TheRPGSite

Quote from: The Butcher;532411In three words? Front-loaded complexity. Once you're done with chargen the game runs smooth, but God help you through your first (and sometimes second and third) character sheet.

A free-to-download, easy-to-use automated chargen app works wonders on both cases. It's not to everyone's liking, though.

Quote from: The Butcher;532411In three words? Front-loaded complexity. Once you're done with chargen the game runs smooth, but God help you through your first (and sometimes second and third) character sheet.

Quote from: ggroy;532421Now that I think about it more, I suspect many of these same players would have very little to no interest in 3E/3.5E and 4E D&D, if it did not have "Dungeons and Dragons" on the front cover.

The fact that the core books had "Dungeons and Dragons" on the front cover, was the only reason they tolerated 3E/3.5E and 4E.

Quote from: The Butcher;532411In three words? Front-loaded complexity. Once you're done with chargen the game runs smooth, but God help you through your first (and sometimes second and third) character sheet.

A free-to-download, easy-to-use automated chargen app works wonders on both cases. It's not to everyone's liking, though.

QuoteBoth are good games

Quote from: The Butcher;532411In three words? Front-loaded complexity. Once you're done with chargen the game runs smooth, but God help you through your first (and sometimes second and third) character sheet.

A free-to-download, easy-to-use automated chargen app works wonders on both cases. It's not to everyone's liking, though.

Quote from: B.T.;532482No, they're not.  GURPS is awful.  Haven't played HERO but from what I've heard, it is sub-par.  If the designers want to make GURPS work, they need to drastically simplify the system and then create genre-specific splats with self-contained rules that can optionally be grafted onto other games.  GURPS Fantasy Heartbreaker should be a completely separate game from GURPS Space Opera in the way that Werewolf is a completely separate game from Vampire.

Fuck GURPS. (http://www.themook.net/rpg/examples/close/index.php?id=one)

Quote from: The Butcher;532411In three words? Front-loaded complexity.

Quote from: danbuter;532413A character generator would help, but it still would have problems, unless you could go in and tick boxes or something to allow or disallow skills and powers that don't fit the genre of game you're running.

Quote from: James Gillen;532471The Hero Designer program is good.
The designer of Hero Designer has a lot of bugs that need to be worked out.  :D

JG

Quote from: B.T.;532482No, they're not.  GURPS is awful.  Haven't played HERO but from what I've heard, it is sub-par.  If the designers want to make GURPS work, they need to drastically simplify the system and then create genre-specific splats with self-contained rules that can optionally be grafted onto other games.  GURPS Fantasy Heartbreaker should be a completely separate game from GURPS Space Opera in the way that Werewolf is a completely separate game from Vampire.

Fuck GURPS. (http://www.themook.net/rpg/examples/close/index.php?id=one)

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;532497The reason that I think they have a popularity problem -- and the reason I quit Hero -- is because making a well designed character is above the time and knowledge investment that many players are willing and able to put into it.

I loved Hero's ability to craft whatever ability I wanted to see in the game, but I could tell some of my players struggled and really didn't "get" the power system.

Quote from: The ButcherIn three words? Front-loaded complexity. Once you're done with chargen the game runs smooth, but God help you through your first (and sometimes second and third) character sheet.

Quote from: The Butcher;532411In three words? Front-loaded complexity.

Quote from: gleichman;532556A breaking point came when Steven Long decided for 6th edition that he was now God and that he would change major sections of the Rules (including dropping support for maps and minis) and go for a rather horible art style taken from Champion's Online (a IMO failed MMORPG).

Quote from: This Guy;532585Not just front-loaded complexity, but boring front-loaded complexity.  I can handle a complicated chargen system if the game can make it interesting - which, for me, usually means a mix of point-buy and randomized elements, but even straight point-buy can be fun.  HERO couldn't achieve that for me, nor GURPS.

