of steaming stew into the face of my nearest antagonist.
*easy to hit roll

4) Wait for the skinny farmer with the broken bottle to get close, then drop to my knees and roll into him, letting him fall over me in the confusion.
*You're much larger, so just make a to hit roll

5) Take two steps foward and slide on the spilled ale across the floor through the clear space between the tables to quickly close the distance without walking into any of the increasingly random melees.
* that seems pretty unusual because the floor is wooden and not really slippery.  Make a Dex check at a -6 penalty

6) Slash the rope suspending the chandelier, sending it crashing on top of several of the most belligerent brawlers.
*OK, done.

7) Draw a weapon and attack someone.
* take a -2 penalty to initiative

Quote from: KenHR;650718I'm a real gamer if I'm playing Squad Leader or OCS or something, but not when I'm playing an RPG, apparently.

What the fuck ever. Anyone who talks about being a "REAL gamer" as if it defines their entire being deserves to be shat on in any and every way possible.

Haha!:)

Quote from: Benoist;650722I wish you good luck against the windmills, though. You're gonna need it.

Yes, this site is full of people who buy into fantasies such as holding self-conflicting views when convenient, thinking that rules are a evil barely even worth reading, hatred of tradition map and mini play, and of course rampant moral relativism.

I've come to accept that.

Quote from: Phillip;650178I have a hard time picturing a game of Champions or D&D 4E (a session involving combat, anyhow) without the players directly addressing the abstraction.

1. It would be a hell of a lot of work for the GM, expect perhaps with really good computer assistance.

2. That's a big part of "where the game is" in those cases, starting with the "character build" system.

3. Although many things in Champions could with some labor translate to/from plain description, a lot of strategy has to do with using more precise information than we get (at least consciously) in real life. With D&D 4E, I -- and I gather many other people -- find that the relationship between the domain of pure game and the domain of imagined reality is a lot harder to discern.

If the gm is comfortable with the Hero system, Champions should not present a problem if a player says "I wait so I can use my matter transmutation touch superpower on any invisible enemy I sniff out with my enhanced nose."

The gm should be able to handle delaying a phase, using a power, and a percetion roll without the player knowing the rules at all.

I do think the gm should explain before play starts what the character can do.



Or am I misinterpreting you?

Quote from: Arkansan;650244Rules should be for the ref, at my table I prefer my players to know just what is needed to get by. This is why I run OD&D, because the rules are so scant that players really don't need to know anything. I have my players tell me what they are trying to do and I work the mechanics out on my end.

I have met with mixed levels of success with this approach. The last few games I ran were for my wife, brother, and a couple of close friends. Only one of them had any prior gaming experience, with no preexisting expectations it worked out fantastically. I walked them through character creation and that was it, after that they told me what they were trying to do and if needed I told them what to roll. The games flowed smoothly, the players consistently thought outside the box and great fun was had by all.

I however have ran a few games for friends that were gamers, mostly 4e and 3.X/Pathfinder players and it was difficult to get them on board. They wanted to know how everything worked and one player bitched constantly that he didn't like that OD&D didn't have a system for adjudicating every little situation. There was a lot of complaining that there was no way to customize their characters, I got a lot of "well I want to play X kind of fighter so how do I make him like a dual wielding death cultist that specializes in katanas?". Part of the problem I am sure was just the group but it is the sort of thinking that makes me prefer playing with non gamers to gamers.

There is some truth to complaints of customization IF the gm does not allow for that in some way.

However, I do not relate at all to the issue some players I know have with needing to know the exact percentage chance of all possible actions in the universe to make a simple decision.

Thats strange to me.  As a player or a gm, I just have my character or an npc do what makes sense at the time.

My barbarian can swing his axe just fine without knowing the ac of an enemy.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650748To be honest with you, never had that problem in almost 35 years of gaming.  Here's why:

Some options off the top of my head

1) Leap to grab the chandelier and swing across the room kicking the bard that insulted the queen's mother in the chest.
* Make a Dex check to grab the chandelier, then an attack roll to kick the bard.
**I jump up and grab the light fixture in the room yanking from the ceiling, wow this is really hard.

2) Flip the table that the three out-of-town foreigners are standing on brawling.
* Sorry, but your strength doesn't allow you to lift 600+ pounds.
** I didn't say lift I said flip.  Moe, Larry, Joe, climb on the table and start beating on each, let me show this guy how easy it is to flip over a table with people brawling on it.

3) Throw the bowl of steaming stew into the face of my nearest antagonist.
*easy to hit roll
** To hit roll?  wtf for?

4) Wait for the skinny farmer with the broken bottle to get close, then drop to my knees and roll into him, letting him fall over me in the confusion.
*You're much larger, so just make a to hit roll
**If I hit him he falls over?  Or you gonna decree what happens by the roll?

5) Take two steps foward and slide on the spilled ale across the floor through the clear space between the tables to quickly close the distance without walking into any of the increasingly random melees.
* that seems pretty unusual because the floor is wooden and not really slippery.  Make a Dex check at a -6 penalty
**Not slippery?  WTF?  a wet, wooden floor in a tavern with all this beer and spirits spilled on it, not counting all of the food, plus all the dirt from the shoes that has sanded down the surface even more, not counting that the shoes we wear aren't famous for the traction, and your telling me this is unusual?

6) Slash the rope suspending the chandelier, sending it crashing on top of several of the most belligerent brawlers.
*OK, done.
**Oh this works, but I have to roll to hit with throwing stew in someone's face?

7) Draw a weapon and attack someone.
* take a -2 penalty to initiative
** Sure whatever.



This is why people have issues with the "Let the DM adjudicate the action".

Quote from: Bill;650753If the gm is comfortable with the Hero system, Champions should not present a problem if a player says "I wait so I can use my matter transmutation touch superpower on any invisible enemy I sniff out with my enhanced nose."

The gm should be able to handle delaying a phase, using a power, and a percetion roll without the player knowing the rules at all.

Indeed he should.

A point of failure when the player doesn't know the rules is that they are unaware of small details that could matter. In your example above everything will be resolved correctly, but the player didn't know that moving closer a hex might prevent a -2 Range Modifier to the power's attack roll and so didn't move.

Generally these things aren't a killer. And a player may learn through experience perhaps even better than he would by reading the rules (very common actually) and know next time that range matters as the GM states the negative modifier and asks for a roll that when done fails by 1.

Most people learn to play baseball without ever opening a rulebook. The same applies to even the most rigid RAW RPG campaigns.

Quote from: Swiss Toni;650343No one in our group GM's all the time and we play lots of different games that many of us have run at one time or another so most of us are familiar with the rules for quite a few games.

Can't really see the point in players not knowing the rules, it generally makes games run much smoother in our group, though we tend to make rulings on the fly if it means the game isn't interrupted with someone flipping through a rulebook for 10 minutes.

Sometimes the players should not know the rules.

Ravenloft is more fun if as a player, you don't know jack all about the Plane itself.

But in many cases, its advantageous if the players know the rules, especially the ones that their character uses all the time.

But, I can play an rpg without knowing anything about the rules.

Just do whatever the character would do.

Quote from: Bill;650754My barbarian can swing his axe just fine without knowing the ac of an enemy.

That's a feature of D&D, making the swing against a AC you can't hit carries no drawback other than a missed attack and actually gains the knowledge that now you know your foe is hard to hit so other options might be better.

Meanwhile D&D's HP system gives you time and buffer room to lose that attack and take advantage of that knowledge.

Things are not so warm and fuzzy in say Age of Heroes, and attacking a more skilled foe offers dangers of its own.

Thus at least basic knowledge of how the system works is vastly important to how you run your character. One game lets you "swing your axe just fine", the other requires a bit more consideration.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;650392As a side effect, the only things that get attempted are a safe set of stock moves that are on the character sheet leading to a button mashing playstyle.

It is important that a player be aware of general odds for success/failure before attempting something risky but a codified list of moves and rigid resolution mechanics aren't needed to provide this.

If the gm is supportive of players attempting interesting things with characters, it is not a problem.

if the gm is an ass hat that loves to say "You fail!" all the time, its a problem.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650737The problem with lacking a basic sense of the rules is that in an RPG, anything and everything is a possibility.

Take a classic tavern fight.  

Some options off the top of my head

1) Leap to grab the chandelier and swing across the room kicking the bard that insulted the queen's mother in the chest.

2) Flip the table that the three out-of-town foreigners are standing on brawling.

3) Throw the bowl of steaming stew into the face of my nearest antagonist.

4) Wait for the skinny farmer with the broken bottle to get close, then drop to my knees and roll into him, letting him fall over me in the confusion.

5) Take two steps foward and slide on the spilled ale across the floor through the clear space between the tables to quickly close the distance without walking into any of the increasingly random melees.

6) Slash the rope suspending the chandelier, sending it crashing on top of several of the most belligerent brawlers.

7) Draw a weapon and attack someone.  

Now, even in a game when the rules are pretty well-established; and despite how well the GM and player might communicate, running through all of these options and figuring out which ones are possible and which ones are impossible; and further, which ones are likely to be successful and which are only remotely possible would take a long, long, time.  

Option Paralysis.  

Another thing that you tend to see from new players is trying to do too many things.

Example - I leap to grab the chandelier swinging over to the bard that insulted my mother.  I draw my weapon as I swing, holding on with only a single hand.  I drop down and as the chandelier swings away I slash at the rope, sending it carreening into the crowd behind me and preventing the ugly crowd from following me.  I put my sword against the bard's neck and ask him, "What did you call my mother?"  

That'd be cool if it happened in the game, but that's a lot of action by the rules (even in a 1 minute round!!!) so usually it's going to be impossible.  By the time you break the action down into manageable chunks, the likelihood of wanting to continue the initially stated action as the situation develops is pretty small.  

Most players are going to stick to number 7 because the rules on how to resolve that are very easy and very clear.  Anything else gets increasingly complex - and usually in the process of evaluating the options with the GM, the game gets bogged down.

Now, not every game requires effective action from the PCs.  If nobody minds the game playing more like a Three Stooges short, just trying crazy stunts might work - but for most games I've participated in, players focus on the actions that they understand how the resolution will work.

That list is all about the GM's creativity and experience. Rules are optional to do any of those things.

Quote from: gleichman;650756Indeed he should.

A point of failure when the player doesn't know the rules is that they are unaware of small details that could matter. In your example above everything will be resolved correctly, but the player didn't know that moving closer a hex might prevent a -2 Range Modifier to the power's attack roll and so didn't move.

Generally these things aren't a killer. And a player may learn through experience perhaps even better than he would by reading the rules (very common actually) and know next time that range matters as the GM states the negative modifier and asks for a roll that when done fails by 1.

Most people learn to play baseball without ever opening a rulebook. The same applies to even the most rigid RAW RPG campaigns.

True that a player may make iffy choices if they do not know the rules.
Ideally the gm could inform the player of the range modifier on the spot.

Quote from: Sommerjon;6507551) Leap to grab the chandelier and swing across the room kicking the bard that insulted the queen's mother in the chest.
* Make a Dex check to grab the chandelier, then an attack roll to kick the bard.
**I jump up and grab the light fixture in the room yanking from the ceiling, wow this is really hard.

reread what he said as the scenario.  It wasn't just jumping straight up to grab the chandelier.

Quote2) Flip the table that the three out-of-town foreigners are standing on brawling.
* Sorry, but your strength doesn't allow you to lift 600+ pounds.
** I didn't say lift I said flip.  Moe, Larry, Joe, climb on the table and start beating on each, let me show this guy how easy it is to flip over a table with people brawling on it.

Tell you what hot shot, you put 3 full grown men standing on a typical inn table (usually pretty thick and heavy itself) and try to flip it.  Go ahead you stud you.  Especially with a floor that is supposedly easy to slide all the way across.

Quote3) Throw the bowl of steaming stew into the face of my nearest antagonist.
*easy to hit roll
** To hit roll?  wtf for?

Because it's treated like any other attack roll.  Dagger or stew, doesn't matter.  You're throwing an object as an attack.  Seriously dude.

Quote4) Wait for the skinny farmer with the broken bottle to get close, then drop to my knees and roll into him, letting him fall over me in the confusion.
*You're much larger, so just make a to hit roll
**If I hit him he falls over?  Or you gonna decree what happens by the roll?

Again, you're essentially making an attack.  So just make an attack roll.

Quote5) Take two steps foward and slide on the spilled ale across the floor through the clear space between the tables to quickly close the distance without walking into any of the increasingly random melees.
* that seems pretty unusual because the floor is wooden and not really slippery.  Make a Dex check at a -6 penalty
**Not slippery?  WTF?  a wet, wooden floor in a tavern with all this beer and spirits spilled on it, not counting all of the food, plus all the dirt from the shoes that has sanded down the surface even more, not counting that the shoes we wear aren't famous for the traction, and your telling me this is unusual?

You know, if you actually read the scenario before responding, you'd save yourself a lot of time.  If it were fairly easy to "slide across the bar floor" anytime food or beverage got spilled, you don't think that would be a problem?  People would be falling all over themselves.  There's a big difference in being somewhat slippery and slippery enough to slide a significant distance.

Quote6) Slash the rope suspending the chandelier, sending it crashing on top of several of the most belligerent brawlers.
*OK, done.
**Oh this works, but I have to roll to hit with throwing stew in someone's face?

The chandelier rope isn't moving, thus no attack roll needed.  If anyone is underneath it when it falls, they get affected.  What's so hard about that?

QuoteThis is why people have issues with the "Let the DM adjudicate the action".

And this is why most people here think you're an idiot, because you're not actually thinking before needing to post an antagonizing diatribe of tripe.

*Edit* But more to the point, my post was to illustrate how something like those scenarios in a game does not devolve into paralysis by analysis.  They were all easily and quickly resolved.  Even in your version, they were.

Quote from: Bill;650760If the gm is supportive of players attempting interesting things with characters, it is not a problem.

It could very well be one.

If the campaign's genre and rules say that being in the open against missile fire is a dangerous move, leaping up and hanging from the chandelier when there's a foe nearby with a ready missile weapon is, well dumb no matter the height advantage the player gained on his melee foe.

A GM that failed to take the shot (and thus cause player failure) has broken the rules *and* the genre. He has also reduced the risk of the game.

It's that reduced risk that is a common feature of free-wheeling GM who ignore or override the rules. He will almost always do this in ways to favor the players (as you note, saying 'not doing so is being an asshat').

Often risk is reduced to the point where it's no longer a game, but instead just a more formal make-believe session.

Meanwhile one who takes the shot teaches the player the danger of the genre and rules and this allows them to learn and improve their play in that campaign.

Quote from: Bill;650763True that a player may make iffy choices if they do not know the rules.
Ideally the gm could inform the player of the range modifier on the spot.

I find that feeding players solutions to their problems can be counter-productive, too often we learn best from our mistakes. Besides helping other players make good tactical choices is the role of the players, not the GM.

That said, I do actually provide such advice in practice and only withhold it from players who have played long enough to know better. In short I give them a chance to learn by teaching, and then I let experience teach.

For very new players, I actually show some of the effects on NPCs first. That works nearly as well.

Quote from: gleichman;650766It could very well be one.

If the campaign's genre and rules say that being in the open against missile fire is a dangerous move, leaping up and hanging from the chandelier when there's a foe nearby with a ready missile weapon is, well dumb no matter the height advantage the player gained on his melee foe.

A GM that failed to take the shot (and thus cause player failure) has broken the rules *and* the genre. He has also reduced the risk of the game.

It's that reduced risk that is a common feature of free-wheeling GM who ignore or override the rules. He will almost always do this in ways to favor the players (as you note, saying 'not doing so is being an asshat').

Often risk is reduced to the point where it's no longer a game, but instead just a more formal make-believe session.

Meanwhile one who takes the shot teaches the player the danger of the genre and rules and this allows them to learn and improve their play in that campaign.

I was suggesting allowing interesting activities that the rules may not explicitly cover. I was not suggesting a free lunch.

Reminds me of a player that while underwater, said he was throwing a coil of rope to an ally 100' away. Underwater.

I told him that the rope would not go more than a few feet (Not sure exactly how far it would go, but I assume less than five feet)

The player thought I was being strict.

Now, if a player wants to leap up and throw a sack over an ogres head to confuse  the brute, I would happily find a way to let them try.

I would also happily have the Ogre bodyslam the character to jelly if it failed.

Quote from: gleichman;650767I find that feeding players solutions to their problems can be counter-productive, too often we learn best from our mistakes. Besides helping other players make good tactical choices is the role of the players, not the GM.

That said, I do actually provide such advice in practice and only withhold it from players who have played long enough to know better. In short I give them a chance to learn by teaching, and then I let experience teach.

For very new players, I actually show some of the effects on NPCs first. That works nearly as well.

I like that; show them how it works.

Quote from: Bill;650768I was suggesting allowing interesting activities that the rules may not explicitly cover. I was not suggesting a free lunch.

They often are. For example:

Quote from: Bill;650768Now, if a player wants to leap up and throw a sack over an ogres head to confuse  the brute, I would happily find a way to let them try.

Unless the sack was something the orge wanted, why in the world would you think it would be possible to confuse it by what seems to be an attempt to throw an improvised weapon at it and missing? Are orges known to be confused by attacks? Are people in general? If yes, then the rules should have already noted that fact.

Assuming the rules don't have a 'feint' or a 'confuse foe' option (in which case this a lame but acceptable attempt to describe how they're being used), this is an example of a freebie, a way of reducing risk by gaining advantage by GM whim even if as part of that advantage you require a roll (assuming that roll has a significant chance of success).

Quote from: gleichman;650771They often are. For example:



Unless the sack was something the orge wanted, why in the world would you think it would be possible to confuse it by what seems to be an attempt to throw an improvised weapon at it and missing? Are orges known to be confused by attacks? Are people in general? If yes, then the rules should have already noted that fact.

Assuming the rules don't have a 'feint' or a 'confuse foe' option (in which case this a lame but acceptable attempt to describe how they're being used), this is an example of a freebie, a way of reducing risk by gaining advantage by GM whim even if as part of that advantage you require a roll (assuming that roll has a significant chance of success).

Its not a freebie if it backfires and the Ogre kills you.

It is also not gm whim if the action is plausable, and the rules do not cover the situation well.

The example of an Ogre and a sack was covering its eyes so it would possibly get confused or be blinded for a short time, and assumes ogres are stupid as a box of rocks. Perhaps a nible warrior might jump on its back and get the sack over its head. Might get murdered by the ogre in the attempt.

Its about the extra risk, not a freebie.

Quote from: Bill;650775Its not a freebie if it backfires and the Ogre kills you.

Is the orge *more* likely to kill the character taking this action? If not, and if you're being supportive of odd actions as you claim- than it's a freebie.

It may be a freebie even so, if the possible gain is significant enough. I'd gambled immediate death for a shot at success over certain slow death for example.

Quote from: Bill;650775It is also not gm whim if the action is plausable, and the rules do not cover the situation well.

It's very much GM whim, if you want PCs blinding their foes (with sacks, dirt in the eyes, whatever) than there should be rules covering it. Not made up resolutions each time its attempted.

If on the other hand you don't want that (and I for one wouldn't), then don't allow it at all.

Quote from: gleichman;650777Is the orge *more* likely to kill the character taking this action? If not, and if you're being supportive of odd actions as you claim- than it's a freebie.

It may be a freebie even so, if the possible gain is significant enough. I'd gambled immediate death for a shot at success over certain slow death for example.




It's very much GM whim, if you want PCs blinding their foes (with sacks, dirt in the eyes, whatever) than there should be rules covering it. Not made up resolutions each time its attempted.

If on the other hand you don't want that (and I for one wouldn't), then don't allow it at all.

In my experience, fancy maneuvers usually get you killed.

If only because the fancy manuever usually fails, while the enemy is killing you.

I would rather adjudicate something the rules can't handle instead of getting mired in rules adjustments.

 

GM whim is desireable.

GM's use whim all the time.

95+ percent of everything a GM does is whim.

Quote from: gleichman;650777It's very much GM whim, if you want PCs blinding their foes (with sacks, dirt in the eyes, whatever) than there should be rules covering it. Not made up resolutions each time its attempted.

I'm quite capable of creating a rule to cover it. And using the same ruling every time the situation arises. Because re-inventing the wheel, every time I need one, wouldn't be very bright.

You're constantly assuming a lack of consistency.

And insulting everyone who runs an "old school" style game, by stating we act by "whim."

Is this some kind of moral crusade, on your part? It looks that way.

Quote from: Bill;650778In my experience, fancy maneuvers usually get you killed.

If only because the fancy manuever usually fails, while the enemy is killing you.

That is not what you said here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=650760&postcount=130). Indeed, you said completely the opposite.

Are you know saying that nearly every time a player attempts something not covered by the rules you kill them?

I think that's harsher than not allowing the attempt at all. I'm a kinder GM it seems.

Quote from: Bill;650778GM whim is desireable.

GM's use whim all the time.

95+ percent of everything a GM does is whim.

A GM does many things, I'd say that 95% don't involve rules at all. it's that 5% covered by the rules that also you're taking over leaving basically nothing.

Quote from: jasmith;650779I'm quite capable of creating a rule to cover it. And using the same ruling every time the situation arises. Because re-inventing the wheel, every time I need one, wouldn't be very bright.

Do you write it down for future reference for the players? Was this done before play? If yes, than it's a formal house rule and thus acceptable. I've said so many times.

If not, you're just saying something that has no proof. Put it in writing or it doesn't exist.

Quote from: gleichman;650780That is not what you said here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=650760&postcount=130). Indeed, you said completely the opposite.

Are you know saying that nearly every time a player attempts something not covered by the rules you kill them?

I think that's harsher than not allowing the attempt at all. I'm a kinder GM it seems.





A GM does many things, I'd say that 95% don't involve rules at all. it's that 5% covered by the rules that also you're taking over leaving basically nothing.

The post you reference is not the opposite at all.

I did not say every time a player attempts anything outside the rules I kill them all.

Fancy manuevers, in the context of sacks on ogres heads, are dangerous.

All GMs functions nearly entirely on whim. That fact remains.