Quote from: gleichman;532556Last decade HERO of one of the more successful systems. Winner of a Best RPG of all Time award (forget which one sadly) and a constant on the game shelves. This despite the fact it never had a compelling game setting or campaign support, both serious drawbacks.



There are other important factors in it's fading from the scene.

A breaking point came when Steven Long decided for 6th edition that he was now God and that he would change major sections of the Rules (including dropping support for maps and minis) and go for a rather horible art style taken from Champion's Online (a IMO failed MMORPG).

Quote from: Soylent Green;532592Surely Champions Online has given Hero more exposure than most other games outside D&D ever get.

Quote from: gleichman;532556I think it was successful not for it's system so much, but for its resource books for settings and eras. Fine stuff there.

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;532500I didn't feel like shelling out $75 for Gurps 4e when I already had a shelf full of 3e stuff. Especially for two full color, glossy hardcovers.

Quote from: gleichman;532556IME with HERO groups the GM handles character generation for the players (with their input) meaning that the front-loading exists only for the one person who in general enjoys its.

Quote from: Koltar;532680Technically the " 3/e " stuff already IS GURPS 4/e compatible.

In the Update booklet that comes weith the GM screen package - there is a simple conversion system for 3/e into 4/e.
(Converts a hell of a lot easier than 3rd/e D&D to 4th/e D&D - which is practically impossible)


SO......looked at that way you already have plenty of 4th edition GURPS material.

- Ed C.



Oh and B.T. is full of crap......

Quote from: danbuter;532408Both are good games, and the core rules are fairly simple (3d6 roll low). However, they both offer tons and tons of options. This is kind of like having a $10,000 mechanics tool chest with all the doodads, when all you really need is a ratchet set. While everything you can possibly want is in there somewhere, you have to basically know ALL of the rules in order to find the things you want, and to know how the various skills or powers you are not allowing will affect a game.

While you can maybe get away with a general knowledge of stuff to make your decisions, you still have to read everything. I think many people who make the argument that the "base rules are really simple" just completely miss that fact.

What also has really hurt both games, IMO, is that they are now split up into two separate books. Instead of having everything organized in just one rulebook, you now have to have both books open if your running combats (unless you're one of those people who has actually memorized everything). This is clumsy to handle at the table, and also makes looking up rules during play a major hassle. Especially if you think a rule is in book two, but is actually tucked away in a powers description in book one.

This is one of the areas that D&D has improved. By moving characters and combat into the same book (and lately even treasure), players and the DM can find everything much more quickly, if there's a question during play. Hero and Gurps are moving in the opposite direction, and I believe that's a big mistake.

Quote from: gleichman;532556Only in Part. And mostly for this site which tends towards front-loaded designs. IME with HERO groups the GM handles character generation for the players (with their input) meaning that the front-loading exists only for the one person who in general enjoys its. For the players, it's one of the smoothest gaming systems around.

Quote from: gleichman;532556A breaking point came when Steven Long decided for 6th edition that he was now God and that he would change major sections of the Rules (including dropping support for maps and minis) and go for a rather horible art style taken from Champion's Online (a IMO failed MMORPG).

Add in the lack of campaign support, the absence of a good setting, edition change burnout, and you have today's state. New players aren't willing to try such a shallow offering and older players are generally running 5th Edition.

It's a sad thing.

Quote from: gleichman;532556I think it was successful not for it's system so much, but for its resource books for settings and eras. Fine stuff there.

Quote from: Marleycat;532599I kind of agree with your take.  Whatcha think of White Wolf?

Quote from: John Morrow;532741I hated the Hero System the first couple of times I played and the GM created a character for me.  I read the rules, learned how they worked and how to build characters, and enjoy Hero when I'm running a character that I've built myself, and thus know how to play properly.  The problem that I've seen is that different people tend to build characters a bit differently, putting a different emphasis on attributes, skills, and powers and building powers differently.  As a result, the characters can play quite differently and it's possible for the GM to create a character that clashes with how a player wants to play it.

Quote from: John Morrow;532741The problem that I've seen is that different people tend to build characters a bit differently, putting a different emphasis on attributes, skills, and powers and building powers differently. .

Quote from: John Morrow;532741If it takes me an hour to create NPCs that will be gone in half that time, I'm going to start feeling like I'm wasting my time.

Quote from: ggroy;532421Now that I think about it more, I suspect many of these same players would have very little to no interest in 3E/3.5E and 4E D&D, if it did not have "Dungeons and Dragons" on the front cover.

The fact that the core books had "Dungeons and Dragons" on the front cover, was the only reason they tolerated 3E/3.5E and 4E.

Quote from: B.T.;532482No, they're not.  GURPS is awful.  Haven't played HERO but from what I've heard, it is sub-par.  If the designers want to make GURPS work, they need to drastically simplify the system and then create genre-specific splats with self-contained rules that can optionally be grafted onto other games.  GURPS Fantasy Heartbreaker should be a completely separate game from GURPS Space Opera in the way that Werewolf is a completely separate game from Vampire.

www.themook.net/rpg/examples/close/index.php?id=one (http://www.themook.net/rpg/examples/close/index.php?id=one)

Quote from: Soylent Green;532592Surely Champions Online has given Hero more exposure than most other games outside D&D ever get. CO might not have been huge in MMO terms, but your still looking at tens of thousands of players who will have tried it, maybe even a hundred thousand. Most games would kill for that kind of indirect advertising.

And just to prove the point, in our group one guy started running published Champions adventures for us based on familiarity he gained with the setting playing CO. However we are using ICONS for the system.

Quote from: jeff37923;532627Hell, come to think of it, Robert Zubrin gave GURPS: Mars his personal seal of approval.

Quote from: trechriron;5326741.Choose species
2.Choose a "home world" or nation (determines some skills)
3.Choose culture (determines some skills)
4.Choose upbringing (determines some skills)
5.Choose education or training (in phases based on years in, like a life-path or pick and choose and define time in) (determines some skills)
6.Choose profession (at game start) (determines some skills)
7.Choose social standing
8.Choose important events (these will determine contacts, allies, various disadvantage choices)
9.Have a handful of customization options that help to define the setting and genre

Quote from: trechriron;532674Then, SJGames needs to commission the creation of 3 settings. They should have a STRONG focus on adventures. The question "What do the characters do?" should be easily discernible from the book. I would suggest Fantasy, Modern Horror, and Space Opera. These are NOT genre books. They are complete RPGs powered by the GURPS toolkit.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;532753It is not a "good" game system. It is simply one I have gotten so used to that I feel it is a good game system.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;532765My GURPS Mars is on my bookshelf next to my Zubrin books.  :)

Quote from: gleichman;532625CO was never tied to the HERO System mechanics, only the medicore Champions setting (with much of the original settings edition being off limits).

Quote from: danbuter;532408Both are good games, and the core rules are fairly simple (3d6 roll low). However, they both offer tons and tons of options. This is kind of like having a $10,000 mechanics tool chest with all the doodads, when all you really need is a ratchet set. While everything you can possibly want is in there somewhere, you have to basically know ALL of the rules in order to find the things you want, and to know how the various skills or powers you are not allowing will affect a game.

While you can maybe get away with a general knowledge of stuff to make your decisions, you still have to read everything. I think many people who make the argument that the "base rules are really simple" just completely miss that fact.

What also has really hurt both games, IMO, is that they are now split up into two separate books. Instead of having everything organized in just one rulebook, you now have to have both books open if your running combats (unless you're one of those people who has actually memorized everything). This is clumsy to handle at the table, and also makes looking up rules during play a major hassle. Especially if you think a rule is in book two, but is actually tucked away in a powers description in book one.