I personally allow players to do reasonable actions with their characters that the rules can't handle. That is very far from 'Taking over'

Quote from: Bill;650783I personally allow players to do reasonable actions with their characters that the rules can't handle. That is very far from 'Taking over'

Your rules likely handle far more than you know, it just hides them in their abstraction.

Any time you ignore or change them in the middle of play, you're 'taking over'. The rules are broken, the abstraction layer is broken, the risk designed into the game is broken, the law of unintended consequences becomes unchecked.

It's bad GMing, pure and simple. Enjoyable by you and your group, sure. People cheat at the golf scores and have fun too.

Quote from: gleichman;650782Do you write it down for future reference for the players? If yes, than it's a formal house rule land thus acceptable. I've said so many times.

If not, you're just saying something that has no proof. Put it in writing or it doesn't exist.

Many of my house rules are in writing and in the possession of my players. Some aren't, because it's not necessary. I'll remember it, because I know what I'm about and if it's something the players attempt on a regular basis, they'll remember it as well. I won't change the way I've been doing something, without running it by the players. As referee, I reserve the right to do so, but wouldn't, unless something was just horribly broken.

That said, there's a handful of game mechanics I use to cover such things. Ability checks, Saving Throws, To Hit rolls, d6 checks & Percentile. For combat maneuvers and the like, I might use a combination of the above. It doesn't take long for players to grok how and why I make the rulings I do, because I'm consistent and there really is a method behind the madness. Not whim.

Quote from: gleichman;650786Your rules likely handle far more than you know, it just hides them in their abstraction.

Any time you ignore or change them in the middle of play, you're 'taking over'. The rules are broken, the abstraction layer is broken, the risk designed into the game is broken, the law of unintended consequences becomes unchecked.

It's bad GMing, pure and simple. Enjoyable by you and your group, sure. People cheat at the golf scores and have fun too.

You are correct that it is enjoyable by me and my groups.

You are correct that it is 'cheating' based on a literal definition of the word.

You are incorrect that it is bad GMing, as evidenced by the enjoyability.

Bad is subjective, of course.




I have plenty of risk in my games despite the occasional on the fly rules adjudication. So I can't agree with you that risk is broken. Fixed would be more accurate.

Quote from: jasmith;650793Many of my house rules are in writing and in the possession of my players. Some aren't, because it's not necessary.

Sloppy.

It will work for players who aren't directly interested in the rules, assuming you do actually remember to use your changes correctly- after all there's nothing to compare them to for verification now is there?

I wouldn't play in such a game. I like knowing the rules.

Quote from: Bill;650795Bad is subjective, of course.

Not as much as one might think, but then this site loves it some moral relativism. Just check out the Law and Chaos thread.

Quote from: Bill;650795I have plenty of risk in my games despite the occasional on the fly rules adjudication. So I can't agree with you that risk is broken. Fixed would be more accurate.

The risk is changed from the original design, and in undefined ways.

Thus you're not playing the original game at all, and further you don't really know what has and has not changed as you don't have a RAW baseline to compare to. Thus you can't claim to have fixed anything.

As far as being enjoyable, I imagine that with a GM and group as undemanding of standards as yours seems to be- *anything* would likely be seen as enjoyable. That IMO is part of the natural result of your style. It breeds that mindset.

Quote from: gleichman;650796Sloppy.

It will work for players who aren't directly interested in the rules, assuming you do actually remember to use your changes correctly- after all there's nothing to compare them to for verification now is there?

I wouldn't play in such a game. I like knowing the rules.

Are you completely unfamiliar with International Law, or anything dealing with warfare? Everyone "knows the rules", regardless if they're written down or not.

Your counterargument is pretty weak.

Quote from: gleichman;650796Sloppy.

It will work for players who aren't directly interested in the rules, assuming you do actually remember to use your changes correctly- after all there's nothing to compare them to for verification now is there?

I wouldn't play in such a game. I like knowing the rules.

Of course I'll remember them. I've been doing this for over 30 years. Those neural pathways are well-traveled and used every day.

Quote from: jasmith;650801Of course I'll remember them. I've been doing this for over 30 years. Those neural pathways are well-traveled and used every day.

So you say. But again, there is really no proof now is there.

If only human memory was known to be completely infallible under any and all conditions. But alas, we'll just have to make do with your statement that you *think* you're remembering everything.

Good enough for you and your group no doubt.

In a few 1E AD&D games I played in over the last few years or so, we ended up going through every single rule line-by-line before chargen, largely to determine what set of rules we were going to be playing by.  Especially houserules, and going through each table line by line.

If we couldn't come to an agreement on the set of rules we were going to use, we went our separate ways without ever getting to the chargen stage.

Quote from: gleichman;650802So you say. But again, there is really no proof now is there.

If only human memory was known to be completely infallible under any and all conditions. But alas, we'll just have to make do with your statement that you *think* you're remembering everything.

Good enough for you and your group no doubt.

:rolleyes:

Most people just don't need a manual glued to one of their hands, to accomplish tasks they perform all the time.

So, when you run games you look up every single rule before you use it? Just in case your very fallible memory fails? Or, do you have someone like yourself, standing over your shoulder, frantically thumbing through the rules and ready to cry "FOUL," if and when you make an error? And what happens then? Do you grab a whip and flagellate yourself, crying Mea Culpa, for your grievous crime of making a mistake while GMing?

Quote from: jasmith;650804:rolleyes:

Most people just don't need a manual glued to one of their hands, to accomplish tasks they perform all the time.

So, when you run games you look up every single rule before you use it? Just in case your very fallible memory fails? Or, do you have someone like yourself, standing over your shoulder, frantically thumbing through the rules and ready to cry "FOUL," if and when you make an error? And what happens then? Do you grab a whip and flagellate yourself, crying Mea Culpa, for your grievous crime of making a mistake while GMing?

Gleichman is a REAL gamer.  He makes no mistakes.  His rules don't just model physics, they ARE physics.

Quote from: ggroy;650803If we couldn't come to an agreement on the set of rules we were going to use, we went our separate ways without ever getting to the chargen stage.

As it should be. People wanting to play different games so find a place that plays the game they want.

Quote from: KenHR;650806His rules don't just model physics, they ARE physics.

Can his/her rules explain Planck's relation E = hf ?

Quote from: jasmith;650804So, when you run games you look up every single rule before you use it? Just in case your very fallible memory fails?

No, but people certainly have the option to question any rule use and/or verify it. That is what the rulebook and errata are for after all.

Quote from: jasmith;650804And what happens then? Do you grab a whip and flagellate yourself, crying Mea Culpa, for your grievous crime of making a mistake while GMing?

Something like that, but more adult and with less blood flying around.

Quote from: gleichman;650807As it should be. People wanting to play different games so find a place that plays the game they want.

Having differing ways to handle various things doesn't mean you're playing a different game.

Holy beJesus, if one group plays AD&D by rerolling 1s on ability generation, and another group plays AD&D by starting out at Max HP, it doesn't mean they are playing different games.

And by the way, I'm still waiting for you to show me where in Moldvay's basic rulebook it says you should be playing on a grid.

Quote from: KenHR;650806He makes no mistakes.

I wish.

Quote from: KenHR;650806His rules don't just model physics, they ARE physics.

In the game world, this is certainly true.

Quote from: gleichman;650807As it should be. People wanting to play different games so find a place that plays the game they want.

Coming to an agreement by going through every rule line-by-line is a very long arduous process.  In one particular game, it took us almost a month of several weekends in going through each single rule in the books and various houserules we could think of.

Quote from: ggroy;650814Coming to an agreement by going through every rule line-by-line is a very long arduous process.  In one particular game, it took us almost a month of several weekends in going through each single rule in the books and various houserules we could think of.

More effort that we would ever take, so much in fact that I wonder if you just have a really committed group or are yanking my chain. Whatever, it's not my concern.

Here's our process last seen in my son's attempt at running Dark Heresy.

1. He pitched the game, the group agreed after suggesting some changes in the background fluff.

2. The GM reads the rules, one or more players read them as well. possible rule problems (and solutions) found in the read through are noted at this time for future reference.

3. The game is ran RAW, typically with one of the system's adventures to see how the designers felt it should be played.

4. The entire group reviews the result and offers their opinions.

5. A judgement is reached on if the game requires house rules or not. Or if it's a lost cause and should be abandoned.

6. If house rules are the decision, they are put into place. If RAW looked acceptable, they are kept.

7. Another game is ran RAW + defined house rules.

Steps 4-7 are repeated until the game is acceptable to the whole group, or it is abandoned for better system. Note, this process never really ends but it does come close to ending as the game is fine tuned.

Dark Heresy took one trip through and was abandoned on the first step 5. Total time: one game session and a few hours during the week prepping for it.

Quote from: ggroy;650814Coming to an agreement by going through every rule line-by-line is a very long arduous process.  In one particular game, it took us almost a month of several weekends in going through each single rule in the books and various houserules we could think of.

a month that could have been spent gaming ;)


IDK, maybe it's because I'm older and don't have the free time I did as a kid.  But time spent gaming is a commodity, and we can't spend time going over that level of detail when we could just be playing.  If something comes up, we just deal with it as reasonable adults.

The other extreme is a game where nobody could come to an agreement on how to roll stats for chargen.  I was flexible on this, but the other players and DM couldn't come to an agreement.

So we packed up and went our separate ways after 30 minutes.

Why are you guys arguing with him? You all know he sees things in only one possible light, most times contrary to reality.

Quote from: gleichman;650817More effort that we would ever take, so much in fact that I wonder if you just have a really committed group or are yanking my chain. Whatever, it's not my concern.

As far as I could tell, these guys were dedicated.  I didn't know any of them previously.  (It was from answering an ad at a local gaming store).

Quote from: ggroy;650822As far as I could tell, these guys were dedicated.  I didn't know any of them previously.  (It was from answering an ad at a local gaming store).

More hardcore than I. Not that difficult really, I only look extreme due to the type of people on this site.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650818IDK, maybe it's because I'm older and don't have the free time I did as a kid.  But time spent gaming is a commodity, and we can't spend time going over that level of detail when we could just be playing.  If something comes up, we just deal with it as reasonable adults.

From what I could guess, three of the other players/DM appeared to be high functioning autistic types.  They were willing to go through the process systematically and in great detail.

Quote from: gleichman;650823More hardcore than I. Not that difficult really, I only look extreme due to the type of people on this site.

Quote from: ggroy;650824From what I could guess, three of the other players/DM appeared to be high functioning autistic types.

So apparently you only look extreme to people who aren't autistic?


Mystery solved.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650826So apparently you only look extreme to people who aren't autistic?

Hard to diagnose somebody online for autism.

Over the years I've met individuals offline who are sticklers for obeying rules and details, but who don't appear to be autistic at all.

Quote from: ggroy;650824From what I could guess, three of the other players/DM appeared to be high functioning autistic types.  They were willing to go through the process systematically and in great detail.

I would have passed. If the rules in use actually needed that much effort I wouldn't play them. And if they didn't, I wouldn't join a group that spent that much time reviewing/revising something that was workable.

Was this some favor of D&D?

Also it seems that you actually gamed with them. How was it?

Quote from: gleichman;650828Was this some favor of D&D?

1E AD&D.

Quote from: gleichman;650828Also it seems that you actually gamed with them. How was it?

Overall, it was somewhat slow.

Mapping was done very precisely by one of the players, and was quite slow.  The DM kept track of the in-game clock quite precisely.

Combat varied from being fast to a slog.

The DM was saying "you don't find anything here" very frequently.  (This was the part I found very slow going and sometimes frustrating).

Quote from: ggroy;650827Hard to diagnose somebody online for autism.

.

I'm not diagnosing anyone.  You said those people had autism.  gleichman used those people to say "See, I'm not that extreme."

Quote from: ggroy;650827Hard to diagnose somebody online for autism.

Over the years I've met individuals offline who are sticklers for obeying rules and details, but who don't appear to be autistic at all.

Agreed.  Armchair diagnosis of autism in people online is stupid, and reflects poorly on the diagnoser rather than anyone else.

Quote from: One Horse Town;650694I can get behind this message. I'd quite like to lose a few years.

As I like to say: "Until you reach 18*, you wish to be older. When you pass 18, you wish to be younger". I'm young enough that my current ailment can be fixed with diet and exercise ;).

*Legal voting & alcohol purchase age in Poland.

Quote from: KenHR;650806Gleichman is a REAL gamer.  He makes no mistakes.  His rules don't just model physics, they ARE physics.

Ha! Next time you will tell me OG does not stand for Original Gamer!

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ9vxnbcXhzpyXzAhLt9ATP0Eo7Osqm5GyUKH10eJhKNoRaW0vB)

Quote from: jhkim;650835Agreed.  Armchair diagnosis of autism in people online is stupid, and reflects poorly on the diagnoser rather than anyone else.

If you don't have autism, don't act like you have one online. But fine, if your moralities need to be sated, he's "just" thick.


I'm surprised Gleichy didn't yet pull the "Bad GMs attract bad players" line to counter "well it works for me". That's crowd favourite.

Quote from: Brad;650800Are you completely unfamiliar with International Law, or anything dealing with warfare? Everyone "knows the rules", regardless if they're written down or not.

Your counterargument is pretty weak.

You forgot to add "And everyone obeys them unquestioningly", in a sarcastic manner. Which also happens in RPGs, when often rules are bent, because the situation is more logical if you use your brain rather than game's mechanics.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;650569This is all going against one of the points in the primer though since you are using a character ability in rolling a die to determine the result of the jump rather than having the player's skill at jumping be the determinant factor on rather or not they can make jumps or not.

That's some mighty fine bullshit, right there.

Quote from: Imperator;650575They can, but it also can lead to some idiotic situations.

For example, let's imagine I want to throw a punch at a guy. IRL, if I am not trained I won't probably be able to KO the guy on a single blow, but I think I can at least hit him, even if only weakly. In CoC every PC has a 50% of landing a punch (then your foe may be able to dodge or parry but that's another matter).

OTOH, if you play Kult 1e and you don't know very well how the rules work and you try to do the same, you have a measly 3 as basic score on punching. 3 on a 1-20 scale. Or to say the same, a 15% So you decide to flaill around uselessly acting under the idea that your PC is more competent than he actually is, because you do not understand the rules that govern that setting.

So, inmersing in a setting may require for you to know how rules work. Fighting a gang of 6 foes in RQ is almost always a suicide, but is no big deal in 7th Sea. Some time ago we were playing RQ Vikings and my wife's PC got severely injured because she jumped from the mast of her drakkar into the fray, trying to land over a couple of foes. And she decided that because she had been playing lots of 7th Sea and she forgot that RQ rules are different, so she failed her Jump roll and got severely injured.

Rules define the physics of the setting and your PC is familiar with that. If I am an 8th level warrior in D&D I won't stop if a guy threatens me with a sad crossbow, even if I am unarmored, because I know for a fact that a single shot won't kill me ever. I will rush the guy and laugh the bolt off. I wouldn't do the same in RQ.

You've got two things going on here:

(1) We're talking about the Old School Primer, which is going to be less relevant when talking about later rules systems. Although Basic Role Playing has a long pedigree, a lot of the decisions made when designing BRP were done with the idea of moving away from the playstyle described in the primer. In other words, BRP relies more on character skill over player skill, more knowledge of the rules, etc. Not as much as later games, but there's a quite definite shift.

Games written even later on, like Kult and 7th Sea, shift even further in that direction. While it's potentially possible to play any game in the Old School Primer style, you'll run into problems when playing a game written *in opposition to that style*. You should play CoC, Kult, and 7th Sea in the styles they were meant to support, or not play them at all and stick to OD&D.

(2) Players who don't know the rules may eventually learn the rules, even if only in a general sense. This is what happens with the 8th level fighter facing the crossbow. By the time you reach 8th level, you've probably noticed that a single hit from a mundane weapon won't kill you if you have lots of hit points. So, you take the risk.

Remember, the primer is saying that players don't need to know the rules, not that they aren't allowed to know or guess at the rules.

Quote from: Marleycat;650820Why are you guys arguing with him? You all know he sees things in only one possible light, most times contrary to reality.

I think you mean "he sees thing in only one possible light: HIMSELF."

I think it's time that we stopped with the autism/ocd jibes, folks. It's quite possible to be rigorous and/or demanding without suffering from a mental illness.

Likewise, i think it's time Gleichman stopped demanding people pass an arbitrary exam in order to be worthy of speaking with him.

This i spake. :pundit:

Quote from: jhkim;650835Agreed.  Armchair diagnosis of autism in people online is stupid, and reflects poorly on the diagnoser rather than anyone else.

True. You don't have to be autistic to be a shitty shitty poster.

Quote from: One Horse Town;650856Likewise, i think it's time Gleichman stopped demanding people pass an arbitrary exam in order to be worthy of speaking with him.

What's that in reference to?

Quote from: gleichman;650873What's that in reference to?

Your posting history.

Like it or not, you come across as incredibly hostile in a lot of your posts. It's hard to talk to you.

That's neither here nor there on this site, but given your propensity to accuse others (certainly justified in the aforementioned autism/ocd jibes) of being hostile to you, i think it is important to point out that it's most definitely a two-way street.

If you want to discuss it, i suggest you PM me, so we don't derail this thread further. :)

Quote from: One Horse Town;650875Your posting history.

Like it or not, you come across as incredibly hostile in a lot of your posts. It's hard to talk to you.

Oh that, I was confused by the word 'exam'.

The truth is that the OSR movement is founded on the principle that everything else is garbage, and they say it often and loud. They shouldn't wince when it's returned.

As for talking to me, one can just drop the insults and system wars. Things might be surprisingly easy if they did.

Quote from: gleichman;650879As for talking to me, one can just drop the insults and system wars. Things might be surprisingly easy if they did.

Except most of us tried. And I for one am not falling for your "I'm innocent and tired" trick. You're acting in the manner of a man who, caught standing next to a dead body, having a bloodied knife in his hand and blood over the entire body, and with five witnesses attesting that you did scream "Now you die!", you'd look at the policemen completely surprised and go "Who, me, officer?"

Quote from: gleichman;650879The truth is that the OSR movement is founded on the principle that everything else is garbage, and they say it often and loud. They shouldn't wince when it's returned.

How about a link to back this up?

Quote from: gleichman;650879Oh that, I was confused by the word 'exam'.

The truth is that the OSR movement is founded on the principle that everything else is garbage, and they say it often and loud. They shouldn't wince when it's returned.

As for talking to me, one can just drop the insults and system wars. Things might be surprisingly easy if they did.

I don't give a shit about the OSR.

I like WFRP and Rolemaster predominantly(well, i like DCC, so i guess i'm an enemy), yet you've managed to insult me on many occasions by your posts. Sure, you might not have name-checked me, but the broad-brush you utilize to 'hit back' at the OSR covers a large explosion template of games.

Now, what was that about PMs?

Quote from: estar;650883How about a link to back this up?

How about you read this thread, or even the primer that kicked it off which (while better than many of posters to this thread) is every bit as condescending as people are claiming in another thread Torchbearer is.

As if only the OSR uses and values (to quote from the Primer) "observation, thinking, and experimentation". Phiifff. What self-righteous drivel. All it is a different focus, nothing more and nothing less. And if people would speak of it in that way there'd be no problem. But instead they have to act as if they're the only enlightened thinking creatures on the planet.

Quote from: One Horse Town;650887I like WFRP and Rolemaster predominantly(well, i like DCC, so i guess i'm an enemy), yet you've managed to insult me on many occasions by your posts. Sure, you might not have name-checked me, but the broad-brush you utilize to 'hit back' at the OSR covers a large explosion template of games.

And they don't? Last time I checked 'modern' games covers a lot of ground (basically everything except OD&D according to talysman back just a few posts).

If I've insulted you somewhere along the way, ask me about it. I'd likely retract it in your case as you were not the target. Don't put yourself in the cross-fire and than act as if I was at fault for slighting you.

Quote from: gleichman;650890If I've insulted you somewhere along the way, ask me about it. I'd likely retract it in your case as you were not the target. Don't put yourself in the cross-fire and than act as if I was at fault for slighting you.

I wash my hands of this mess. Enjoy yourself.

Quote from: One Horse Town;650891I wash my hands of this mess. Enjoy yourself.

I'm done. I've said just about all there is say in response to this thread and I have other things to do.

Quote from: gleichman;650893I'm done. I've said just about all there is say in response to this thread and I have other things to do.

Aw dang.  I was hoping you were going to show me where in the Basic rulebook there were rules for doing grid combat as the way to play.  I mean, you did say a person wasn't playing D&D unless they were using a grid.  And B/X certainly is D&D.  I mean, it says so on the cover....

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650898Aw dang.  I was hoping you were going to show me where in the Basic rulebook there were rules for doing grid combat as the way to play.  I mean, you did say a person wasn't playing D&D unless they were using a grid.  And B/X certainly is D&D.  I mean, it says so on the cover....

(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/christina.png) See, D&D is a bad RPG anyway, so it doesn't matter. An intelligent group would not use it in the first place.

Mike Mornard posts a lot at RPGnet; he was in EGG's group and blah blah blah you all know the story.  He says they never used minis when playing D&D.  I guess they weren't true gamers, either.

Quote from: talysman;650852Remember, the primer is saying that players don't need to know the rules, not that they aren't allowed to know or guess at the rules.

Unless you are playing Paranoia.

As a side note, I think that while gleichman is an obnoxious prat, SOME of the things he says are not entirely out there. Just read through the thread and say you don't see the occasional insult to people who don't play the OSR way. Oh you know, all those power gamers and charopers and how you are happy that anyone who doesn't agree with your assessment that the rules aren't something for the player to know get up from your game because you wouldn't want to play with those immature power gamers anyway, because that is the ONLY people who could possibly not be into that style of play.

Seriously. I'm not saying its everyone, but there sure is a tendency to deride the vitriol from one side, while all the vitriol from your own side is A-OK and/or nonexistent.

And yeah, while some of the people arguing against the primer aren't being any more respectful, a lot of this all seems like pointless bickering over how someone chooses to pretend to be an elf.