This is one of the areas that D&D has improved. By moving characters and combat into the same book (and lately even treasure), players and the DM can find everything much more quickly, if there's a question during play. Hero and Gurps are moving in the opposite direction, and I believe that's a big mistake.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;532805I think it just boils down to this:
We have a lot of games now that do the same things simpler, faster and better.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;532805I think it just boils down to this:
We have a lot of games now that do the same things simpler, faster and better.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;532827Even though steady gains of character points that can be used to improve immediately without waiting for levels to be gained are more immediately gratifying and useful, the lack of level climbing is the big turn off.

I don't really get it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;532827I really enjoy the GURPS system and enjoy running it. Over half of our playing group doesn't like it in spite of loving the control in character creation. The simple reason:  

NO LEVELS

There is no rush of adrenaline as your character suddenly DINGS and gains all new abilities and generally becomes more badass all around.

Even though steady gains of character points that can be used to improve immediately without waiting for levels to be gained are more immediately gratifying and useful, the lack of level climbing is the big turn off.

I don't really get it.

Quote from: Simlasa;532831Maybe you could buy a jug of glitter and an air horn to blast at them whenever they improve a skill? Hand out cupcakes? A coupon for a blowjob down at Poontang Village?

Quote from: estar;532839Take X Template and create a series of 10 or 20 pt level packages as an add-on to that template. They get nothing until they gain a "package" worth of points and then they can buy the new level packages.

Quote from: gleichman;532556A breaking point came when Steven Long decided for 6th edition that he was now God and that he would change major sections of the Rules (including dropping support for maps and minis)

Quote from: 1989;532846That sounds awesome. I might actually play that. Please explain more. I thought the system was really tied to inches and all that.

Quote from: gleichman;532847Nothing to explain, support for it is gone and it's no longer a table top role-playing game.

And there's no reason for a complex character/item system as well. Use the book as a paper weight.

Quote from: gleichman;532752One rule book was the one benefit, the core 4th edition was missing a lot of good things covered in 4th edition expansion. Given the choice, I always want one rulebook to cover the rules 5th was the first edition to almost do just that.

Beyond that, 5th brought little to the table (and introduced the beginning of a number of design mistakes by Steven Long).

Quote from: 1989;532858So, what did they do to the inches? How are things measured now, such that a grid cannot be used?

Weird you say it's not longer a RPG? How so?

Quote from: gleichman;532868Ranges are just given in feet or meters, I forget which because I never used it.

And I didn't say it wasn't an RPG, I said it was no longer a table top RPG. Without a grid and minis- there's no real significant (i.e. required) use for a table.

There's also very little game left IMO but most people here don't really require much in that line in any case.

Quote from: 1989;532873As long as movement rates still exist (in either inches, feet, or metres), nothing has changed.

Quote from: gleichman;532877A great deal has changed. In fact, everything has.

Without a grid and minis- you're combats are a made up fantasy, inconsistent and without a doubt breaking the rules multiple times during play. Unless of course all you battles are one-dimensional, in which case they are boring.

I'd never play in such a campaign, watching re-runs of NCIS is a better use of my time.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;532879So you prefer board games. Thats cool.

Quote from: gleichman;532884I perfer a game that actual simulates the action consistently and in accordance to the rules. I don't like people making trash up out of thin air and breaking the rules.

The fact that a 'board' is required to meet those needs are completely secondary and not the primary driver. If I could do without the expense and room taken, then I would.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;532887If 'the rules' are not needlessly complex for a roleplaying game to begin with then a board isn't required to play within said rules.

Quote from: gleichman;532892If the game takes into account range, that it needs a 'board'. If it takes into account line of sight, it's even more necessary.

Quote from: gleichman;532877A great deal has changed. In fact, everything has.

Without a grid and minis- you're combats are a made up fantasy, inconsistent and without a doubt breaking the rules multiple times during play. Unless of course all you battles are one-dimensional, in which case they are boring.

I'd never play in such a campaign, watching re-runs of NCIS is a better use of my time.

Quote from: gleichman;532892If the game takes into account range, that it needs a 'board'. If it takes into account line of sight, it's even more necessary.