Both styles are valid play. Have fun at your table. Peace.

Quote from: gleichman;650888How about you read this thread, or even the primer that kicked it off which (while better than many of posters to this thread) is every bit as condescending as people are claiming in another thread Torchbearer is.

I have and I asked you a question about a post you wrote. You didn't answer my question.

Quote from: gleichman;650888As if only the OSR uses and values (to quote from the Primer) "observation, thinking, and experimentation". Phiifff. What self-righteous drivel. All it is a different focus, nothing more and nothing less. And if people would speak of it in that way there'd be no problem. But instead they have to act as if they're the only enlightened thinking creatures on the planet.

And I observe that you didn't still didn't post  a link or text where somebody involved in the OSR has said "everything else is garbage".

I think your opinion has no base in fact when you failed to answer my question which I posted as an experiment to see if you were willing to back what you assert.

I speculate that you hold your opinion about the OSR, despite the lack of factual evidence, due to your strong belief in how a tabletop roleplaying game ought to be designed and played based on quotes you made on this board. Also explains your attitude in this thread and similar ones like it.

Quote from: gleichman;604990I feel that the current trends in gaming are counter-productive and destructive to what I enjoy.

Quote from: gleichman;604990I'm really not interested in sharing my insights, getting feedback, having downloads, views or sales.

There's not enough in common with today's gaming trends to make any of the reasonable (i.e. all feedback would be negative, all sales zero).

Quote from: talysman;650852Remember, the primer is saying that players don't need to know the rules, not that they aren't allowed to know or guess at the rules.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;650903Unless you are playing Paranoia.

I know you're just dropping in a one-liner because you saw an opportunity... But again, the primer is not about Paranoia. It is very clearly about a style of play that started with OD&D and continued on through other early versions of D&D and in some games deliberately designed like D&D; it is contrasting that style with another primary style in D&D that started showing up in AD&D, possibly earlier. It is only about other RPGs to the extent that somebody might try to play other RPGs in a very old school D&D way.

Now, an interesting aside might be: was Paranoia partially written the way it was to mock the style of some extreme GMs who banned players from the rules?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;650903As a side note, I think that while gleichman is an obnoxious prat, SOME of the things he says are not entirely out there. Just read through the thread and say you don't see the occasional insult to people who don't play the OSR way. Oh you know, all those power gamers and charopers and how you are happy that anyone who doesn't agree with your assessment that the rules aren't something for the player to know get up from your game because you wouldn't want to play with those immature power gamers anyway, because that is the ONLY people who could possibly not be into that style of play.

I see some people insulting a particular kind of power gamer, a particular kind of rules-obsessed player. Specifically, those who argue in absolutes and talk about rules being objectively good or bad. The kind of gamer who seems to take offense to the very existence of non-optimized gaming.

Signs you're dealing with this type of gamer:

• They complain about how Matt Finch's Primer is insulting;
• They complain that "rulings not rules" is GM abuse;
• They interrupt discussions about old school gaming with number-crunching that "proves" OD&D is not balanced;
• They complain that "player skill over character skill" is unfair to people who don't have various skills in real life;
• They complain that it's impossible for someone to play D&D without knowing the rules;
• They complain that the OSR is exclusionary because it doesn't consider 3e or 4e to be "old school";
• They interpret various statements about old school play as absolutes, instead of relative comparisons or examples.

And many other things as well.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;650903Seriously. I'm not saying its everyone, but there sure is a tendency to deride the vitriol from one side, while all the vitriol from your own side is A-OK and/or nonexistent.

I think 90 to 95% of the "insults" and "vitriol" are people choosing to take offense, where none exists. On BOTH sides.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764*Edit* But more to the point, my post was to illustrate how something like those scenarios in a game does not devolve into paralysis by analysis.  They were all easily and quickly resolved.  Even in your version, they were.

To try to wring a bit of substantive discussion out of this thread, I don't think you're addressing the analysis paralysis claim.

The alleged problem is that there are those seven options, but until the player knows what rulings the GM is going to make about how to resolve them, the player can't effectively choose between them.

So the supposed process of deciding what the player is going to do, instead of being considering the 7 options and choosing one, becomes

Player considers 7 options
Player asks GM about #1
GM quickly tells the player how they'd handle it
Player asks GM about #2
...
GM quickly tells the player how they'd handle #7
Player makes a decision

... which is a lot slower.
Now, if the player went through this with you a dozen times, they'd probably figure out some of your patterns, and only need to ask about 2 or 3.

And the counterargument to that is "only if the player is confident they understand your pattern, and confident you aren't going to change". Which I'm not too worried by, but the concern trolls are.

Quote from: Naburimannu;650945To try to wring a bit of substantive discussion out of this thread, I don't think you're addressing the analysis paralysis claim.

The alleged problem is that there are those seven options, but until the player knows what rulings the GM is going to make about how to resolve them, the player can't effectively choose between them.

So the supposed process of deciding what the player is going to do, instead of being considering the 7 options and choosing one, becomes

Player considers 7 options
Player asks GM about #1
GM quickly tells the player how they'd handle it
Player asks GM about #2
...
GM quickly tells the player how they'd handle #7
Player makes a decision

... which is a lot slower.
Now, if the player went through this with you a dozen times, they'd probably figure out some of your patterns, and only need to ask about 2 or 3.

And the counterargument to that is "only if the player is confident they understand your pattern, and confident you aren't going to change". Which I'm not too worried by, but the concern trolls are.

As a player I don't think about patterns, math, what the gm thinks, etc...

My characters do what the character would do.

I really don't relate to the paralysis at all.

Quote from: gleichman;650798Not as much as one might think, but then this site loves it some moral relativism. Just check out the Law and Chaos thread.



The risk is changed from the original design, and in undefined ways.

Thus you're not playing the original game at all, and further you don't really know what has and has not changed as you don't have a RAW baseline to compare to. Thus you can't claim to have fixed anything.

As far as being enjoyable, I imagine that with a GM and group as undemanding of standards as yours seems to be- *anything* would likely be seen as enjoyable. That IMO is part of the natural result of your style. It breeds that mindset.

My issues with Alignment are mainly based on how few people agree on the definitions.

Raw baseline? That is the rulebook being used. So any changes I make are compared to that.

Fixed to me is repairing a broken ruleset. All rpg rulesets I have seen are broken.

As for standards and style, people obviously enjoy different things.

But to suggest I would enjoy anything? I assure you there are plenty of things in rpg's I do not enjoy.

Like Murder Hoboism.

Quote from: estar;650907And I observe that you didn't still didn't post  a link or text where somebody involved in the OSR has said "everything else is garbage".

Is posting links now required for rational discussion?

Quote from: estar;650907I speculate that you hold your opinion about the OSR, despite the lack of factual evidence, due to your strong belief in how a tabletop roleplaying game ought to be designed and played based on quotes you made on this board. Also explains your attitude in this thread and similar ones like it.

Links or it didn't happen.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650955Is posting links now required for rational discussion?



Links or it didn't happen.

There are two quotes just below.

Quote from: Naburimannu;650945To try to wring a bit of substantive discussion out of this thread, I don't think you're addressing the analysis paralysis claim.

The alleged problem is that there are those seven options, but until the player knows what rulings the GM is going to make about how to resolve them, the player can't effectively choose between them.

So the supposed process of deciding what the player is going to do, instead of being considering the 7 options and choosing one, becomes

Player considers 7 options
Player asks GM about #1
GM quickly tells the player how they'd handle it
Player asks GM about #2
...
GM quickly tells the player how they'd handle #7
Player makes a decision

... which is a lot slower.
Now, if the player went through this with you a dozen times, they'd probably figure out some of your patterns, and only need to ask about 2 or 3.

And the counterargument to that is "only if the player is confident they understand your pattern, and confident you aren't going to change". Which I'm not too worried by, but the concern trolls are.

Player: "What if I did X, how would you handle that?" ad infinitum
GM: "Lost your round.  Next!"

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650955Is posting links now required for rational discussion?

Gliechman made a blanket statement about the OSR. I challenged him to back it up.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650955Links or it didn't happen.

The links are in the quotes (click on the little arched arrow) but here is the direct link to the post I quoted from.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=604990#post604990

Quote from: Bill;650951As a player I don't think about patterns, math, what the gm thinks, etc...

My characters do what the character would do.

I really don't relate to the paralysis at all.

Yeah, pretty much.  Maybe I've been playing with unusual players, but everything in the original example are things that players have been saying for decades.  It's never gone down like the quote you just responded to.  Instead, it usually goes down like:

Players say, "I'm gonna try this."
DM's say, "OK, resolve it this way."
Players say, "OK" and resolve it.

I've never had players go over option after option delaying the game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650969Yeah, pretty much.  Maybe I've been playing with unusual players, but everything in the original example are things that players have been saying for decades.  It's never gone down like the quote you just responded to.  Instead, it usually goes down like:

Players say, "I'm gonna try this."
DM's say, "OK, resolve it this way."
Players say, "OK" and resolve it.

I've never had players go over option after option delaying the game.

This is one problem that comes with discussing how RPGs function in theoretical terms.

Quote from: Benoist;650064I can tell you what happens at my AD&D game table: I am very much the referee of the game, and the rules and their application are indeed my province. There is no copy of the Dungeon Master's Guide on the players' side of the screen. Somebody bringing such a book to the table would be asked to let it rest in the backpack. I decide what people roll and when. Players don't have attack matrixes in front of them, because figuring the monster's AC is *NOT* the point of the game. I don't reveal circumstantial modifiers on attack rolls and the like, I might substitute six-siders in the rules for twelve or hundred-sided dice while keeping the same relative odds, and back and forth.

What the players know about the game is what they discover through the act of play. A MU player knows how his spells work, a fighter knows the function of weapons and armor, and there is a copy of the PH on the table for them to look up stuff if need be, but that's no guarantee that things will turn out the way the rules say "because rules."

Either you trust me to do a fair, consistent job as a DM, and know what it is I am doing without switching the tables around or engaging in illusionism or whatever else, or you don't. If you don't, there's really no point in playing together, and I'm cool with that.

This. I haven't replied in this thread up till now, even though I have strong and, sometimes, conflicting views on the topic, because I was having difficulty clarifying my thoughts, but this pretty much sums up my attitute to Rule Zero and related questions of rules interpretation.

Quote from: Bill;650951As a player I don't think about patterns, math, what the gm thinks, etc...

My characters do what the character would do.

I really don't relate to the paralysis at all.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650969Yeah, pretty much.  Maybe I've been playing with unusual players, but everything in the original example are things that players have been saying for decades.  It's never gone down like the quote you just responded to.  Instead, it usually goes down like:

Players say, "I'm gonna try this."
DM's say, "OK, resolve it this way."
Players say, "OK" and resolve it.

I've never had players go over option after option delaying the game.

Quote from: KenHR;650970This is one problem that comes with discussing how RPGs function in theoretical terms.

Yeah, me neither. I've never had a player engage in pixelbitching to the extent deadDMwalking described it.

When a player is taking forever to take a decision, the players around him or her start to get annoyed and joke about "make up your mind for God's sakes" and the like. That's the social element of RPGs that's always forgotten in those kinds of theoretical discussions. If you pixel-bitch with the DM, there are other players who are waiting and you are basically acting like a dick to them. Don't be a dick. That's a first thing.

The second thing is that there are moments to ask plenty of questions (when you're inspecting a room in the dungeon, for instance, which of course triggers the risk to be interrupted by wandering monsters and happenings in the dungeon), and others when that's much less appropriate, from a role playing standpoint. If you are role playing a fight breaking out in a tavern with everything moving fast and you go with your first instinct to do something about it on the spot, then pixelbitching like your character is carefully weighing his options is a failure of role playing. What happens is that your character stands there using reason instead of guts and instincts to do something. You pass your turn.

In reflection, the only time my characters stand there struggling to make a decsision is usually when:

My Paladin is confronted with another Paladin who may or may not be slipping into evil in the name of the greater good.

And I have to choose between stopping the other paladin or helping him.

Stuff like that can paralyze me for a few minutes.


But choosing charge, attack, use an ability, cast a spell, etc are just results of what the character chooses to do.

Quote from: Bill;650983In reflection, the only time my characters stand there struggling to make a decsision is usually when:

My Paladin is confronted with another Paladin who may or may not be slipping into evil in the name of the greater good.

And I have to choose between stopping the other paladin or helping him.

Stuff like that can paralyze me for a few minutes.


But choosing charge, attack, use an ability, cast a spell, etc are just results of what the character chooses to do.

Sure, me too. There's a huge difference between being in character and freezing in role play over something cool (and/or horrible) happening in the game, and pixelbitch about what modifier you get how and where if you do this or that with the GM.

Quote from: Benoist;650985Sure, me too. There's a huge difference between being in character and freezing in role play over something cool (and/or horrible) happening in the game, and pixelbitch about what modifier you get how and where if you do this or that with the GM.

I am with you on this.

If a player has a simple question about how a rule works, I am always happy to explain it then and there. If the game slows down due to a rules argument, I ask the player to table it so we can talk about it after the game or before the next session.

On the one hand, I generally agree that systemless play and/or play without knowing the rules is quite possible and can be fun.  It's a fairly empirical thing - I've played a wide variety of new systems including ones where I didn't know the options and was being walked through them.  

Thus, I disagree with the extremes of Gleichman and Anon.  

However, that said, some stuff from the non-rules side strikes me as a bit off.  While it *can be* fun, I have seen and experienced some problems with no-rules-knowledge play.  I'm suspicious particularly of people who are arguing for no rules knowledge for players, when they themselves generally know the rules.  

Quote from: Bill;650983In reflection, the only time my characters stand there struggling to make a decsision is usually when:

My Paladin is confronted with another Paladin who may or may not be slipping into evil in the name of the greater good.

And I have to choose between stopping the other paladin or helping him.

Stuff like that can paralyze me for a few minutes.

But choosing charge, attack, use an ability, cast a spell, etc are just results of what the character chooses to do.

I believe your experience - but how many of those in-character choices of charge, attack, etc. are in cases where you have no knowledge of the rules being used?  

Sure, in a D&D game, you can easily choose between casting Sanctuary, casting Cure Light Wounds, and using your mace.  However, you know what those options do.  If you were completely new to the game, you could choose between those options arbitrarily, but I think there's a case that it isn't really in character - since the character does know how the Sanctuary spell works (for example).

It's fine if you want to tell people they lose their action because they don't decide quickly, and it's also possible that the other players will push the player least familiar with the rules toward a particular course of action.  In fact, that's usually what I see happen.

But from the new player's perspective, it's not as much fun to go through the whole session just being told 'Just attack him' or 'Just charge'.  Taken to an extreme, the 'new player' is really just an auxillary of an experienced player - and I've seen that happen.  I've even seen experienced players get angry with a new player for doing something 'stupid' - which if they knew the rules they might not have wanted to do.  3.x offers great examples - since it uses attacks of opportunities, doing something that provokes is usually unwise.  The new player that says 'I shoot him with my bow' not recognizing that firing a bow in melee has negative consequences is a problem - both because the character would know, but also because once you take the 'preferred option' off the table, the player has to come up with a new action.  

Again, this matters most when effectiveness is an important part of play.  

But certainly for the game to work, players need to have general ideas of how actions will work.  There are things that I would do in real life that I won't do in a game - the way they work out in the game just don't reflect reality very well.

In the "rules versus rulings" controversy (which goes back almost two centuries), the rules in question are formal, abstract rules. More fundamental are the facts of life the abstraction is supposed to model.

The flexibility of a GM is a solution for the simulator, a problem for the competitor.

On one hand, even an encyclopedic codex could not cover every real possibility. On the other hand, however bizarre such a text may be from a simulation perspective, it admits of comprehensive analysis: if X then Y, with no unknown members in the sets.

The roleplaying element was prominent in the Prussian kriegspiel. The GM gave you only the information you would actually get on scene, and you had all the options in response that you would have in real life.

In the 1960s, hobby gaming rose to new levels of popularity with "hex and counter" map games mainly designed for use without a GM. As a practical matter -- quite regardless of desirability! -- this typically meant that all players had access to perfect information about the abstraction.

The simulator does not like to hear, "You can't do that, because the model does not permit it." If a new domain of X or Y must be introduced, then so be it!

Neither is it a great thing to be given information to which one would not be privy in the real situation; that is at best a necessary evil.

As an offshoot of military history, the field of hobby gaming has an inherent element of simulation; as a hobby, it has a do it yourself, home-brewed element.

As a kind of game, it has an inherent element of pure competitors as well.

To complicate matters further, there are people who partake of both elements to varying degrees, even depending on the occasion.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996But from the new player's perspective, it's not as much fun to go through the whole session just being told 'Just attack him' or 'Just charge'.  Taken to an extreme, the 'new player' is really just an auxillary of an experienced player - and I've seen that happen.  I've even seen experienced players get angry with a new player for doing something 'stupid' - which if they knew the rules they might not have wanted to do.  3.x offers great examples - since it uses attacks of opportunities, doing something that provokes is usually unwise.

Well, that's an argument against 3.X and attacks of opportunity rather than the practice in general.  

At the same time, I have seen the same thing in earlier editions with spells - i.e. if a new and/or young players casts all their spells too quickly, say, or the wrong ones at the wrong time.

Quote from: talysman;650918Now, an interesting aside might be: was Paranoia partially written the way it was to mock the style of some extreme GMs who banned players from the rules?

Maybe, but the game came well before WEG's text.

Quote from: jhkim;650994I'm suspicious particularly of people who are arguing for no rules knowledge for players, when they themselves generally know the rules.

I generally know as little as I am allowed to.

I was introduced to D&D in a way that did not entail learning the number-crunching bits. Dealing with those was simply not the game's interface, any more than waggling a joystick at the video arcade required learning machine language.

Having long since been a D&D DM, I am fairly well acquainted with the main TSR-era books. I am likely often to notice if a DM is using things as written or modifying them. That's just an occupational hazard of being a DM!

I also went through a phase of collecting published RPG rules sets, reading them even if I never got around to using them.

It does not at all follow that I expect a "by the book" game, unless such is advertised.

Quote from: jhkim;651001Well, that's an argument against 3.X and attacks of opportunity rather than the practice in general.  

At the same time, I have seen the same thing in earlier editions with spells - i.e. if a new and/or young players casts all their spells too quickly, say, or the wrong ones at the wrong time.

Apples and oranges, friend.

What a spell does is no different than what a real-world tool does, in feasibility of description in plain language. Learning to use a tool in its own right well is quite another matter from needing first to learn how to use a technical simulation-model description of the tool.

As I mentioned in a previous post, there's the difference between being able to grab a joystick or needing to learn machine language.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764reread what he said as the scenario.  It wasn't just jumping straight up to grab the chandelier.

Your saying that the idea of swinging after grabbing the chandelier, completely changes it from a mundane action to an action requiring a Dex check?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764Tell you what hot shot, you put 3 full grown men standing on a typical inn table (usually pretty thick and heavy itself) and try to flip it.  Go ahead you stud you.  Especially with a floor that is supposedly easy to slide all the way across.

Yeah it isn't that hard.
It sure the shit ain't
* Sorry, but your strength doesn't allow you to lift 600+ pounds.
I'm not dead lifting anything I'm flipping or more accurately tipping the table over.  The act of tipping makes use of one of the 6 simple machines, a lever. I'm not dead lifting 600+ lbs.  Perhaps in your world using a wheelbarrow is deadlifting weight.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764Because it's treated like any other attack roll.  Dagger or stew, doesn't matter.  You're throwing an object as an attack.  Seriously dude.

I'm not attacking I am trying to cause a distraction.  I don't need to hit him right between the eyes, a glancing hit of some kind is more than sufficient.  It matters not if the bowl hits him or if it is just the stew or a combination of either

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764Again, you're essentially making an attack.  So just make an attack roll.

Why?  You described him as a skinny farmer with a broken bottle in his hand, who I will assume is feeling the effects of alcohol. Here I am a season adventurer and I still have to roll dice to roll into someone like this?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764You know, if you actually read the scenario before responding, you'd save yourself a lot of time.  If it were fairly easy to "slide across the bar floor" anytime food or beverage got spilled, you don't think that would be a problem?  People would be falling all over themselves.  There's a big difference in being somewhat slippery and slippery enough to slide a significant distance.

The wood would be slippery, why do you think hay or reeds or other plant material was strewn across the floors for?
If you are going for a more upscale establishment, yeah spilled liquid causes people to slide,  ever heard of hydroplaning?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764The chandelier rope isn't moving, thus no attack roll needed.  If anyone is underneath it when it falls, they get affected.  What's so hard about that?

He automatically cuts clean through. No negatives to draw and strike.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764And this is why most people here think you're an idiot, because you're not actually thinking before needing to post an antagonizing diatribe of tripe.

Oh so I'm an idiot because I poked holes in your 'rulings'.
And you wonder why some people don't like the concept of rulings instead of rules.

Quote from: jhkim;650994On the one hand, I generally agree that systemless play and/or play without knowing the rules is quite possible and can be fun.  It's a fairly empirical thing - I've played a wide variety of new systems including ones where I didn't know the options and was being walked through them.  

Thus, I disagree with the extremes of Gleichman and Anon.  

However, that said, some stuff from the non-rules side strikes me as a bit off.  While it *can be* fun, I have seen and experienced some problems with no-rules-knowledge play.  I'm suspicious particularly of people who are arguing for no rules knowledge for players, when they themselves generally know the rules.  


I believe your experience - but how many of those in-character choices of charge, attack, etc. are in cases where you have no knowledge of the rules being used?  

Sure, in a D&D game, you can easily choose between casting Sanctuary, casting Cure Light Wounds, and using your mace.  However, you know what those options do.  If you were completely new to the game, you could choose between those options arbitrarily, but I think there's a case that it isn't really in character - since the character does know how the Sanctuary spell works (for example).

Well, the description of the spell should make it fairly clear what the spell does. the gm would presumably tell the new player at least "Santuary may protect you or another until you do something violent'

Sure, a wizard or cleric is potentially tricky for a brand new player, but the gm can tell you 'Magic missle always hits its target'

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996It's fine if you want to tell people they lose their action because they don't decide quickly, and it's also possible that the other players will push the player least familiar with the rules toward a particular course of action.  In fact, that's usually what I see happen.

But from the new player's perspective, it's not as much fun to go through the whole session just being told 'Just attack him' or 'Just charge'.  Taken to an extreme, the 'new player' is really just an auxillary of an experienced player - and I've seen that happen.  I've even seen experienced players get angry with a new player for doing something 'stupid' - which if they knew the rules they might not have wanted to do.  3.x offers great examples - since it uses attacks of opportunities, doing something that provokes is usually unwise.  The new player that says 'I shoot him with my bow' not recognizing that firing a bow in melee has negative consequences is a problem - both because the character would know, but also because once you take the 'preferred option' off the table, the player has to come up with a new action.  

Again, this matters most when effectiveness is an important part of play.  

But certainly for the game to work, players need to have general ideas of how actions will work.  There are things that I would do in real life that I won't do in a game - the way they work out in the game just don't reflect reality very well.

Most players get up to speed fairly quickly in play, but I have seen a few players that cant add up to hit bonuses after a solid year too :)

Quote from: Sommerjon;651010Your saying that the idea of swinging after grabbing the chandelier, completely changes it from a mundane action to an action requiring a Dex check?

Yes.  It's safe to assume that players don't have a lot of practice leaping up in the middle of combat to swing on chandeliers towards an opponent.

QuoteYeah it isn't that hard.
It sure the shit ain't
* Sorry, but your strength doesn't allow you to lift 600+ pounds.
I'm not dead lifting anything I'm flipping or more accurately tipping the table over.  The act of tipping makes use of one of the 6 simple machines, a lever. I'm not dead lifting 600+ lbs.  Perhaps in your world using a wheelbarrow is deadlifting weight.

I'll bet you $100 you can't do it.  Especially on a floor that is so slippery that, according to you, is easy to slide across like an ice rink.  How are you going to get your footing?  Also, a table doesn't have a single pivot point like a wheelbarrow.  And I doubt a thick wooden table is just so easy to flip over.  If it's stable with 3 people fighting on top of it, you think it's a card table?  Jesus, you're just failing all over the place.

QuoteI'm not attacking I am trying to cause a distraction.  I don't need to hit him right between the eyes, a glancing hit of some kind is more than sufficient.  It matters not if the bowl hits him or if it is just the stew or a combination of either

According to you, a player wanting to throw a flask of acid on an opponent does not need to make an attack roll?  There's no real difference in throwing a bowl of stew and throwing a bowl of acid, mechanically.  Not only are you being stupid here, but the rules actively disagree with you as well.

QuoteWhy?  You described him as a skinny farmer with a broken bottle in his hand, who I will assume is feeling the effects of alcohol. Here I am a season adventurer and I still have to roll dice to roll into someone like this?

Again, because you're essentially doing an attack.  Where do you draw the line?  If the farmer was 100 pounds?  150 pounds?  200 pounds? before an attack is necessary?  I guess my fighter doesn't need to roll to hit any more when fighting goblins or other similarly small creatures.  He can just barrel roll them all automatically...

QuoteThe wood would be slippery, why do you think hay or reeds or other plant material was strewn across the floors for?
If you are going for a more upscale establishment, yeah spilled liquid causes people to slide,  ever heard of hydroplaning?

Do you know how hydroplaning works?  I'm guessing not, unless you are assuming that a player is sliding at 40mph.  You're describing a floor that is as slippery as a sheet of ice.  If that were the case, you don't think it would affect everyone else that is currently fighting on it?  There is a big difference is sliding a few inches or even a foot on a slippery surface, and sliding a dozen feet.  You really have no concept of physics or friction.

QuoteHe automatically cuts clean through. No negatives to draw and strike.

Exactly.  A non moving rope right there getting hit by a sword or axe?  why not.  Maybe if it was really thick it might take more than one hit, but why would you need a to-hit roll for this, when you don't when throwing a bowl of stew at someone who is presumably going to try to avoid it?

QuoteOh so I'm an idiot because I poked holes in your 'rulings'.
And you wonder why some people don't like the concept of rulings instead of rules.

no, you're an idiot for completely missing the point (none of those scenarios resulted in paralysis by analysis).  Completely failing at things like basic physics or common sense doesn't help either.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996It's fine if you want to tell people they lose their action because they don't decide quickly, and it's also possible that the other players will push the player least familiar with the rules toward a particular course of action.  In fact, that's usually what I see happen.

But from the new player's perspective, it's not as much fun to go through the whole session just being told 'Just attack him' or 'Just charge'.

You're making a leap of logic here that nobody made: you're assuming that making a decision to do something will automatically default to "I just attack" or "I just charge" or that players will bully others into just doing that. This is a systematic error in those kinds of discussion to default to the worse case scenario. That's not what I see at game tables. What I see is instead just going with the first idea, way more often : "Okay then I'll just jump over the fence, swing on the chandelier and crash onto these brawling guys there." And on we go.

And yeah, for some people, once they stop worrying about whether they get +1 doing this or +2 doing that, they in fact may have a LOT more fun playing the game, as opposed to pixel-bitching about the math, in my experience.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996The new player that says 'I shoot him with my bow' not recognizing that firing a bow in melee has negative consequences is a problem - both because the character would know, but also because once you take the 'preferred option' off the table, the player has to come up with a new action.

Player: "I shoot the guy in front of me."
DM: "You are in a melee. You know that shooting in melee might cause you to hit someone else, and provide an opening to your opponents to hit you."
Player: "Fuck. OK. What if I drop the bow and draw my sword?"
DM: "This could take some time, and again, while you're doing this, your opponents are free to take the opportunity to hit you."
Player: "OK then. Here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to just crash into the guy in front of me to hopefully break from the melee and be able to shoot next turn."
DM: "Works for me. Roll to hit..."

Done. This is not rocket science.

Quote from: Bill;651014Most players get up to speed fairly quickly in play, but I have seen a few players that cant add up to hit bonuses after a solid year too :)

Yep, and IME I've found that if newbies see their fellow players pulling off fun cinematic shit with their PCs, they'll want in on that action right quick.

It might start off with a tentative "..can I try the leaping chandelier thing like Nate did last combat?  I'm close enough to one..." but after they've been told "Sure you can!" by the GM a couple times they'll lose that timidity.

(and yes, there are players - good and bad ones - who don't like trying cinematic shit with their characters...no problem there, they probably don't care)

Quote from: gleichman;650766It could very well be one.

If the campaign's genre and rules say that being in the open against missile fire is a dangerous move, leaping up and hanging from the chandelier when there's a foe nearby with a ready missile weapon is, well dumb no matter the height advantage the player gained on his melee foe.

A GM that failed to take the shot (and thus cause player failure) has broken the rules *and* the genre. He has also reduced the risk of the game.

It's that reduced risk that is a common feature of free-wheeling GM who ignore or override the rules. He will almost always do this in ways to favor the players (as you note, saying 'not doing so is being an asshat').

So, having claimed to never played this way, how could you possibly know what a "common feature" is? Consider how few roleplayers you know out of all the roleplaying groups across the world. at what point have you done the research to make assertions about what is common in games you're ignorant of?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996It's fine if you want to tell people they lose their action because they don't decide quickly, and it's also possible that the other players will push the player least familiar with the rules toward a particular course of action.  In fact, that's usually what I see happen.

But from the new player's perspective, it's not as much fun to go through the whole session just being told 'Just attack him' or 'Just charge'.  Taken to an extreme, the 'new player' is really just an auxillary of an experienced player - and I've seen that happen.  I've even seen experienced players get angry with a new player for doing something 'stupid' - which if they knew the rules they might not have wanted to do.  3.x offers great examples - since it uses attacks of opportunities, doing something that provokes is usually unwise.  The new player that says 'I shoot him with my bow' not recognizing that firing a bow in melee has negative consequences is a problem - both because the character would know, but also because once you take the 'preferred option' off the table, the player has to come up with a new action.  

While some players may learn this stuff most effectively from reading the rules, a lot of players will learn it by experience and watching play. And they don't necessarily learn the rule, they just learn the likely consequence.

So is it necessary for a player to know that firing an arrow into melee results in a 25 per cent chance of hitting a friendly on a missed roll? No. Maybe it's just necessary for the player to know that it's usually a bad idea, unless he has a feat that cancels the penalty.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651010Oh so I'm an idiot because I poked holes in your 'rulings'.

At an actual game table, you'd be the idiot because you would be a dick to everybody else stopping the game to a crawl engaging in arguments with the DM. Don't be a dick. After it's clear the DM has his ruling and won't budge, just roll with it. Play the game. If you think you can run the game better, you can take a shot at it yourself afterwards.

Quote from: Bill;651014Most players get up to speed fairly quickly in play, but I have seen a few players that cant add up to hit bonuses after a solid year too :)

One of my friends has been playing D&D on and off for over 30 years, and probably made up over 50 characters in that time, and he still doesn't know the HP bonus for a 16 Con, or the AC bonus for 17 Dex. To him, that kind of information is just boring, annoying shit that unfortunately someone (usually me) has to know in order to run the game.

Quote from: Benoist;651021At an actual game table, you'd be the idiot because you would be a dick to everybody else stopping the game to a crawl engaging in arguments with the DM. Don't be a dick. After it's clear the DM has his ruling and won't budge, just roll with it. Play the game. If you think you can run the game better, you can take a shot at it yourself afterwards.

Apparently not allowing players to automatically succeed at any crazy action they want to attempt makes one an asshole DM.  So that begs the question: At what point did DMs lose their balls and allow themselves to be bullied by players who have an overinflated sense of entitlement?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651025Apparently not allowing players to automatically succeed at any crazy action they want to attempt makes one an asshole DM.  So that begs the question: At what point did DMs lose their balls and allow themselves to be bullied by players who have an overinflated sense of entitlement?

3E or perhaps 3.5

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651025Apparently not allowing players to automatically succeed at any crazy action they want to attempt makes one an asshole DM.  So that begs the question: At what point did DMs lose their balls and allow themselves to be bullied by players who have an overinflated sense of entitlement?

Fuck if I know. Bill's answer is kinda obvious, but at the same time, these kinds of dickish players were there before: we knew them as "rules lawyers" and "munchkins" and other more-or-less interchangeable stereotypes, before that. There had to be an incentive for the post-2000 school of design to cater to this audience, and I feel the answer might be much more complicated than we'd expect (not to mention, way off-topic for this forum).

Quote from: Haffrung;651023One of my friends has been playing D&D on and off for over 30 years, and probably made up over 50 characters in that time, and he still doesn't know the HP bonus for a 16 Con, or the AC bonus for 17 Dex. To him, that kind of information is just boring, annoying shit that unfortunately someone (usually me) has to know in order to run the game.

It can be painful to watch a player spend five minutes every round of combat adding hit bonuses. During the full length of a year long weekly game.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996But from the new player's perspective, it's not as much fun to go through the whole session just being told 'Just attack him' or 'Just charge'.  Taken to an extreme, the 'new player' is really just an auxillary of an experienced player - and I've seen that happen.  I've even seen experienced players get angry with a new player for doing something 'stupid' - which if they knew the rules they might not have wanted to do.

That's a problem due to a disconnect between the model and the phenomenon being modelled. If you know how to drive a car, then a good car simulation should pose no such problem. It's when you must deal with a poor simulation that you need to know about the peculiarities of the model rather than about real driving!

QuoteAgain, this matters most when effectiveness is an important part of play.

It matters when "effectiveness" -- defined as winning the scenario -- is THE MOST important part of play. Maybe optimum effectiveness of a Grant tank gunner would come from having perfect knowledge of the complete physical system, but in reality that's not the condition under which real Grant tank gunners operated. Neither did they get to "hit the pause button" in combat to spend several minutes working out each shot in detail.

So, when role-playing is more important, less than optimum performance is not merely acceptable but DESIRED.

QuoteBut certainly for the game to work, players need to have general ideas of how actions will work.  There are things that I would do in real life that I won't do in a game - the way they work out in the game just don't reflect reality very well.

See the problem?

But of course to the competitor this is not a problem but rather a solution: you get a perfect closed system to manipulate.

Quote from: Haffrung;651023One of my friends has been playing D&D on and off for over 30 years, and probably made up over 50 characters in that time, and he still doesn't know the HP bonus for a 16 Con, or the AC bonus for 17 Dex. To him, that kind of information is just boring, annoying shit that unfortunately someone (usually me) has to know in order to run the game.

Ditto. I know guys like this too.

This quote, which expresses my opinion on the matter rather succinctly,  seems relevant to this discussion:

"The problem with 'gaming geeks' - is that they see the game as being the alpha and omega of the gaming experience. It is the system that matters, the stats of the character and so on rather than the experience of the game itself...I don't know how to create a meaningful dialogue with these kinds of people. There is a mental block as they can only understand roleplaying to be the tangible - books, rules , dice, (grids) - and I understand roleplaying to be the intangible "

-Robert Rees

Quote from: TristramEvans;651041This quote, which expresses my opinion on the matter rather succinctly,  seems relevant to this discussion:

"The problem with 'gaming geeks' - is that they see the game as being the alpha and omega of the gaming experience. It is the system that matters, the stats of the character and so on rather than the experience of the game itself...I don't know how to create a meaningful dialogue with these kinds of people. There is a mental block as they can only understand roleplaying to be the tangible - books, rules , dice, (grids) - and I understand roleplaying to be the intangible "

-Robert Rees

That's a great quote. I would agree.

Quote from: TristramEvans;651041This quote, which expresses my opinion on the matter rather succinctly,  seems relevant to this discussion:

"The problem with 'gaming geeks' - is that they see the game as being the alpha and omega of the gaming experience. It is the system that matters, the stats of the character and so on rather than the experience of the game itself...I don't know how to create a meaningful dialogue with these kinds of people. There is a mental block as they can only understand roleplaying to be the tangible - books, rules , dice, (grids) - and I understand roleplaying to be the intangible "

-Robert Rees

I like that, and I would add that I feel game mechanics should be an unobtrusive aid to the game, and not the focus.

I don't want to roleplay my +3 Greataxe with optimal feat chain X.

I want to roleplay Gonad the Axe Master of the Ironblade clan.

Quote from: Bill;651046I like that, and I would add that I feel game mechanics should be an unobtrusive aid to the game, and not the focus.

Nod. That's what I had dubbed the "rules are the game, and game are the rules" mentality. That quote is much better worded, and extended to, indeed, the "tangibles" in general, of which the RATG;TGTR is just an aspect.

Quote from: Benoist;651021At an actual game table, you'd be the idiot because you would be a dick to everybody else stopping the game to a crawl engaging in arguments with the DM. Don't be a dick. After it's clear the DM has his ruling and won't budge, just roll with it. Play the game. If you think you can run the game better, you can take a shot at it yourself afterwards.

One of the reasons I think "rules as a resource for the referee, not the players" and the related "rulings over rules" stir up so much controversy is because there are some other issues people habitually link to the ideas of rules. One, of course, is the desire of some players to "game the system"; they object to games where the GM de-emphasizes knowing the rules because it thwarts their particular idea of "fun". Another is the dick who has to be right and will bring the game to a screeching halt unless everyone agrees that he knows more about metallurgy and acrobatics than they do and should be allowed to do whatever he wants.

Another on the GM side of things is the occasional dick GM who likes to arbitrarily forbid various actions. If you're trying to focus on making decisions based on the fictional world instead of numbers and math, the GM who says "you can't swing from a chandelier" or "you get a -10 penalty because you don't have the Chandelier Swinging feat" is screwing things up.

I think that dick GM attitude comes out of an extreme adversarial interpretation of the GM's roll, and it's not really compatible with the kind of rules-loose approach we're talking about in this thread. I personally don't believe in putting a stop to players trying new things, either by forbidding a lot of arbitrary stuff or by stacking up tons of penalties. It's not my job as the GM to stop the players from doing anything; it's my job to tell them what happens when they do something.

I've settled on a couple simple rules-for-rulings:

• I rarely apply bonuses or penalties more than +/-2, and most modifiers don't stack;
• Occasionally, ability scores may provide a minor modifier or act as a threshold for other effects (roll to hit person with stew, victim distracted if Wisdom and Dex are both below 13)
• If something shouldn't work automatically, but I have no rule for it, PCs can do it on 5+ on 1d6;
• If something can go wrong, it does on 5+ on 1d6;
• If I don't know if something applies (does salt harm black puddings?) then it works on 5+ on 1d6.

With that in place, just about any time a player tries something, I tell them to either make an attack roll or roll a d6. If it's not critical, I just let them do it automatically. In rare cases, I tell them "You can't do that because no one could do that. It's impossible." Most of my GMing is just deciding what will or won't work automatically and what the consequences of an action would be. I see no reason to be a hard-ass and fight the players every step of the way.

Rules will not save you from a Dick GM.

Your feet, however, can take care of that.

Quote from: talysman;651048One of the reasons I think "rules as a resource for the referee, not the players" and the related "rulings over rules" stir up so much controversy is because there are some other issues people habitually link to the ideas of rules. One, of course, is the desire of some players to "game the system"; they object to games where the GM de-emphasizes knowing the rules because it thwarts their particular idea of "fun". Another is the dick who has to be right and will bring the game to a screeching halt unless everyone agrees that he knows more about metallurgy and acrobatics than they do and should be allowed to do whatever he wants.

Another on the GM side of things is the occasional dick GM who likes to arbitrarily forbid various actions. If you're trying to focus on making decisions based on the fictional world instead of numbers and math, the GM who says "you can't swing from a chandelier" or "you get a -10 penalty because you don't have the Chandelier Swinging feat" is screwing things up.

I think that dick GM attitude comes out of an extreme adversarial interpretation of the GM's roll, and it's not really compatible with the kind of rules-loose approach we're talking about in this thread. I personally don't believe in putting a stop to players trying new things, either by forbidding a lot of arbitrary stuff or by stacking up tons of penalties. It's not my job as the GM to stop the players from doing anything; it's my job to tell them what happens when they do something.

I agree.

Quote from: talysman;651048I've settled on a couple simple rules-for-rulings:

• I rarely apply bonuses or penalties more than +/-2, and most modifiers don't stack;
• Occasionally, ability scores may provide a minor modifier or act as a threshold for other effects (roll to hit person with stew, victim distracted if Wisdom and Dex are both below 13)
• If something shouldn't work automatically, but I have no rule for it, PCs can do it on 5+ on 1d6;
• If something can go wrong, it does on 5+ on 1d6;
• If I don't know if something applies (does salt harm black puddings?) then it works on 5+ on 1d6.

With that in place, just about any time a player tries something, I tell them to either make an attack roll or roll a d6. If it's not critical, I just let them do it automatically. In rare cases, I tell them "You can't do that because no one could do that. It's impossible." Most of my GMing is just deciding what will or won't work automatically and what the consequences of an action would be. I see no reason to be a hard-ass and fight the players every step of the way.

Sounds like a sensible approach to me.

Quote from: Bill;651049Rules will not save you from a Dick GM.

Your feet, however, can take care of that.

Yes.

Quote from: Bill;651046I like that, and I would add that I feel game mechanics should be an unobtrusive aid to the game, and not the focus.

I don't want to roleplay my +3 Greataxe with optimal feat chain X.

I want to roleplay Gonad the Axe Master of the Ironblade clan.

Quote from: Benoist;651047Nod. That's what I had dubbed the "rules are the game, and game are the rules" mentality. That quote is much better worded, and extended to, indeed, the "tangibles" in general, of which the RATG;TGTR is just an aspect.

What do you think about the concept that some game systems are a bit on the complex side for a GM to take the whole burden of running them? Would that automatically qualify a game as 'bad' for you?

Quote from: The Traveller;651054What do you think about the concept that some game systems are a bit on the complex side for a GM to take the whole burden of running them? Would that automatically qualify a game as 'bad' for you?

'Bad' for me, yes.

As a GM, I find 'non front loaded crunch' a distraction from the actual game.

Ideal for me, is rules light with just enough crunch to get the job done.

I don't really want myself or the players to be mired in gamespeak and focused on builds, rules, etc...



I know crunch like a brother you fight with.

I have constructed countless Champions superheroes.

Played Rolemaster for years.

Played a ton of wargames; Star Fleet Battles, Advanced squad leader, Empires in arms; tons of these games.

I am no stranger to rules crunch; I just find it distracting in an rpg.

Quote from: The Traveller;651054What do you think about the concept that some game systems are a bit on the complex side for a GM to take the whole burden of running them? Would that automatically qualify a game as 'bad' for you?

Not objectively bad, no. I don't know of any game that would actually be somehow too much of a weightlift for every GM everywhere. I've seen a noob friend of mine start with GMing by running Rolemaster when we were some 12 years old or some such and it went admirably well. Even a game like Dangerous Journeys can (should) be started with Mythus Prime, to then gradually upgrade whatever would be better with more granularity at the table via the Advanced rules options.

Some systems which would be too heavy for this or that GM to use comfortably, yes, absolutely, that happens all the time: that's relative to the particular inclinations of the GM though, and the good GM just shouldn't run systems he wouldn't be comfortable running in the first place.

Quote from: The Traveller;651054What do you think about the concept that some game systems are a bit on the complex side for a GM to take the whole burden of running them? Would that automatically qualify a game as 'bad' for you?

I remember a quote from Chivalry & Sorcery 2nd edition which basically said if you're playing a wizard character, you (player) need to be an expert with the magic system.

There was a guy we used to play AD&D with who memorized every spell in the PHB. Saves, material components, etc. He'd cast spells and the DM would just ask him what it did. I never considered this laziness by the DM. A few times during the game, the DM stated the spells did not work, when clearly they should have worked "by the rules". The player didn't say anything and accepted the ruling because we all knew the DM had a good reason for changing the "rules".

That's completely unlike a 3.X campaign I was in comprised of several rules-laywers, who would spend half the game arguing over idiotic minutiae. I don't think this was merely a function of the system in use, but there's definitely a shift of authority from the DM to the "rules" in more modern gaming systems. I'm sure there are plenty of terrible DMs out there who pissed off a lot of players with stupid adjudications, but that's a problem with the individual, not the game system.

Quote from: Benoist;651031Fuck if I know. Bill's answer is kinda obvious, but at the same time, these kinds of dickish players were there before: we knew them as "rules lawyers" and "munchkins" and other more-or-less interchangeable stereotypes, before that. There had to be an incentive for the post-2000 school of design to cater to this audience, and I feel the answer might be much more complicated than we'd expect (not to mention, way off-topic for this forum).

Incentive may just be to get as many players as possible into the game. Not sure.

There are a lot of players that enjoy the combat in an rpg more for the tactical challenge than for the roleplay.

Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but every player is simply not focused on roleplay as a primary concern.

Quote from: Brad;651060A few times during the game, the DM stated the spells did not work, when clearly they should have worked "by the rules". The player didn't say anything and accepted the ruling because we all knew the DM had a good reason for changing the "rules".

That's usual in my gang's games as well, but we're also mindful that sometimes memory lapses. If something goes against a precedent, we'll point that out to the DM. If there's a good reason, so be it -- and if 'god' just forgot, then he thanks us for the reminder.

Quote from: Bill;651058'Bad' for me, yes.

As a GM, I find 'non front loaded crunch' a distraction from the actual game.

Ideal for me, is rules light with just enough crunch to get the job done.

I don't really want myself or the players to be mired in gamespeak and focused on builds, rules, etc...

Your preference is totally valid - and I like that you phrased it as your preference rather than a Gleichman-like absolute.  

In my experience, though, rules complexity is different than focus on rules.  We could play a very simple game like The Fantasy Trip - and still be mired in game-speak, rules options, and modifiers.  On the other hand, I have played in plenty of Hero System games that were all about the story - and the system just did its job without becoming a focus.  

Quote from: Brad;651060That's completely unlike a 3.X campaign I was in comprised of several rules-laywers, who would spend half the game arguing over idiotic minutiae. I don't think this was merely a function of the system in use, but there's definitely a shift of authority from the DM to the "rules" in more modern gaming systems.

I think the shift of authority is true of D&D editions, but I don't think it's true of RPGs in general.  If anything, comprehensive rule sets like Hero or GURPS are more of a 1980s thing, whereas the 1990s had more games like Vampire or Over the Edge that emphasize story over rules (for different meanings of "story").

Quote from: jhkim;651107We could play a very simple game like The Fantasy Trip ...

Heh, well that just goes to show that "very simple" is in the eye of the beholder!

TFT is in the "Why must it be so complicated?" category for a friend of mine whose druthers would be old-time D&D all the time.

Quote from: Bill;651061Incentive may just be to get as many players as possible into the game. Not sure.

There are a lot of players that enjoy the combat in an rpg more for the tactical challenge than for the roleplay.

Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but every player is simply not focused on roleplay as a primary concern.

I think the incentive is the system-mastery char op crowd will buy a lot of books. In a 'rules are a resource of the referee' model, you're only selling material to one person in the group.

Problem is, when you cater your product towards the hardcore wonks, you make it less accessible and reduce the intake of casual gamers. This in turn makes the hardcores even more important, as they're a bigger part of the customer base. And so on.

One of the things that's encouraging about D&D Next, is it looks like WotC finally came around to the realization that they couldn't ride the hardcore rules mastery market any longer. They want to reverse the trend of the last decade and sell fewer rules each to more people.

You can sell tons of elaborations to whoever wants them enough without needing to toss away a simpler core.

The thing is, if there's profit in telling people they 'need' a stack of books two meters high, then someone is going to do it.

Stuff tends to find its market in this Internet age. My local comics & games shop does not carry (for instance) Star Fleet Battles, but that does not keep SFB from continuing to attract players. It appeals to people who LIKE the intricacies of the system!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651025Apparently not allowing players to automatically succeed at any crazy action they want to attempt makes one an asshole DM.  So that begs the question: At what point did DMs lose their balls and allow themselves to be bullied by players who have an overinflated sense of entitlement?

At the same point in time when DMs thought they had a sense of entitlement

Just as a comment:

While I wouldn't argue it at the table, because its a waste of time and is just going to slow down the game, I don't think tipping a table with 3 people on it would require the ability to lift 600 lbs.

My dining room table is a large, rustic wooden table (it was made by my father from the hardwood floors and rough cut beams of his grandfathers house, its a really neat piece, but thats beside the point). Tipping it would not require an incredible amount of leverage, and while having worked in construction for many years has left me fairly strong,I wouldn't consider myself D&D fighter strong.

Now adding 3 people on top of it fighting would add to the weight, but it would also significantly heighten the center of gravity. If you timed it when the three had placed more of their weight on the side of the table away from you rather than near you, it might actually HELP you tip the table over.

Now, absolutely none of this has to do with anything I would argue midtable during the game, but it does show how two people can look at the same situation and not see the difficulty being the same at all.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015Yes.  It's safe to assume that players don't have a lot of practice leaping up in the middle of combat to swing on chandeliers towards an opponent.

Middle of combat?  It's a tavern brawl.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015I'll bet you $100 you can't do it.  Especially on a floor that is so slippery that, according to you, is easy to slide across like an ice rink.  How are you going to get your footing?  Also, a table doesn't have a single pivot point like a wheelbarrow.  And I doubt a thick wooden table is just so easy to flip over.  If it's stable with 3 people fighting on top of it, you think it's a card table?  Jesus, you're just failing all over the place.

Your desperate need to have me fail is amusing.   Yes we have no idea how large the table is, if for instance the table were picnic in nature, trying to tip 3 people off of it would be extremely difficult.  I guess I'll pull a you and just cut a table leg out, no attack or damage roll needed.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015According to you, a player wanting to throw a flask of acid on an opponent does not need to make an attack roll?  There's no real difference in throwing a bowl of stew and throwing a bowl of acid, mechanically.  Not only are you being stupid here, but the rules actively disagree with you as well.

wtf?  rules are a resource, and, fuck, your talking AD&D where you 'pick and choose' which rules you use, where houserules are encouraged, and whatever else you all blather about  now all of a sudden you are talking rules actively disagree?  make up your mind.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015Again, because you're essentially doing an attack.  Where do you draw the line?  If the farmer was 100 pounds?  150 pounds?  200 pounds? before an attack is necessary?  I guess my fighter doesn't need to roll to hit any more when fighting goblins or other similarly small creatures.  He can just barrel roll them all automatically...

It isn't combat?  It's a fucking tavern brawl.  What happens Mr. Immersion when the PC can't hit Slim Tim the skinny drunk farmer?  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015Do you know how hydroplaning works?  I'm guessing not, unless you are assuming that a player is sliding at 40mph.  You're describing a floor that is as slippery as a sheet of ice.  If that were the case, you don't think it would affect everyone else that is currently fighting on it?  There is a big difference is sliding a few inches or even a foot on a slippery surface, and sliding a dozen feet.  You really have no concept of physics or friction.

Nice try.  Yes I do know how it works.  That is why you don't need to be going 40mph for it to occur.
According to you the floor is completely covered in spilled beer. Why should it mater how far he need/wants to travel.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015Exactly.  A non moving rope right there getting hit by a sword or axe?  why not.  Maybe if it was really thick it might take more than one hit, but why would you need a to-hit roll for this, when you don't when throwing a bowl of stew at someone who is presumably going to try to avoid it?

Rules says drawing and attacking is a -2 initiative.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015no, you're an idiot for completely missing the point (none of those scenarios resulted in paralysis by analysis).

Sure it does.  Once a person new to your group realizes that you shit on anything you don't want, they'll just do what the others do, I swing, I cast, I hide.  W00T immersion ftw.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015Completely failing at things like basic physics or common sense doesn't help either.

A Table has one pivot point just like the wheelbarrow  That is how a level works a pivot point.   Hydroplaning occurs from several factors, tread, surface area and weight are key components to that.  That is why a human can hydroplane very easily compared to a car.
For you 'common sense' compels you to force players to roll to hit(because the rules actively say so) in a tavern brawl against commoners.:rolleyes:

Rather that point out point by point again about how you keep failing (like a brawl is a fight), let's just take one thing:

How big would a tavern table have to be in order to have three full grown men on top of it fighting?

Sommerjon and Sacrosanct:

If you had the same essentially complete set of details, and leisure to calculate, I do not think you would have any argument left except over how small a very small chance should be of unexpected outcome due to imponderables.

Handling such a volume of accounting is a better job for a computer program than for a person, but in the event you don't have that going!

This is part of the beauty of having a GM: said worthy can determine the otherwise indeterminate. There are more and less time consuming methods, offering more or less verisimilitude.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651209Middle of combat?  It's a tavern brawl.


It isn't combat?  It's a fucking tavern brawl.  What happens Mr. Immersion when the PC can't hit Slim Tim the skinny drunk farmer?  

 
For you 'common sense' compels you to force players to roll to hit(because the rules actively say so) in a tavern brawl against commoners.:rolleyes:

What in your opinion, makes a tavern brawl, NOT a combat? I'm curious.

Is it because there are only improvised weapons being used rather than swords?  I suppose an MMA match isn't combat either because the combatants are completely unarmed.

If it has anything at all to do with with notion of some combatants being commoners and thus 'not important in the fiction' then you are fucking storywanking and not gaming in the first place so just narrate the 'scene' as you see fit and be done with it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651217What in your opinion, makes a tavern brawl, NOT a combat? I'm curious.

Is it because there are only improvised weapons being used rather than swords?  I suppose an MMA match isn't combat either because the combatants are completely unarmed.

If it has anything at all to do with with notion of some combatants being commoners and thus 'not important in the fiction' then you are fucking storywanking and not gaming in the first place so just narrate the 'scene' as you see fit and be done with it.

You know, just forget it.  I apologize to everyone for letting myself get drawn in.  It wasn't my point to begin with, and clearly he has no clue about what hydroplaning is (hint: people can't do it by the very definition of what it is), has no idea how leverage and friction work, and thinks brawling, which includes throwing items at targets, isn't considered combat.

And honestly, I don't think I need to prove my original scenario to anyone as being reasonable.  If he disagrees, more power to him and his non-actual playing the game ass.

Note Sommerjon conveniently ignored my response to him, which basically cuts through the bullshit to the heart of the actual play issue.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651193At the same point in time when DMs thought they had a sense of entitlement

They have since the beginning.  It's literally spelled out in the rules that they do.


You certainly are a certain kind of special, that's for sure.

Quote from: SommerjonAt the same point in time when DMs thought they had a sense of entitlement

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651229They have since the beginning.  It's literally spelled out in the rules that they do.

Yeah!  And if something is in the rules, then it has to be followed, no matter what the people playing think!

GM is a servant and a fellow player, thus it was and thus it shall always be. Any idea of perceived GM entitlement grows from being immature and playing with jerks.

Its funny how these online debates make it all seem so complicated, but when I sit down to play, I've never had any problems that didnt amount to "Jerk GM, move on to a new game" or "jerk player, ditch him and continue"

Quote from: TristramEvans;651262Its funny how these online debates make it all seem so complicated, but when I sit down to play, I've never had any problems that didnt amount to "Jerk GM, move on to a new game" or "jerk player, ditch him and continue"

Because that's how it is in 99%. But when we discuss those things, sometimes the 1% does drop in. Sometimes the notions are legitimate and interesting - there are for example, problems with there only being one GM in the area. Or a small gaming group, or a legitimately broken GM who's somehow accepted by his group, etc. etc. But most of the time, and they are either a complete alien and bizarre mindset like gleichy, or someone trying to pull an equivalent of Zeno's paradoxes in RPGs, presenting situations that are technically possible, but won't happen, because they'd only happen if you play with people too socially broken to be able to get together to play an RPG in the first place.

Quote from: Benoist;651223Note Sommerjon conveniently ignored my response to him, which basically cuts through the bullshit to the heart of the actual play issue.

Yep. As I said, its not something I would ever argue at a table, even though I do disagree on the assessment of how hard it would be to tip the table.

I don't have to agree with every call a GM makes, but having a big fight at the table about it doesn't really do the game any good, it grinds shit to a halt.

Now, I might say something quick like "wouldn't three dudes on it raise the center of gravity, if I waited until their weight was distributed away from me to help with the leverage to tip the table wouldn't that make it not that hard" but if the GM said no after that I would just carry on. Don't ruin the game for everyone else.

(Basically, I would state my logic. If he disagreed with my logic, thats fine, we can move on. I'm not going to get into some tizzy over it and throw a tantrum.)

Of course I proposed some possible actions that might not be clearly spelled out in the rules showing some area where players and GMs might disagree.  I'm with Emperor Norton that flipping a table with three people on it isn't as difficult as it sounds - and in fact is likely to be easier than a table with nobody on top.  

But what this point basically boils down to is that outside of complete rules, there will be disagreements like this.  If Sacrosanct is the GM we'd have one ruling; if Emperor Norton were the GM we'd have another.  

Unless/until we're familiar with the types of things the GM will allow or how they will create a possibility, it can make it harder for a player to immerse himself in the game world.  And this type of stuff comes up can come up a lot.

Like, you have a path of rocks set in a stream of lava (just like a path of rocks in a stream of water).  The player might think 'I'll just walk right across'.  The GM might be more familiar with radiant heat and impose harsh damage per round.  Which one is right?  Well, it doesn't really matter, as long as both sides know how it's going to work in advance.

I favor knowledge of the rules for both sides of the screen.  And I certainly don't object to a 'resolution mechanic' that doesn't require the GM to be an expert on everything.  Something as simple as 'if it seems reasonable to both the player and the GM, allow it; if it seems unreasonable to both, roll off - high roll decides'.  Some people are going to have more of an issue with a GM that is wrong about 'basic common sense' type stuff - and the more the GM has to ad-hoc, the more likely they're going to wander outside of player expectations.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;651334But what this point basically boils down to is that outside of complete rules, there will be disagreements like this.  If Sacrosanct is the GM we'd have one ruling; if Emperor Norton were the GM we'd have another.

I see it as a feature, not a bug. When I play a role playing game I want to play with a bunch of particular people and a particular GM. I am fine with particular interpretations, and actually welcome them. It makes the game more personal and more vivid, in my experience. I would probably not rule in this or that instance the way the GM would, but then, so what? I'm not the GM at the table, so I'm not even trying to rule from the side-lines.

I like the fact each campaign is personal and particular, with its own vibe and tweaks and GM. This is the worlds of our imaginations after all. If I wanted to play a game serviced to me by some third party I don't give a fuck about, I would just pop a game into my Xbox and be done with it. No. What I want is to play with people. And people make personal interpretations, which makes the game generally better for me, not worse.

Planet Algol and Estar ran games where I was a player. Dungeondelver played with me at Estar's table. You can ask them. When I play the game I just play the game, and roll with whatever the DM rules.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;651334Unless/until we're familiar with the types of things the GM will allow or how they will create a possibility, it can make it harder for a player to immerse himself in the game world.  And this type of stuff comes up can come up a lot.

It really doesn't take that much to know. By the end of my very first game sessions with Planet Algol and Estar I had a pretty good idea what their DMing styles were. They're running games very differently, and they're both good DMs, in part because the game's theirs and they have that personal touch that makes it good, each in their own particular ways.

I'm not a fan of one size fits all. I prefer variety, color, and personal interpretations when playing a role playing game. This is our game when we play it. Not [insert publisher/designer's name]'s.

I think that, as far as I'm concerned, nitpicking about getting this or that modifier while playing, caring about the math down to synergy mods and whatnot, considering the rules as the game, and the game as the rules, is much more of an obstacle for me to immerse in a game world than a GM making a call and moving on with the make-believe.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;651278Now, I might say something quick like "wouldn't three dudes on it raise the center of gravity, if I waited until their weight was distributed away from me to help with the leverage to tip the table wouldn't that make it not that hard" but if the GM said no after that I would just carry on. Don't ruin the game for everyone else.

Or just kick the side of the table edge on, hard. If it doesn't collapse outright as tables aren't meant to take pressure from that angle it will certainly spill the brutes who have resorted to fisticuffs into the dregs of their own ale.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;651278Now, I might say something quick like "wouldn't three dudes on it raise the center of gravity, if I waited until their weight was distributed away from me to help with the leverage to tip the table wouldn't that make it not that hard" but if the GM said no after that I would just carry on. Don't ruin the game for everyone else.

(Basically, I would state my logic. If he disagreed with my logic, thats fine, we can move on. I'm not going to get into some tizzy over it and throw a tantrum.)

Yeah see, that kind of thing doesn't bother me at all as a DM.

Then I think about it, change my mind or not, I make a ruling, and we move on.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;651334Of course I proposed some possible actions that might not be clearly spelled out in the rules showing some area where players and GMs might disagree.  I'm with Emperor Norton that flipping a table with three people on it isn't as difficult as it sounds - and in fact is likely to be easier than a table with nobody on top.  

But what this point basically boils down to is that outside of complete rules, there will be disagreements like this.  If Sacrosanct is the GM we'd have one ruling; if Emperor Norton were the GM we'd have another.  

Unless/until we're familiar with the types of things the GM will allow or how they will create a possibility, it can make it harder for a player to immerse himself in the game world.  And this type of stuff comes up can come up a lot.

Like, you have a path of rocks set in a stream of lava (just like a path of rocks in a stream of water).  The player might think 'I'll just walk right across'.  The GM might be more familiar with radiant heat and impose harsh damage per round.  Which one is right?  Well, it doesn't really matter, as long as both sides know how it's going to work in advance.

I favor knowledge of the rules for both sides of the screen.  And I certainly don't object to a 'resolution mechanic' that doesn't require the GM to be an expert on everything.  Something as simple as 'if it seems reasonable to both the player and the GM, allow it; if it seems unreasonable to both, roll off - high roll decides'.  Some people are going to have more of an issue with a GM that is wrong about 'basic common sense' type stuff - and the more the GM has to ad-hoc, the more likely they're going to wander outside of player expectations.

I understand what you are saying, even if I don't relate to it personally.

I don't need to know how it works in advance, or the percentage chance of a specific outcome.

I just need to know lava will burn my ass to a crisp, if not kill me just for being too close.

Its not practical to write a rule for all possible events in the universe.

What you do need, is a gm that is reasonably capable of logic, and willing to accept a players input when the gm is wrong.

Quote from: Rincewind1;651264Because that's how it is in 99%. But when we discuss those things, sometimes the 1% does drop in. Sometimes the notions are legitimate and interesting - there are for example, problems with there only being one GM in the area. Or a small gaming group, or a legitimately broken GM who's somehow accepted by his group, etc. etc. But most of the time, and they are either a complete alien and bizarre mindset like gleichy, or someone trying to pull an equivalent of Zeno's paradoxes in RPGs, presenting situations that are technically possible, but won't happen, because they'd only happen if you play with people too socially broken to be able to get together to play an RPG in the first place.

Everyone can't have a 'perfect' GM and a 'perfect' group of players.

If only!

I can handle quite a bit of 'imperfect' if the group is having fun.

Quote from: Bill;651397Everyone can't have a 'perfect' GM and a 'perfect' group of players.

If only!

I can handle quite a bit of 'imperfect' if the group is having fun.

Yes. I think there's always that excluded middle thing cropping up in discussions about DMs: one side assumes they all suck and make the most terrible choices, don't know how to talk to people, are assholes etc, and the other talks about "well that wouldn't happen with a good DM".

The thing is, I really think it's not that hard to DM decently. And yes, that means you're going to make mistakes and fumble and be too intransigent and/or too lenient at some point or other and and and ... yeah. People make mistakes! News flash! But at the same time, you can't improve and become that "good DM" people like to talk about if you're never making these mistakes in the first place.

Playing with a decent DM, not a good one, a decent one, a normal not especially experienced one, can be great! Just relax, play the game, and forgive the DM if there are inconsistencies or mistakes cropping up here and there from time to time. Maybe you'll be able to talk about them after the game is over, so that these mistakes become experience which in turn will allow the DM to grow and become better over the course of the campaign? But that really shouldn't ruin anyone's day. If you're taking a bad call that seriously that you're going to fly into an extended argument with the DM and storm out of the room if you don't get your way, then maybe it's time to put down the dice and join the real world, where real people have to get along every day, and where being a dick just is the less productive option.

Quote from: TristramEvans;651262Its funny how these online debates make it all seem so complicated, but when I sit down to play, I've never had any problems that didnt amount to "Jerk GM, move on to a new game" or "jerk player, ditch him and continue"

A couple observations about the 'jerk DM' meme:

1) You have to remember that a lot of people active on RPG design forums don't actually play anymore. They're largely just indulging in theorywank, so it's the theoretical issue of a jerk DM that they feel a need to solve.

2) I'm always amazed that the most obvious question never comes up among these complaints. If you don't like how your DM runs the game, then why don't you run your own game? That's how gamers I know have resolved the issue, on the rare occasions where it did come up. Think Mike's game is too deadly, or he's too stingy with treasure? OK. You DM the next session or campaign. And if the group enjoys it more than Mike's game, then hey, you've been vindicated. The reason I think this isn't pointed out more often is there's a cohort of entitled powergamers out there who would get no satisfaction out of facilitating other people's fun - they just want to create their uber character for entirely selfish reasons of inflating their fragile self-esteem. The real laugher is that these same folks are the first to complain about the megalomania of DMs, and the need for airtight RAW to ensure a fair game. When really, the last thing they want is a fair game; they want a game where nobody can interfere with their desire to powergame by exploiting rules mastery.

Quote from: Benoist;651401Yes. I think there's always that excluded middle thing cropping up in discussions about DMs: one side assumes they all suck and make the most terrible choices, don't know how to talk to people, are assholes etc, and the other talks about "well that wouldn't happen with a good DM".

The thing is, I really think it's not that hard to DM decently. And yes, that means you're going to make mistakes and fumble and be too intransigent and/or too lenient at some point or other and and and ... yeah. People make mistakes! News flash! But at the same time, you can't improve and become that "good DM" people like to talk about if you're never making these mistakes in the first place.

Playing with a decent DM, not a good one, a decent one, a normal not especially experienced one, can be great! Just relax, play the game, and forgive the DM if there are inconsistencies or mistakes cropping up here and there from time to time. Maybe you'll be able to talk about them after the game is over, so that these mistakes become experience which in turn will allow the DM to grow and become better over the course of the campaign? But that really shouldn't ruin anyone's day. If you're taking a bad call that seriously that you're going to fly into an extended argument with the DM and storm out of the room if you don't get your way, then maybe it's time to put down the dice and join the real world, where real people have to get along every day, and where being a dick just is the less productive option.

In my experience the best GMs are the ones who don't think they are great. They understand they make mistakes like anyone else and isten to player concerns openly when they arise. I agree people often talk as if the GM is either wonderful and brilliant or a complete jerk.

Completely agree with the last paragraph here.

Quote from: Haffrung;651402The reason I think this isn't pointed out more often is there's a cohort of entitled powergamers out there who would get no satisfaction out of facilitating other people's fun - they just want to create their uber character for entirely selfish reasons of inflating their fragile self-esteem. The real laugher is that these same folks are the first to complain about the megalomania of DMs, and the need for airtight RAW to ensure a fair game. When really, the last thing they want is a fair game; they want a game where nobody can interfere with their desire to powergame by exploiting rules mastery.

A classic case of pot and kettle.

At times I wonder whether some rpg designers are attempting to create rulesets which are DM-proof, such that anybody can be DM without botching up a game through idiocy and/or powertrip hungriness.

Quote from: ggroy;651417At times I wonder whether some rpg designers are attempting to create rulesets which are DM-proof, such that anybody can be DM without botching up a game through idiocy and/or powertrip hungriness.

Impossible task.

Even a GM running tic tac toe can be an asshat.

Quote from: ggroy;651417At times I wonder whether some rpg designers are attempting to create rulesets which are DM-proof, such that anybody can be DM without botching up a game through idiocy and/or powertrip hungriness.

There is no such (tabletop) game. For judgement free systems fire up the computer and revel in the untempered RAW.

You cannot take the DM out of the equation without seriously limiting the scope of the game.

Quote from: ggroy;651417At times I wonder whether some rpg designers are attempting to create rulesets which are DM-proof, such that anybody can be DM without botching up a game through idiocy and/or powertrip hungriness.

4vengers will say that 4e does that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;6514274vengers will say that 4e does that.

A GM using 4E can have a level 30 pet npc hang out with a level 1 PC party.

A GM using 4E can choose to never allow the characters to rest.

Probly plenty of ways for a GM to be Captain Asshat even if they do 4E RAW.

Quote from: ggroy;651417At times I wonder whether some rpg designers are attempting to create rulesets which are DM-proof, such that anybody can be DM without botching up a game through idiocy and/or powertrip hungriness.

that intention has been voiced on rpgnet (and enforced as the official position of the mods).

GMs don't kill people, Systems kill people.

I will say that, once, to my shame, I derailed an entire session when I had a two hour argument with the GM over how binary stars worked.

What can I say. I was younger and stupider, and maybe I was having a bad day?

(I was also right.)

I think Ben makes some excellent points here.

I also like a lot that different GMs will give you different games using even the same setting and system. That's a feature and not a bug for me, something that makes RPGs stand out in front of boardgames or videogames.

I also think that playing with a decent GM is good enough, and the obsession with all the gaming sessions being on fire is idiotic.

So, good points all around, not only Ben's, but I felt specially close to them.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;651584I will say that, once, to my shame, I derailed an entire session when I had a two hour argument with the GM over how binary stars worked.

What can I say. I was younger and stupider, and maybe I was having a bad day?

(I was also right.)

What! the GM did not know stellar physics!

A GM must know everything in the universe!


But in all seriousness, I am sure most of us have at least one moment of cluelessness.

I was once branded a rules lawyer and cast out of a gaming group.

I joined them and played 1E dnd for three sessions and it was all good.

Then the dm wanted to sneak in a session of magic the gathering, and I argued like an insane pit bull about some technicality in the rules of Mtg.

They sent me a letter telling me they don't like rules lawyers.

So I ruined an otherwise good chance to play dnd by being an asshat in a game of magic.

Then again, if you can't handle rules technicalities that make the decks in Magic, you can't handle the heat.

Quote from: Rincewind1;651647Then again, if you can't handle rules technicalities that make the decks in Magic, you can't handle the heat.

I stopped playing magic before they cleaned up the rules, as far as I know.

Once I sensed Magic The Addiction was claiming a piece of my soul, I gave my cards to a friend and went cold turkey.

Well, cold turkey for buying cards, I don't have a problem with playing if someone provides the cards.

Quote from: Bill;651646So I ruined an otherwise good chance to play dnd by being an asshat in a game of magic.

Magic is a competetive game. Rules lawyering is part of the skillset of playing.

That group was wrong IMHO for applying the principles of an rpg to a competetive card game.

Quote from: Bill;651646What! the GM did not know stellar physics!

A GM must know everything in the universe!

If it had been a game ruling I wouldn't have gotten so up in arms about it. But he was wrong about reality! Like if he said that his binary stars circled each other the way they did because of magic, I wouldn't have said anything, but...

Ok yeah, I have no excuse, I was just angry cause he wouldn't listen to me, it had nothing to do with game rules and it didn't even AFFECT our characters.

and I was RIGHT.

(10 years later I sent a simple animated gif to his exwife who I am still friends with who had been playing with us at the time of two binary stars circling each other. I think the response I got was something like "JESUS FUCKING CHRIST". I didn't even send text with it. I wish I had still been in contact with the old GM, I would have sent it to him.)

A true dwarven grudge. This I can get behind.

Truth be told, there is no "sin" or problem to admit a fault as a GM at the table. Sometimes you may wish to hear the players' criticism and take it as valid, rather than dig a trench.

Quote from: Rincewind1;651691A true dwarven grudge. This I can get behind.

Truth be told, there is no "sin" or problem to admit a fault as a GM at the table. Sometimes you may wish to hear the players' criticism and take it as valid, rather than dig a trench.

That requires communications skills and a degree of socialization.  These are gamers we're talking about, man!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651217What in your opinion, makes a tavern brawl, NOT a combat? I'm curious.

Is it because there are only improvised weapons being used rather than swords?

No it's about immersion.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651217I suppose an MMA match isn't combat either because the combatants are completely unarmed.

wtf does this even mean?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651217If it has anything at all to do with with notion of some combatants being commoners and thus 'not important in the fiction' then you are fucking storywanking and not gaming in the first place so just narrate the 'scene' as you see fit and be done with it.

I thought you said you were curious about my opinion?
When was the last time you went into a bar got drunk and looked for the group of guys who have that 'Don't fuck with us sign' on their faces? Wha?  Oh, you haven't?
 Yet tavern brawls are a staple of "D&D"?  So much for "immersion".
Does it come from chartwanking?  Well I rolled reaction and the chart says blah blah, can't go against the chart.  If I ignore the result than I'm storywanking and that's whacked.

Ultimately it's about the actual consequences of a 'tavern fight as combat'.
Those plot hooks you tossed the PCs about blah, blah, and blah, whoops my bad, plot hook denotes story and that's whacked,  scratch that I mean 'hook'(yeah that makes it completely different :rolleyes: )
  Are you going to be impressed with an 'adventurer' who can't even roll into the legs of a drunk farmer?  You going to be impressed with an 'adventurer' who can't even grab and swing from a chandelier, but does a great job of face-planting?  Aren't you gonna giggle just a  lot at the 'adventurer' over there grunting and groaning in effort trying to flip that 10'x10' 6 inch thick table with the 3 full grown men fighting on it?
What happens to the PCs when they fail 'tavern fight as combat'?  Nothing?  So much for immersion.

Sommerjon's stance:  A tavern brawl is not combat, but if you want to cut a rope, you better take a -2 initiative check.

:huhsign:

Quote from: Benoist;651223Note Sommerjon conveniently ignored my response to him, which basically cuts through the bullshit to the heart of the actual play issue.

Just for you.

Quote from: Benoist;651021At an actual game table, you'd be the idiot because you would be a dick to everybody else stopping the game to a crawl engaging in arguments with the DM. Don't be a dick. After it's clear the DM has his ruling and won't budge, just roll with it. Play the game. If you think you can run the game better, you can take a shot at it yourself afterwards.

I didn't realize this thread was an actual game table.
You talk a lot about just roleplaying the character.  That is influenced by what you actually know, when a DM keeps ruling stuff that is sending flags up in the back of your head, at least for me keep falling out of immersion.  I also note what the rulings are, if more than 50% have negative connotations, I start to wonder if he is trying to lead me to what he wants to see happen.  When I do bring something up I look at the DM if he has that 'how dare you question me' look, I realize he a dick DM, who most likely thinks that we should feel so lucky that he allows us to game in his presence. So I have two options 1)  I bow out of the game or 2) I stick around to watch the train-wreck unfold.

Goody I can do this as well.

Sacrosanct thinks it's so difficult to jump and grab a chandelier and start to swing with it that it requires a Dex check,  ignore the fact that you have a minute to do so, also ignore that concept that billions of times children and adults have jumped and grabbed monkey bars and other playground equipment. :idunno:
 That's immaterial, fuck dude, it's combat!!:rolleyes:

Quote from: Sommerjon;651700Ultimately it's about the actual consequences of a 'tavern fight as combat'.
Those plot hooks you tossed the PCs about blah, blah, and blah, whoops my bad, plot hook denotes story and that's whacked,  scratch that I mean 'hook'(yeah that makes it completely different :rolleyes: )
  Are you going to be impressed with an 'adventurer' who can't even roll into the legs of a drunk farmer?  You going to be impressed with an 'adventurer' who can't even grab and swing from a chandelier, but does a great job of face-planting?  Aren't you gonna giggle just a  lot at the 'adventurer' over there grunting and groaning in effort trying to flip that 10'x10' 6 inch thick table with the 3 full grown men fighting on it?
What happens to the PCs when they fail 'tavern fight as combat'?  Nothing?  So much for immersion.

Nothing wrong with plots. It isn't an evil word. Just made sure that they belong to some entity in the game world and not the GM.

Being 'an adventurer' is a meaningless expression on its own. In game such as D&D featuring adventuers of vastly differing power levels, we cannot assume that every group of them that gets involved in a tavern brawl will wipe the floor with the opposition.

The outlined scenario made no mention of levels. It might be a first level group in the brawl. A 1st level fighter isn't much better than a country fed farm boy in a tavern brawl, and going against a handful at a time might get his clock cleaned. Oh noes! How could this happen? He's an adventurer after all.

So no, 'adventurer' doesn't mean special snowflake that plows through any ordinary thing with ease. At higher levels it may happen that way more often than not but it is by no means a universal guarantee.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651708Sacrosanct thinks it's so difficult to jump and grab a chandelier and start to swing with it that it requires a Dex check,  ignore the fact that you have a minute to do so, also ignore that concept that billions of times children and adults have jumped and grabbed monkey bars and other playground equipment. :idunno:
 :

There is always room for debate and such on these things. I don't think all systems need to require rolls all the time for things. Personally, I believe jumping on a chandelier and swinging has a reasonable enough chance of failure that a roll is called for (same for cracking someone upside the head). It is also a risky move, because you can fall, so I would see that as a good reason for having there be a roll.

Where I think this can become a problem is if the system doesn't accurately reflect the character's skill level (particularly if he is going up against someone who is highly unskilled in the case of the bar fight). If the system's numbers are okay, it shouldn't be an issue. Another approach I kind of like is only having to roll for things that not considered routine for your level of skill a(Bill gates shouln't have to roll to use DOS to start up a program but my dad probably should have to roll).

Quote from: Sommerjon;651708Goody I can do this as well.

Sacrosanct thinks it's so difficult to jump and grab a chandelier and start to swing with it that it requires a Dex check,  ignore the fact that you have a minute to do so, also ignore that concept that billions of times children and adults have jumped and grabbed monkey bars and other playground equipment. :idunno:
 That's immaterial, fuck dude, it's combat!!:rolleyes:

Monkey Bars: Stationary, stable, and built for that sort of thing

Chandelier:  none of the above.


Seriously, apply some common sense and it's not that hard to figure these things out.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651708Goody I can do this as well.

Sacrosanct thinks it's so difficult to jump and grab a chandelier and start to swing with it that it requires a Dex check,  ignore the fact that you have a minute to do so, also ignore that concept that billions of times children and adults have jumped and grabbed monkey bars and other playground equipment. :idunno:
 That's immaterial, fuck dude, it's combat!!:rolleyes:

It isn't that difficult to hit someone with a sword either but we roll a die for that.

So if the adventurers were fighting some goblins in a castle hall instead of some locals in a bar it would be fine to waive the requirement for a hit roll because someone swung on a chandelier? In B/X a goblin and a normal man have very similar statistics. Why would one be combat and the other not?

Quote from: Sommerjon;651707Just for you.

Thanks. Better late than never.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651707I didn't realize this thread was an actual game table.

EVERYTHING we talk about should come down to actual play. That's what role playing games are for. If you take apart the DMs rulings systematically and confront the DM during the session over and over as soon as something doesn't go your way, putting a stop to the game to engage in your own private little war of self-righteousness, you are a dick. Period.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651707You talk a lot about just roleplaying the character.  That is influenced by what you actually know, when a DM keeps ruling stuff that is sending flags up in the back of your head, at least for me keep falling out of immersion.

Well yeah, if the DM made bad rulings systematically that would send up flags in the back of my head too, and that would annoy me in the long run. I would just keep playing til the end of the session and then discuss it with the DM. If he's a dick about it, I might just drop the game and not bother.

But here's the thing. The DM might not be terrible. He might not be out to get you. He might not be an asshole. He might be oblivious, or inexperienced, or whatever else. If you start the game with the assumption that the DM is a dick and start playing with a confrontational attitude, the game is fucked, and it's on you - you're the one starting with the attitude of a dick in that event.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651707I also note what the rulings are, if more than 50% have negative connotations, I start to wonder if he is trying to lead me to what he wants to see happen.

See, when you start noting down rulings and making tallies of what is positive and negative, that means you're not playing the game in the first place, but instead consider tallying the results more important. That's a problem, from my point of view. That means you're starting with a confrontational attitude playing the game.

That said, of course, if the rulings of the DM are systematically negative, then there might be some problem with the way he rules. That's something I would talk about with the DM after the game, assuming he isn't a jerk on top of the negative rulings - which should be pretty obvious in actual play.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651707When I do bring something up I look at the DM if he has that 'how dare you question me' look, I realize he a dick DM, who most likely thinks that we should feel so lucky that he allows us to game in his presence.

Duh! If the DM gives you these kinds of looks from the get-go then yes, he is being a dick and you'd better move on, run your own games, find some other game, whatnot.

But if you're starting the game with a confrontational attitude pixel-bitching about rulings and noting everything down instead of, you know, actually playing the game and role playing your character, after a while the DM has a right to see this as disruptive, and ask you to tone it down and just relax. If you can't bring yourself to do this, and keep up with the attitude, then we're back to the start of this post: you are being a dick.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651707So I have two options 1)  I bow out of the game or 2) I stick around to watch the train-wreck unfold.

If worse comes to worse and the DM is an total jerk in and out of the game, the only appropriate response is to not play with this guy.

People who can't ever be wrong should not play rpg's, and even more so, should never gm.

Quote from: Bill;651725People who can't ever be wrong should not play rpg's, and even more so, should never gm.

People who can't ever be wrong suck at life, in general.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651712Monkey Bars: Stationary, stable, and built for that sort of thing

Chandelier:  none of the above.


Seriously, apply some common sense and it's not that hard to figure these things out.

I see for you sense isn't so common.

Didn't you go through an obstacle course in basic training?  How many crashed and burned on the ropes you had to climb and swing on?  You have a climbing rope in grade/high school?  You have a lot of crash and burns there as well?  You make everyone roll a Dex check to climb a rope?  You make everyone roll a Dex check in order to mount a horse?

For the record I see you have little knowledge of how a chandelier works, especially a chandelier for the time we are discussing.  A chandelier was hung over a rafter or crossbeam, not hung from the ceiling.  You know hence the cut the rope attached to the chandelier,  that rope was used to raise and lower the chandelier in order to light it.  If you think the chandelier is going to break through the rafter or crossbeam and come crashing down, you're an even bigger idiot than we already know.   Making the player roll a Dex check in order to grab and swing it is moronic, when 'common sense' would have you make a save or other 'ruling' to see if the actual chandelier can support the weight of the PC.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651714It isn't that difficult to hit someone with a sword either but we roll a die for that.

Think so?  Looks like someone has spent a little too much time at Ren fairs.  Amazing what happens to people when someone is trying to kill them with a 4 foot hunk of metal in their hands.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651714So if the adventurers were fighting some goblins in a castle hall instead of some locals in a bar it would be fine to waive the requirement for a hit roll because someone swung on a chandelier? In B/X a goblin and a normal man have very similar statistics. Why would one be combat and the other not?

I didn't realize swinging on a chandelier was combat.

Pardon me, I didn't realize you were an expert on chandelier swinging, with a lot of practical experience.

Oh, and there seems to be plenty of youtube videos of people failing to swing on chandeliers, but I guess that doesn't matter.  Nor does the fact that yes, plenty of guys fell off the swinging rope obstacle when I was in.

And you still have yet to explain why you think a tavern brawl isn't combat, but at the same time are imparting a -2 penalty to initiative to cut a rope during a tavern brawl.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651760Think so?  Looks like someone has spent a little too much time at Ren fairs.  Amazing what happens to people when someone is trying to kill them with a 4 foot hunk of metal in their hands.

so you don't need attack rolls when...er...attacking with a sword?

QuoteI didn't realize swinging on a chandelier was combat.

Using the chandelier to swing into the target, kicking them.

Holy hell, do you even read things before responding to them?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;651711There is always room for debate and such on these things. I don't think all systems need to require rolls all the time for things. Personally, I believe jumping on a chandelier and swinging has a reasonable enough chance of failure that a roll is called for (same for cracking someone upside the head). It is also a risky move, because you can fall, so I would see that as a good reason for having there be a roll.

And what would be the outcome of the roll?  Is it just pass/fail?

Is it just a dex check?
Is it first a dex check in order to jump, then str check in order to grab and hold onto the chandelier, then another dex check to see if you can swing?
Is it first a dex check in order to jump, then str check in order to grab and hold onto the chandelier, then a save for the chandelier to support the weight, then a save for the rafter/crossbeam to support the weight, then a save for the rope to support the weight, then another dex check to see if you can swing?

This is like the kind of GM-player back and forth that would have me folding up the game quietly but quickly.

MY way of pretending is better than your way!

::sucks on dice::

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651762Pardon me, I didn't realize you were an expert on chandelier swinging, with a lot of practical experience.

Oh, and there seems to be plenty of youtube videos of people failing to swing on chandeliers, but I guess that doesn't matter.  Nor does the fact that yes, plenty of guys fell off the swinging rope obstacle when I was in.

Post 15 of them that meet the criteria of D&D.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651762And you still have yet to explain why you think a tavern brawl isn't combat, but at the same time are imparting a -2 penalty to initiative to cut a rope during a tavern brawl.

Because your not being consistent, drawing and swinging your weapon is a -2 or it's not.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651764And what would be the outcome of the roll?  Is it just pass/fail?

Is it just a dex check?
Is it first a dex check in order to jump, then str check in order to grab and hold onto the chandelier, then another dex check to see if you can swing?
Is it first a dex check in order to jump, then str check in order to grab and hold onto the chandelier, then a save for the chandelier to support the weight, then a save for the rafter/crossbeam to support the weight, then a save for the rope to support the weight, then another dex check to see if you can swing?

Depends on how deep the system is. I would prefer a single roll for the entire action (rather than multiple rolls for each little portion).

If it isn't covered in the rules and the GM comes up with something that is reasonable on the fly it isn't going to eat at me if he just goes with a dex check and makes it pass/fail.

Quote from: The Traveller;651765This is like the kind of GM-player back and forth that would have me folding up the game quietly but quickly.

Agreed. This is not a crowd I'd be interested in gaming with.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651763so you don't need attack rolls when...er...attacking with a sword?

Holy hell, do you even read things before responding to them?

"It isn't that difficult to hit someone with a sword either but we roll a die for that."
"Think so? Looks like someone has spent a little too much time at Ren fairs. Amazing what happens to people when someone is trying to kill them with a 4 foot hunk of metal in their hands."
Here's me disagreeing with someone that thinks it's easy to hit someone with a sword. and somehow you get to "so you don't need attack rolls when...er...attacking with a sword?"
Holy hell, do you even read things before responding to them?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651763Using the chandelier to swing into the target, kicking them.

Holy hell, do you even read things before responding to them?

When someone is being absurd, not really.  You do realize you are talking about someone who hates storywanking, but has no problem with plot.  You do realize you can't have one without the other.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651764And what would be the outcome of the roll?  Is it just pass/fail?

Is it just a dex check?
Is it first a dex check in order to jump, then str check in order to grab and hold onto the chandelier, then another dex check to see if you can swing?
Is it first a dex check in order to jump, then str check in order to grab and hold onto the chandelier, then a save for the chandelier to support the weight, then a save for the rafter/crossbeam to support the weight, then a save for the rope to support the weight, then another dex check to see if you can swing?

I think a simpler approach is better. Just have the character make a dex check, acrobatics skill roll, whatever is reasonable.

There is no reason to assign precise mechanics and procedures for an improvised action like swinging on a chandelier.

Regular melee would involve the same factors; is the ground wet? Windy today? Tired from lack of sleep? your sword is of lesser steel than the enemy, will it break?

Most rpg's simplify the physics of reality to make the game playable.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651760Think so?  Looks like someone has spent a little too much time at Ren fairs.  Amazing what happens to people when someone is trying to kill them with a 4 foot hunk of metal in their hands.

What happens when you're trying to throw soup in a dude's face and he's not inclined to let that happen?

Quote from: The Traveller;651765This is like the kind of GM-player back and forth that would have me folding up the game quietly but quickly.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;651775Agreed. This is not a crowd I'd be interested in gaming with.

Nod. I think this is demonstrating what I was talking about much better than I ever could have with a made up example.

It's a case in point, actually. Nobody would enjoy having to sit down through an argument like this.

Quote from: Benoist;651806Nod. I think this is demonstrating what I was talking about much better than I ever could have with a made up example.

It's a case in point, actually. Nobody would enjoy having to sit down through an argument like this.

Lucky for you, I don't think I will be gaming with him any time soon.

Lucky for me, I've never had to deal with people like him before at the table, believe it or not.

Quote from: KenHR;651778What happens when you're trying to throw soup in a dude's face and he's not inclined to let that happen?

If you are talking D&D and I am running the session, one or both participants has lethal intentions. I would run it one of two ways
1) The one having the bowl thrown at him would get a save, failure would give the thrower a surprise round or more if it was a really bad roll.
2) The one having the bowl thrown at him would auto fail.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651810Lucky for you, I don't think I will be gaming with him any time soon.

Lucky for me, I've never had to deal with people like him before at the table, believe it or not.

Bullshit.

You know what, despite all this Old Skool Cool going around, there's a reason D&D/Pathfinder has evolved into the game it is. Perhaps asshat GMs ARE actually far more common than you people would like to admit. Perhaps the most popular playstyle IS represented in those games despite what you people would like to admit. I mean, I don't like it any more than you do, but the truth is not a preference.

Quote from: Benoist;650548They can, as long as they can relate to the game world as though it were real, with relevant information, gaps in the shared world, and questions being discussed between players and GM as the game unfolds. That's what a role playing game *is*.

And what is the basis for those points of relation, relevant bits of information, gaps in the shared world, and questions being discussed?

On the other hand, this means I can finally get rid of those pesky character sheets :)

Quote from: Piestrio;650549Player - "I jump the pit, what do I roll?"
DM - "a d20, and add your dex mod"

it CANNOT happen, as the player didn't know the specific rule for jumping he is incapable of making the decision to jump the pit.

Actually, you just TOLD them the rule. And after telling them this rule, they might also change their mind about taking that action.

Quote from: estar;650620Oh please, as the player is playing a character in a setting with some semblance to real world physics knows that his character can make a jump. That there is a random element that may cause him to slip and fall. That people who have higher dexterity are less prone to misfortune when jumping. That longer distances means a greater chance of failure. And so on.

I like using Jumping as a Real World example, because it's incredibly consistent, even with random elements, dexterity playing little part in its success, with max distance being all but guaranteed and longer distances all but impossible. Dead lifting is an even better example for this kind of thing.

But what does the Real World have to do with anything? Don't quite know, but it sure seems important to some of you here.

Quote from: estar;650622It happens every time a group or player transition from one system to a another somewhat similar situation. Represents the same sort of problem when a person trained to deal with X environment now is dealing with Y environment.

I believe this is the most common reason for why players don't like to switch systems.

Quote from: estar;650622It also illustrate that for novices the more your game is an emulation of reality the easier it is for them to follow as the assumptions built up by their real life experiences remain valid.

In a perfect world these will overlap, but often it's not even close, and one of the purposes of a game system should be to help bridge this gap.

Quote from: RandallS;650623If I were running this game, I'd just mod the stupid rule on the spot.

Then the player would really have NO IDEA how well they could hit before attempting it, regardless of their character's PoV or skill level.

Quote from: Benoist;650632It's about communication between GM and players.

And what is the basis for this communication, because I can tell you plain English is NOT the best tool for the job when it comes to communicating certain details and invoking certain fundamental emotional responses.

Quote from: Benoist;650632The players will catch up in no time.

Exactly how long is 'no time' here? Because I agree the rules will become more apparent the longer you play, but how long will players be willing to tune before they just get frustrated and leave?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;650636The rules-first oriented crowd often has a hard time with anything that doesn't deal in absolutes.

Which is why they have such problems with Marvel Heroic Roleplaying being so abstract.

...oh wait.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650737The problem with lacking a basic sense of the rules is that in an RPG, anything and everything is a possibility.

Indeed.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650737Another thing that you tend to see from new players is trying to do too many things.

Example - I leap to grab the chandelier swinging over to the bard that insulted my mother.  I draw my weapon as I swing, holding on with only a single hand.  I drop down and as the chandelier swings away I slash at the rope, sending it carreening into the crowd behind me and preventing the ugly crowd from following me.  I put my sword against the bard's neck and ask him, "What did you call my mother?"

If new players are doing this kind of thing, then perhaps game systems should be designed in a way that accommodates it.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650737By the time you break the action down into manageable chunks, the likelihood of wanting to continue the initially stated action as the situation develops is pretty small.

And the specific kind of chunks very much defines the kind of game being played. Divide it into different chunks, and you have a different game.

Quote from: Bill;650754However, I do not relate at all to the issue some players I know have with needing to know the exact percentage chance of all possible actions in the universe to make a simple decision.

The chance is already a probability, and the actuality is anything but exact. But for some reason you want an additional layer of uncertainty over it. Why? Also, a lot of players keep saying how much the clear probabilities in BRP make it more immersive, even though they would never know the probabilities IRL. Why?

Quote from: Bill;650754As a player or a gm, I just have my character or an npc attempt to do what makes sense at the time.

Bold mine, and it makes all the difference.

Quote from: Bill;650754My barbarian can swing his axe just fine without knowing the ac of an enemy.

Says who?

Quote from: gleichman;650756A point of failure when the player doesn't know the rules is that they are unaware of small details that could matter.

Or worse, matter in ways they didn't want.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764my post was to illustrate how something like those scenarios in a game does not devolve into paralysis by analysis.  They were all easily and quickly resolved.

It doesn't matter what you intended to illustrate with your post, only what it actually illustrated :)

Quote from: talysman;650852Remember, the primer is saying that players don't need to know the rules, not that they aren't allowed to know or guess at the rules.

That's why I said 'for effective action' or somesuch obvious nonesense :)

On the other hand, if the player is playing a world class anything, learning by experience is NOT going to fit the character concept.

Heeey, maybe that's why Old School is still so hooked on players starting out as 1st level schleps.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650969I've never had players go over option after option delaying the game.

Which obviously means it doesn't exist :)

Quote from: Benoist;650981What happens is that your character stands there using reason instead of guts and instincts to do something.

When I'm making a jump, I don't consider the odds, or even the specific distance. I make an immediate gut reaction and a leap of faith. But I can't DO that in an RPG. I either have to listen to the GM described the details, or look at the numbers on my character sheet, both of which kill immersion and emotional flow.

It's that dastardly higher brain at work which kicks in when given linguistic input, always taking you out of the moment, forcing you to consider things outside the now. And while I don't think the problem can be entirely eliminated, it can be minimized far more than it is.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996But from the new player's perspective, it's not as much fun to go through the whole session just being told 'Just attack him' or 'Just charge'.  Taken to an extreme, the 'new player' is really just an auxillary of an experienced player - and I've seen that happen.  I've even seen experienced players get angry with a new player for doing something 'stupid' - which if they knew the rules they might not have wanted to do.

And certain game systems encourage this sort of dysfunction.  

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996But certainly for the game to work, players need to have general ideas of how actions will work.  There are things that I would do in real life that I won't do in a game - the way they work out in the game just don't reflect reality very well.

Indeed 2.0.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015Completely failing at things like basic physics or common sense doesn't help either.

Could it be that... *GASP* Sacrosanct is trying to apply the RULES of basic physics and common sense? And could it be that the players not knowing these rules is causing a problem?

Quote from: Benoist;651021At an actual game table, you'd be the idiot because you would be a dick to everybody else stopping the game to a crawl engaging in arguments with the DM.

Luckily they're arguing on a forum to prove a point. You can spot the difference if you squint hard enough.

Quote from: Phillip;651033That's a problem due to a disconnect between the model and the phenomenon being modelled. If you know how to drive a car, then a good car simulation should pose no such problem. It's when you must deal with a poor simulation that you need to know about the peculiarities of the model rather than about real driving!

This is still a HUGE problem in videogames (it's why Felicia Day doesn't play electronic Pool), and they're even better at 'simulations' than RPGs. No matter how accurate they are, RPGs are still all about the peculiarities of the model.

Quote from: TristramEvans;651041"The problem with 'gaming geeks' - is that they see the game as being the alpha and omega of the gaming experience. It is the system that matters, the stats of the character and so on rather than the experience of the game itself...I don't know how to create a meaningful dialogue with these kinds of people. There is a mental block as they can only understand roleplaying to be the tangible - books, rules , dice, (grids) - and I understand roleplaying to be the intangible "

Especially ironic here, as this is precisely the basis for Ron's Brain Damage Premise :D

Quote from: deadDMwalking;651334Unless/until we're familiar with the types of things the GM will allow or how they will create a possibility, it can make it harder for a player to immerse himself in the game world.

Nobody here cares about immersion.

Quote from: The Traveller;651367Or just kick the side of the table edge on, hard. If it doesn't collapse outright as tables aren't meant to take pressure from that angle it will certainly spill the brutes who have resorted to fisticuffs into the dregs of their own ale.

An excellent point. A GM should always try and replace an answer of 'no' with 'instead'.

So maybe the table doesn't tip and knock the three fighters over. Maybe the legs break and the three fighters fall. But maybe it does tip and the three fighters are quick enough that they're now fighting on the edge of the table. Maybe the kick pushes you back into another brawler. Maybe you do slip, under the table, giving you unintended cover.

Seriously, all sorts of things would work far better than a 'NO'.

Quote from: Haffrung;651402You have to remember that a lot of people active on RPG design forums don't actually play anymore.

Nice try, but this ol' chestnut got roasted awhile back.

You need more nuts :)

Quote from: Haffrung;651402I'm always amazed that the most obvious question never comes up among these complaints. If you don't like how your DM runs the game, then why don't you run your own game?

Because some people prefer to play?

Shocking, I know :)

Quote from: Rincewind1;651558GMs don't kill people, Systems kill people.

Though some systems have higher kill potential than others :)

Quote from: Bill;651646A GM must know everything in the universe!

No, but they must be willing to concede their ignorance.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651663That group was wrong IMHO for applying the principles of an rpg to a competetive card game.

Only insofar as they were not having fun.

...oh wait.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764Tell you what hot shot, you put 3 full grown men standing on a typical inn table (usually pretty thick and heavy itself) and try to flip it.

What's a 'typical' inn table?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015It's safe to assume that players don't have a lot of practice leaping up in the middle of combat to swing on chandeliers towards an opponent.

Do you?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651015I'll bet you $100 you can't do it.

Doesn't matter if they can do it, only that their character can.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651762Pardon me, I didn't realize you were an expert on chandelier swinging, with a lot of practical experience.

Does anyone see the pattern yet?

Despite the membership of this forum consisting primarily of rectal tissue, this is actually the first red flag which would make me avoid a game. The accuracy of your 'facts' is not what gives you authority in the game you run, but because you're so deep in the simulationist mindset it HAS to. And yet the only 'facts' you actually have to back it up are that the player's physical capability doesn't match their character's.

As the good Emperor has already pointed out, your interpretation is not the only reasonable one. So that being the case, why take yours over one that would make the game more fun and immersive for the player? Apparently you are unwilling or unable to adapt your mental model of the situation in the fictional reality. And please, let's not waste everyone's time with a middle excluding "let players just get what they want" argument. That middle ground is exactly where the game is played, and you don't seem to have any.

Finally, it's one thing to start challenging the character, or even the player through the character, but directly challenging the player like this, even on a forum, just makes you even more of an ass.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651872Bullshit.

Actually I'm serious.  In 30+ years, I have never gamed with players so entitled and argumentative as you.  That's a fact.  There have been players who argued, but long before they ever got to the point you've gotten to, they either accepted what was happening (most often the entire group was telling them how they were completely off) or they were asked to leave (again, with the entire group telling them how they were wrong).

And by the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how you can believe that a tavern brawl is not combat, yet at the same time making a person take an initiative penalty to cut a rope.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;651878What's a 'typical' inn table?

Fantasy game, so approx medieval.  Large enough for three adults to be engaging in combat on top of it.  Doesn't take a genius to get a good idea of what such a table would look like.  I imagine something like this:

(http://www.earlyoakspecialists.co.uk/Main/Replica_Furniture/Tables_and_Cup_Boards/medieval_style_trestle_table/images/medieval_style_trestle_table_000.jpg)

Now, if the player made a compelling argument why it should work, I might make a strength check required or something.  But as described, the tavern also has floors as slick as an ice rink apparently, so how would the player get footing to flip it?

QuoteDoes anyone see the pattern yet?
.

Yes.  If people like you or Sommerjon don't get their way as players to do whatever they want in a game and succeed automatically, even if it directly makes no sense whatsoever (like sliding a dozen or more feet across a tavern floor), they throw an absolute shit fit.


*Edit*  Oh, and no I've never swung from a chandelier at someone, but I've also never tightroped walked either, and it's not a reach to think that something that requires coordination that the person who has no real practice at doing would require something like a Dex check.

It's cute your "copy one-liners out of context and reinterpret them to mean what you want them to mean," Anon, but based on this from the other thread:

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;651884WOW, 50 PAGES ALREADY?!? You people must really love this game :)

I'd love to troll it but I'm pressed for time. Can anyone sum things up?

I've no intention to waste my time answering your trolling attempt here. Thanks.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;651878Then the player would really have NO IDEA how well they could hit before attempting it, regardless of their character's PoV or skill level.

1) You seem to be assuming that the player could not change his mind after hearing how  was going to resolve the action. I'm not running my games with the equivalent of a chess tournament's "touch it and you have to move it" rule. Not that increasing his chance of successfully hitting the target (which was what I was talking about in my quoted statement) is likely to cause the player to want to change his mind.

2) Most of my players don't bother to learn the rules to start with. Some of them don't even open the rulebook, even when I give them a copy of it. They aren't much interested in the "game" aspect of a roleplaying game. They just want to tell me what their character does in standard (non-gamespeak) English and have me either: 1) tell them the result; 2) tell them what to roll if I decide a roll is needed; or 3) warn them that they don't have much chance of success if they do not and if the consequences of failure are likely to be more harmful to the character than just "not succeeding with the action".

Quote from: RandallS;6519191) You seem to be assuming that the player could not change his mind after hearing how  was going to resolve the action. I'm not running my games with the equivalent of a chess tournament's "touch it and you have to move it" rule. Not that increasing his chance of successfully hitting the target (which was what I was talking about in my quoted statement) is likely to cause the player to want to change his mind.

2) Most of my players don't bother to learn the rules to start with. Some of them don't even open the rulebook, even when I give them a copy of it. They aren't much interested in the "game" aspect of a roleplaying game. They just want to tell me what their character does in standard (non-gamespeak) English and have me either: 1) tell them the result; 2) tell them what to roll if I decide a roll is needed; or 3) warn them that they don't have much chance of success if they do not and if the consequences of failure are likely to be more harmful to the character than just "not succeeding with the action".

This sounds quite similar to my experience with DnD (non 3E that is). 3E/Pathfinder/4E seems to bring out alot more of the CharOp crowd in my experience.

The moment the merit of an argument boils down to the problematics of a concept whether a medieval table with 3 men on it can be thrown, you know it's material for Mythbusters, rather than legitimate discussion.

The most bizarre assumption is, that if a player starts acting like mechanics - obsessed a - hole, you don't throw him out. It's not like he has a gun to his head forcing him to play. Concede some on the part of the group, or goodbye and thanks for all the fish.

Quote from: RandallS;6519191) You seem to be assuming that the player could not change his mind after hearing how  was going to resolve the action. I'm not running my games with the equivalent of a chess tournament's "touch it and you have to move it" rule. Not that increasing his chance of successfully hitting the target (which was what I was talking about in my quoted statement) is likely to cause the player to want to change his mind.

2) Most of my players don't bother to learn the rules to start with. Some of them don't even open the rulebook, even when I give them a copy of it. They aren't much interested in the "game" aspect of a roleplaying game. They just want to tell me what their character does in standard (non-gamespeak) English and have me either: 1) tell them the result; 2) tell them what to roll if I decide a roll is needed; or 3) warn them that they don't have much chance of success if they do not and if the consequences of failure are likely to be more harmful to the character than just "not succeeding with the action".

I completely agree completely on issue 1, not so much on issue 2 as most of my players care for mechanics. But let's not spoil good argument with common sense.

Quote from: RandallS;651919Most of my players don't bother to learn the rules to start with. Some of them don't even open the rulebook, even when I give them a copy of it. They aren't much interested in the "game" aspect of a roleplaying game. They just want to tell me what their character does in standard (non-gamespeak) English and have me either: 1) tell them the result; 2) tell them what to roll if I decide a roll is needed; or 3) warn them that they don't have much chance of success if they do not and if the consequences of failure are likely to be more harmful to the character than just "not succeeding with the action".

Same here. What's best for people depends on the people involved.

I'm pretty sure, though, that what's best for people who have been playing with others who don't want to play their way, is NOT to turn around and be assholes trying to keep other people from playing the way they want to play.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651912Actually I'm serious.  In 30+ years, I have never gamed with players so entitled and argumentative as you.  That's a fact.  There have been players who argued, but long before they ever got to the point you've gotten to, they either accepted what was happening (most often the entire group was telling them how they were completely off) or they were asked to leave (again, with the entire group telling them how they were wrong).

Entitled; I have a different opinion on the matter that is breaking my immersion on what is going on.  Am I not allowed to express that?  Am I always supposed to bow my head and suck it up for the greater good of the group?  Is it really about the greater good of the group or....Argumentative;  What I see is "How fucking dare you question MY AUTHORITY!"  That is what I have come to see where the issue is more than greater group good.  If you are unwilling to listen why should I accept your decree?  Why are you able to reject the imaginations of the players and substitute yours in their place?

You all keep going on about how this is a group social activity, but it rings hollow when only one person at the table is able to do anything without direct approval

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651912And by the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how you can believe that a tavern brawl is not combat, yet at the same time making a person take an initiative penalty to cut a rope.

Because I find tavern brawls to be inanely infantile.  I rate the action just below players who like to fuck everything.  If the players need  a tavern brawl, sure we can do that, no dice needed and it will be all Keystone Cops-like.

As for the other part.  Glance down there at your ice rink remark.  Do I need to continue drawing the picture for you?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651912Fantasy game, so approx medieval.  Large enough for three adults to be engaging in combat on top of it.  Doesn't take a genius to get a good idea of what such a table would look like.  I imagine something like this:

Spoiler

(http://www.earlyoakspecialists.co.uk/Main/Replica_Furniture/Tables_and_Cup_Boards/medieval_style_trestle_table/images/medieval_style_trestle_table_000.jpg)

Now, if the player made a compelling argument why it should work, I might make a strength check required or something.  But as described, the tavern also has floors as slick as an ice rink apparently, so how would the player get footing to flip it?

Do realize that table you found is only 20 inches wide?

Quote14 FT. LONG, MEDIEVAL STYLE TRESTLE TABLE. Handmade, entirely from one single ancient oak beam (even the pegs!). Measuring 20 inches x 20 inches x 18 foot long, the beam was originally part of an apple press, believed to have come from Normandy in France (see below). We deliberately avoided using a mechanical re-saw to cut the beam because, although much quicker and easier, it would have resulted in the planks being too straight and too uniform in thickness.

Personally I'm trying to figure out if it is 14 or 18 feet long(the table is based upon another table double the size of their reproduction),   So you can understand what 20 inches is.  Take your shoes off stick your heels together with your toes facing the opposite directions, if you have the average sized male foot, that is almost exactly 20 inches.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651912Yes.  If people like you or Sommerjon don't get their way as players to do whatever they want in a game and succeed automatically, even if it directly makes no sense whatsoever (like sliding a dozen or more feet across a tavern floor), they throw an absolute shit fit.

See I don't want this, sure I get the hyperbole, but I don't need for you to misrepresent me either.  I want a Dm who is willing to at least entertain the idea he may be misguided or misunderstood, or is not seeing(in his mind's eye) what I am trying to do. When I question a 'rulings' I am not shitting on his 'authority'.  I'm not feeling entitled, I'm not trying to succeed automatically I want a Dm willing to share the gaming experience with everyone.  If I am always waiting for a 'ruling' on the action I get up and walk out.  No I'm not talking about seizing the narrative.  I'm talking about when the game says X so when X situation comes up I already know what to roll. Always having to wait for a 'ruling' is where the concept of Mother May I came from.

Quote from: Sommerjon;652003Entitled; I have a different opinion on the matter that is breaking my immersion on what is going on.  Am I not allowed to express that?  Am I always supposed to bow my head and suck it up for the greater good of the group?  Is it really about the greater good of the group or....Argumentative;  What I see is "How fucking dare you question MY AUTHORITY!"  That is what I have come to see where the issue is more than greater group good.  If you are unwilling to listen why should I accept your decree?  Why are you able to reject the imaginations of the players and substitute yours in their place?

You all keep going on about how this is a group social activity, but it rings hollow when only one person at the table is able to do anything without direct approval

Funny.  See, what happened is I posted a response that showed that all of these off the cuff things didn't result in paralysis by analysis and were easily handled on the fly.  The actual rulings wasn't as important and was the point that it didn't paralyze the game.  What you did was get your panties in a wad and totally miss the point, throwing a fit because in my examples, the players weren't able to do whatever they wanted, or pull off any stunt they wanted, automatically.

QuoteBecause I find tavern brawls to be inanely infantile.  I rate the action just below players who like to fuck everything.  If the players need  a tavern brawl, sure we can do that, no dice needed and it will be all Keystone Cops-like.

If that's the case, then why are you OK with the -2 initiative modifier (a combat only metric).  You didn't answer the question.  Again.

QuoteAs for the other part.  Glance down there at your ice rink remark.  Do I need to continue drawing the picture for you?

Because you seem to constantly fail to grasp the obvious, I'll have to spell it out for you.

Have you ever seen a person "take 2 steps" and slide a significant distance (10' or more)?  The only examples I can think of are on surfaces as slippery as an ice rink.  Nevermind the fact that a tavern floor will never be that slippery from a few spilled beers (which is why I think sliding across the floor a significant distance is not possible).  Let's assume it is.  Based on that, how do you expect to get your footing to be able to flip the table in the first place?  Again, this is physics and leverage, concepts that you don't seem to have a fundamental grasp of.  You also have no idea what hydroplaning is.  Sliding is not hydroplaning.

QuoteSee I don't want this, sure I get the hyperbole, but I don't need for you to misrepresent me either.  I want a Dm who is willing to at least entertain the idea he may be misguided or misunderstood, or is not seeing(in his mind's eye) what I am trying to do. When I question a 'rulings' I am not shitting on his 'authority'.  I'm not feeling entitled, I'm not trying to succeed automatically I want a Dm willing to share the gaming experience with everyone.  If I am always waiting for a 'ruling' on the action I get up and walk out.  No I'm not talking about seizing the narrative.  I'm talking about when the game says X so when X situation comes up I already know what to roll. Always having to wait for a 'ruling' is where the concept of Mother May I came from.

This isn't how you responded though.  You decided to respond and throw a fit about how each of my rulings was unreasonable and shit.  You completely ignored the context and point of my post to pixelbitch (and incorrectly at that).   Your response was a clear example of an entitled player who wants everything his way or he throws a fit.  The weird thing is that in all of your examples, most everything should be automatic except taking a swing at a stationary rope.  That part, you were Ok with a -2 initiative roll.

:huhsign:


*Edit* and if we're really going to be pedantic,  let's look at just how much the table weighs.  Just the top mind you, and not the weight of the entire table.  According to this (http://www.csgnetwork.com/lumberweight.html), the table top above weighs 468 pounds.  This is not a picnic table.  With 3 full grown men fighting on top of it, it's over 1000 pounds.  Even with center of gravity, it would not be something easy to do, especially on a floor that is so slippery that you think a person could just slide across it easily.

However, as you alluded to, the table in that pic is only 20 inches wide.  If you use the rules for how much room is needed for 3 combatants to be able to fight, it would be 5' wide by 15' long and 3" thick, and just the top alone would be over 1300 pounds.  So 2000 pounds.  That's a small car.  Even if you put a Mazda Miata three feet off the ground on those table legs, have fun flipping it over with no footing.


Oh, and just so everyone knows, I would never be that pedantic in a gaming session.  No unreasonable request should be unreasonable denied.  Make your case, and if it's doable, we'll figure something out.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651912Actually I'm serious.  In 30+ years, I have never gamed with players so entitled and argumentative as you.  That's a fact.  There have been players who argued, but long before they ever got to the point you've gotten to, they either accepted what was happening (most often the entire group was telling them how they were completely off) or they were asked to leave (again, with the entire group telling them how they were wrong).

In a healthy group, the DM doesn't even have to bring down the hammer on a rules lawyer - the rest of the players will do it. Players know when someone at the table is trying to get their own kicks at everyone else's expense. And unless those people are a bunch of socially stunted dweebs, they'll just up and tell the asshole to shut the hell up.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008Funny.  See, what happened is I posted a response that showed that all of these off the cuff things didn't result in paralysis by analysis and were easily handled on the fly.  The actual rulings wasn't as important and was the point that it didn't paralyze the game.  What you did was get your panties in a wad and totally miss the point, throwing a fit because in my examples, the players weren't able to do whatever they wanted, or pull off any stunt they wanted, automatically.

No, I found your rulings to be absurd, you got your panties in a wad that I dared 'challenge' your rulings.<--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008If that's the case, then why are you OK with the -2 initiative modifier (a combat only metric).  You didn't answer the question.  Again.

I see I need to continue to draw this picture for you.  It's called sarcasm.  Here let me redo this for you.
7) Draw a weapon and attack someone.
* take a -2 penalty to initiative
** Sure whatever. :rolleyes: <--notice the sarcasm smilies I added it here so you can better understand.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008Because you seem to constantly fail to grasp the obvious, I'll have to spell it out for you.

Have you ever seen a person "take 2 steps" and slide a significant distance (10' or more)?  The only examples I can think of are on surfaces as slippery as an ice rink.  Nevermind the fact that a tavern floor will never be that slippery from a few spilled beers (which is why I think sliding across the floor a significant distance is not possible).

I have practical experience and 7 stitches that says your wrong. If you really need the proof I can take a picture and show you.  My brother and I were sliding across(I would say hydroplaning, but that makes you all prunefaced, however it sure did get the point across) the plywood deck of a cabin[my father is a carpenter we worked for him during our school years]  we hadn't raised the walls or rafters before it rained us out.  We were supposed to be sweeping the water off, but being 14 and 17, horseplay was more fun, so here we were sliding across the plywood, no not furniture grade plywood, construction plywood.  I slide, my lead foot hits a nail that wasn't countersunk all the way, it spins me 180 around I lose balance and faceplant. Smashing my teeth through my lip.
So how was I able to slide on wood with nothing but water?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008Let's assume it is.  Based on that, how do you expect to get your footing to be able to flip the table in the first place?  Again, this is physics and leverage, concepts that you don't seem to have a fundamental grasp of.

See this is fun I picked up on the sarcasm btw,  lets take your 'point' here and add to the others, to make a 'point' of my own.  How is anyone moving? How is he jumping to grab the chandelier? How is the farmer moving towards me? How is anyone engaging in combat <--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008You also have no idea what hydroplaning is.  Sliding is not hydroplaning.

My apologies Dr.Sacrosanct :rolleyes: I didn't realize we had to be 100% scientifically accurate with our terms. <--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you Sure did get the point across though.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008This isn't how you responded though.  You decided to respond and throw a fit about how each of my rulings was unreasonable and shit.  You completely ignored the context and point of my post to pixelbitch (and incorrectly at that).   Your response was a clear example of an entitled player who wants everything his way or he throws a fit.

This isn't how you responded though.  You decided to respond and throw a fit about how each of my questions to your rulings was unreasonable and shit.  You completely ignored the context and point of my post to pixelbitch (and incorrectly at that).   Your response was a clear example of an powermad Dm who wants everything his way or he throws a fit. <--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008The weird thing is that in all of your examples, most everything should be automatic

No
3, 4 and 6 I think should be automatic.  Not even half of them, actually only two more than you<--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008except taking a swing at a stationary rope.  That part, you were Ok with a -2 initiative roll.

:huhsign:

7) Draw a weapon and attack someone.
* take a -2 penalty to initiative
** Sure whatever. :rolleyes: <--notice the sarcasm smilies I added it here so you can better understand.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008*Edit* and if we're really going to be pedantic,  let's look at just how much the table weighs.  Just the top mind you, and not the weight of the entire table.  According to this (http://www.csgnetwork.com/lumberweight.html), the table top above weighs 468 pounds.  This is not a picnic table.  With 3 full grown men fighting on top of it, it's over 1000 pounds.  Even with center of gravity, it would not be something easy to do, especially on a floor that is so slippery that you think a person could just slide across it easily.

However, as you alluded to, the table in that pic is only 20 inches wide.  If you use the rules for how much room is needed for 3 combatants to be able to fight, it would be 5' wide by 15' long and 3" thick, and just the top alone would be over 1300 pounds.  So 2000 pounds.  That's a small car.  Even if you put a Mazda Miata three feet off the ground on those table legs, have fun flipping it over with no footing.

You really trying to use combat rules to prove your how large the table has to be?  You're kidding me here,  Aren't you?
That is greenlumber weight, dried lumber would be around 320lbs.  That is also 18 fucking feet long.  The notion that you need at least 75 square feet for 3 humans to fight in is absurd.  And you bitch about rules lawyers and the cult of RaW?<--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652008Oh, and just so everyone knows, I would never be that pedantic in a gaming session.  No unreasonable request should be unreasonable denied.  Make your case, and if it's doable, we'll figure something out.

:rotfl:<--This is sarcasm, just pointing that out to you

Quote from: Benoist;651806Nobody would enjoy having to sit down through an argument like this.

Thus the important words every GM eventually has to utter.


Thus: "rulings more than rules."

Regarding the tavern scenario, since I originally offered it up as an example of many possible actions that required asking the GM how they would be resolved in the absence of clear rules requiring an excessive amount of game time to evaluate them all (which I stand by - even if each individual ruling is quick, evaluating even several of them means asking and discussion - if everyone knows the rules there's no back-and-forth required).  But for the purposes of the tangent regarding the paradoxically slippery and stable floor - I had envisioned an aisle between tables that was littered with spilled beers making a slippery aisle - but not necessarily that the entire floor of the tavern was covered with ale.  

But that's not really important.  What does matter is what happens when a player feels that something outside the rules should have one effect (with reason) and the GM feels differently (also with reason).

Let's take a look at the thrown stew for a moment.  If it is a 'normal attack', that doesn't really reflect the relative ease of 'hitting' - it's not like it needs to penetrate any armor...  So a touch attack?  Called shot to the head?  And let's say that the GM rules that it is a normal touch attack and success indicates it hits the target in the face.  Now they have a hot, viscous stew in their face.  Does it cause blindness? Damage?  Does the target get a save?

Even if the player knows how to resolve the action, knowing what might happen is important, too.  If stew to the face hits (with a roll or automatically) but has no effect and no possible effect, it's still pretty much a wasted action.  

That's about the worst thing that can happen to a player - so if they consider several actions that the GM will rule  as doing nothing even if successful, that's where you really get into issues with either considering numerous possibilities (wasting game time) or simply resolving to do boring repetitive actions (ie, "I attack again").

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;651878Especially ironic here, as this is precisely the basis for Ron's Brain Damage Premise :D
.

I'm not sure that's irony, but if Ron had meant people like Mr. GC, Gleichmann, or a few of the Big Purple's mods, I don't think I'd disagree with him.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651776When someone is being absurd, not really.  You do realize you are talking about someone who hates storywanking, but has no problem with plot.  You do realize you can't have one without the other.

You are quite wrong. My campaigns feature multiple plots and remain free of storywanking.

None of the plots belong to me, as the GM. The PCs get mixed up in some of them and ignore others, and world moves on. Its quite easy to do.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;652201You are quite wrong. My campaigns feature multiple plots and remain free of storywanking.

Moreover, a lot of the campaigns that do involve storywanking, don't tend to give much priority to plot (in the sense of something that is largely pre-determined).

This is the whole division between story before ('I've written a story, let's play through it'), story now ('let's actively create a story through our character's actions'), story after ('let's just play and then retcon things into a narrative later'), and story not at all ('fuck story').

Quote from: Exploderwizard;652201You are quite wrong. My campaigns feature multiple plots and remain free of storywanking.

None of the plots belong to me, as the GM. The PCs get mixed up in some of them and ignore others, and world moves on. Its quite easy to do.

No I'm not.  I don't live in this pass/fail world this place lives in when it comes to 'storywanking'.

Some Plot Hook that is tossed to the PCs and continues along it's path whether they interact with it or not is a fucking story, trying to say it's 'world continues to move' 'just playing the setting' or whatever is bullshit sophistry.

Quote from: Sommerjon;652244No I'm not.  I don't live in this pass/fail world this place lives in when it comes to 'storywanking'.

Some Plot Hook that is tossed to the PCs and continues along it's path whether they interact with it or not is a fucking story, trying to say it's 'world continues to move' 'just playing the setting' or whatever is bullshit sophistry.

So you cannot tell roleplaying from from shared narrative gaming. A lot of hipsters have the same problem. No biggie.

Quote from: Sommerjon;652244No I'm not.  I don't live in this pass/fail world this place lives in when it comes to 'storywanking'.

Some Plot Hook that is tossed to the PCs and continues along it's path whether they interact with it or not is a fucking story, trying to say it's 'world continues to move' 'just playing the setting' or whatever is bullshit sophistry.

I don't think storygames are bad or aren't rpgs, and I think if you want story in your game that is totally fine. But I think it is also a bit of sophistry as well to say everything is a story in the sense people are talking about here. Sometimes people say 'the story' to mean the in-game game events that are not combat. And I think that is a fair use of the word, if potentially ambiguous. But that doesn't mean when a GM has something happen in the game world, that is the same as a story or narrative in the way people are talking about in narrative rpgs. Again, I have zero problem with these kinds of games, but I do find it strange when people make the all rpgs are story games argument.

The last few pages of this discussion have become completely retarded, because there's no expectation of good faith whatsoever. It's just about sticking it to the asshole who posted before. There's no point to it.

Quote from: Benoist;652253The last few pages of this discussion have become completely retarded, because there's no expectation of good faith whatsoever. It's just about sticking it to the asshole who posted before. There's no point to it.

Welcome to the adult swim!

I mean, I agree with you, but this goes on a lot around here. Even you non-swine guys seem to all hate each other. It drowns out some good discussions IMO.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;652246So you cannot tell roleplaying from shared narrative gaming. A lot of hipsters have the same problem. No biggie.

Like I said Pass/Fail.

Just want you to realize everywhere else what you do is called shared narrative.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652251Again, I have zero problem with these kinds of games, but I do find it strange when people make the all rpgs are story games argument.

They are all rpgs to me, don't care if it's D&D, CoC, Mountain Witch, or Sorcerer  When those games are played you are playing a role in that game,  That is roleplaying.  Adding further definitions to rpgs to make oneself feel superior to what they over there are doing is infantile, but then again we are on a website based 100% around that I need to feel superior concept.

Quote from: Sommerjon;652309They are all rpgs to me, don't care if it's D&D, CoC, Mountain Witch, or Sorcerer  When those games are played you are playing a role in that game,  That is roleplaying.  Adding further definitions to rpgs to make oneself feel superior to what they over there are doing is infantile, but then again we are on a website based 100% around that I need to feel superior concept.

:rolleyes:

Of course you don't. By that definition all boardgames are RPGs, because you play a role of a military commander/railroad tycoon/ghost hunter etc. etc.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652251I don't think storygames are bad or aren't rpgs, and I think if you want story in your game that is totally fine. But I think it is also a bit of sophistry as well to say everything is a story in the sense people are talking about here. Sometimes people say 'the story' to mean the in-game game events that are not combat. And I think that is a fair use of the word, if potentially ambiguous. But that doesn't mean when a GM has something happen in the game world, that is the same as a story or narrative in the way people are talking about in narrative rpgs. Again, I have zero problem with these kinds of games, but I do find it strange when people make the all rpgs are story games argument.

I disagree. The distinction is important, if only because a definition too broad renders the very concept of a definition moot. And story in an RPG does not equal storygame.

Quote from: Rincewind1;652315I disagree. The distinction is important, if only because a definition too broad renders the very concept of a definition moot.

Clearly I am somewhat in the minority here. But personally I am not enamored with all the efforts to define rpg so narrowly or to say a game with this mechanic or that mechanic isnt a true rpg. Feels like it is becoming too much of a purity test.

I do think some distinction is handy. In a game has heavy narrative mechanics, I would certainly like to know before I buy it, so I appreciate publishers indicating that in some way (I would be fine with calling them narrative rpgs for example). But when I pick up an rpg and play it, my concern is whether I like it, not whether it has an element that makes it no longer an rpg. And I am not terribly worried about how others use the label. At the same time, when I see posters acting like narrative mechanics are no different from traditional ones, or identical to things like attack rolls, then I understand where some of the hostility and debate is coming from.

QuoteAnd story in an RPG does not equal storygame.

I agree. That is the point I was trying to make.

Quote from: Rincewind1;652315:rolleyes:

Of course you don't. By that definition all boardgames are RPGs, because you play a role of a military commander/railroad tycoon/ghost hunter etc. etc.

I've seen more roleplaying in a game of Uno than most of the kiddies today manage in any "true" RPG.

Quote from: Rincewind1;652315I disagree. The distinction is important, if only because a definition too broad renders the very concept of a definition moot. And story in an RPG does not equal storygame.

The RP in RPG stands for "roleplaying." The G stands for "Game." To be a roleplaying game, one would think it would need both elements. One would also think that, perhaps, there's room for some variation in the ratio between the two and still fit within the overall definition. Push too far in one direction, and you lose the game; roleplaying becomes improvisational acting. Push too far the in other, and you lose the roleplaying; the game because a board game. The trick is where the lines are drawn. Yes, it can be useful to distinguish between the more extreme ends, but all too often, the argument isn't over where the lines are, but rather, over what words to use to describe them.

There isn't one right answer. There isn't even one right answer per player. Those who claim otherwise are generally more interested in proving they're right than in being right.

The only distinction I give a shit about is "games I like" and "games that suck donkey dick."

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652318Clearly I am somewhat in the minority here. But personally I am not enamored with all the efforts to define rpg so narrowly or to say a game with this mechanic or that mechanic isnt a true rpg. Feels like it is becoming too much of a purity test.

I do think some distinction is handy. In a game has heavy narrative mechanics, I would certainly like to know before I buy it, so I appreciate publishers indicating that in some way (I would be fine with calling them narrative rpgs for example). But when I pick up an rpg and play it, my concern is whether I like it, not whether it has an element that makes it no longer an rpg. And I am not terribly worried about how others use the label. At the same time, when I see posters acting like narrative mechanics are no different from traditional ones, or identical to things like attack rolls, then I understand where some of the hostility and debate is coming from.




I agree. That is the point I was trying to make.

We're agreed on the latter part then.

As for the former  - it's alright, I don't equal narrative elements to storygame, and I was perhaps in the wrong on Torchbearer. Then again, sometimes the distinction is quite hard - for example, is InSpectres an RPG or a storygame? Technically an RPG, because you control a specific character and there's a GM who creates the world etc. etc. But on the other hand, it is a storygame, in my opinion at least, because all the actions you conclude as the character, are done so with using a very narrational mechanic, as well as the fact that every success in your skill check in that game, directly correlates to advancement of the story - and I do mean directly.

So in my opinion, and I think of some others as well, a storygame is when you do have a character, but he exists as your author's avatar within the joint creation, so to speak. And alongside that, goes the importance of actually a pre - set "story" at the table, that's supposed to be constructed.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652318Clearly I am somewhat in the minority here. But personally I am not enamored with all the efforts to define rpg so narrowly or to say a game with this mechanic or that mechanic isnt a true rpg. Feels like it is becoming too much of a purity test.

I don't think defining tabletop RPGs as games that focus on players acting as individual characters within a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a human referee is very narrow at all.

I feel also it accurate as to what distinguished RPGs from their predecessors. And why tabletop RPGs are not just wargames despite many similarities especially in the combat rules.

Since then other types of roleplaying games has developed LARPS, MMORPGs, CRPGS, etc. Each replacing elements of tabletop roleplaying games with their own unique elements.

The storytelling games is that by focusing on the narrative and sharing the adjudication of the narrative are better off trying to be their own thing rather than remaining as part of the tabletop roleplaying. Because narrative mechanics invariably forces the players to act as a player which I feel distract from the roleplaying as individual characters.

Much like when people tried to use CRPGs or MMORPGs as part of a tabletop
roleplaying campaign. (especially Bioware's Neverwinter Nights) It could be made work but not very well and with a lot of caveats. What finally worked for tabletop was taking the traditional RPG Utility and combining it with chat, dice roller, and whiteboard. I.E. the virtual tabletop.

Quote from: estar;652334I don't think defining tabletop RPGs as games that focus on players acting as individual characters within a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a human referee is very narrow at all.

p.

Like I said, I realize I am in the minority here and I am not trying to start a debate or anything. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the definition you offer. What I do find I resist is attempts to say this game or that game, because it has some mechanics that give the players a bit of narrative control or potentially take them out of first person view point, are not rpgs. I think there are games are the far end that I would agree, best to call them something else. But games like Marvel Heroic or Dungeon World, as much as they don't interest me personally, still seem like rpgs to me the more i read about them. It feels like the definition of rpg is getting narrower and narrower here to me. I am not sure tweaking the powers of the GM a bit really makes it a different type of game. Maybe a different type of rpg. But not neccessarily a different game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652343What I do find I resist is attempts to say this game or that game, because it has some mechanics that give the players a bit of narrative control or potentially take them out of first person view point, are not rpgs.

All RPGs are hybrids of one sore or another.

"Traditional" Tabletop RPGs still have a wargame at their heart. What was a game of man to man combat wargame called Melee was turned into a traditional RPG called The Fantasy Trip.

For me it about the what the game focuses that puts it into one category or another. Which is why SPI's Freedom in the Galaxy/Swords & Sorcery/Lord of the Rings are all rightly considered wargames while MERP, AD&D 2E's Birthright, etc are tabletop roleplaying games.

All of them have individual characters, a campaign, and extensive detailed subsystems. But the focus of the SPI games is on two players competing against one another. While the focus of the others are on players playing individual characters where their actions are adjudicated by a referee.

The same with games with narrative focus. Just as a RPG can feel too wargamish, (Mechwarrior 1st edition) a RPG can have too heavy of a dose of narrative mechanics. Feeling either like you are playing something so focused that would be better off as a adventure module. Or little different than playing Once upon Time and you are left feeling why did they market this as a RPG in the first place?

It also doesn't help that narrative mechanics are a form of metagaming and therefore considered cheating by some tabletop gamers. Again because the narrative mechanics allow the player do things outside of what their characters could do.

My view is that it is not cheating but it is a distraction from the roleplaying of individual characters as it causes players to play the game not the character. My view also pertains to the wargame side of RPGs which is why I don't care for D&D 4e as a tabletop RPG. Why when I use detailed combat it something like GURPS, Hero System, or Harnmaster where the rules are a one for one reflection of the reality of the setting of the game.

Quote from: estar;652334I don't think defining tabletop RPGs as games that focus on players acting as individual characters within a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a human referee is very narrow at all.

It's narrower than it needs to be, and exclude a lot of games (including original D&D), if real literally. Perhaps it should be " . . . adjudicated by a human referee or random die rolls as determined by the game mechanics. Which means that adjudication is always shared between gamemaster and players.

You don't agree with it, and that's prefectly reasonable, but honestly, I find the idea that an activity that is pure roleplaying, with no gaming, isn't a roleplaying game to be on the border of silly.

You're (collective "you") not arguing who is right, you're arguing who gets to decide who is right. And I don't think any of you realize it.