Quote from: Marleycat;532909Sure I agree with that but older iterations of the game (DnD) didn't have that so the grid wasn't absolutely needed until you get to 3.5 and beyond.

Quote from: 1989;532903But you can still use grids and minis. 1 inch = 1 square = 2 metres, or whatever you like.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;532896I'm confused are you talking about about playing without a GM?  If so than I agree.

Quote from: gleichman;532917Takes time and effort to convert (reminding me each time that the game is junk), far easier to stick with 5th edition where grids and minis were directly supported and area of effects well defined.

The market seems to agree, 5th was a major success, while 6th edition resulted in them basically closing shop.

Quote from: gleichman;532913Too much of D&D are corridoor and doorway fights, but even then I have never seen any version of D&D played without a grid and minis (or some markers) in real life.

I had to go online to hear people make that the claim that they play without them. And if they do, I say they play poorly.

Quote from: gleichman;532913Too much of D&D are corridoor and doorway fights, but even then I have never seen any version of D&D played without a grid and minis (or some markers) in real life.

I had to go online to hear people make that the claim that they play without them. And if they do, I say they play poorly.

Quote from: 1989;532928Get out! I've never seen a game of D&D played WITH grids.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;532827I really enjoy the GURPS system and enjoy running it. Over half of our playing group doesn't like it in spite of loving the control in character creation. The simple reason:  

NO LEVELS

There is no rush of adrenaline as your character suddenly DINGS and gains all new abilities and generally becomes more badass all around.

Even though steady gains of character points that can be used to improve immediately without waiting for levels to be gained are more immediately gratifying and useful, the lack of level climbing is the big turn off.

I don't really get it.

Quote from: Simlasa;532831I'm guessing that's a common reaction for folks coming from D&D-ish level-based games (or video games like WOW).

Quote from: gleichman;532913Too much of D&D are corridoor and doorway fights, but even then I have never seen any version of D&D played without a grid and minis (or some markers) in real life.

I had to go online to hear people make that the claim that they play without them. And if they do, I say they play poorly.

Quote from: gleichman;532877Without a grid and minis- you're combats are a made up fantasy, inconsistent and without a doubt breaking the rules multiple times during play. Unless of course all you battles are one-dimensional, in which case they are boring.

Quote from: gleichman;532917Takes time and effort to convert (reminding me each time that the game is junk), far easier to stick with 5th edition where grids and minis were directly supported and area of effects well defined.

The market seems to agree, 5th was a major success, while 6th edition resulted in them basically closing shop.

Quote from: 1989;532925Range of Death Ray is 20 metres ... = 10 squares. Sounds easy enough to me.

Are you a metric hater?

Quote from: gleichman;532978I run battles with 20 to 60 combatants typically- and at times up to 300 figures on the board. Muliple the terrain features by a factor of ten as well. And I want correct and consistent answers to any question of range, position, facing, and line of sight *immediately* to keep the battle flowing.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;532973These people obviously have known each other for years and this is more just a social night for them and not a serious RPG session.

Quote from: The Butcher;532982I have very little experience with HERO, and all of it 4e.

What changed between 4e and 5e?

Quote from: Novastar;532983Not meaning to be snide, but do you think that's the norm for most RPG games?
It's something I see far more often in miniature wargames (like WH/WH40k or Chainmail, etc).

Quote from: misterguignol;532984What makes an RPG session "serious"?

Quote from: The Butcher;532982I have very little experience with HERO, and all of it 4e.

What changed between 4e and 5e?

Quote from: One Horse Town;532988Pipes, a measuring stick, and a slight frown.

Quote from: One Horse Town;532988Pipes, a measuring stick, and a slight frown.

Quote from: gleichman;532991If you have pipes, you must have drums and bugles as well.

Quote from: misterguignol;532984What makes an RPG session "serious"?

Quote from: One Horse Town;532994I do! :)

Hey, Brian. Good to see you.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;532971My brother is addicted to WoW.  I'll watch some of his gaming.  But all it is is a chase camera (so all you ever see of your character is the back end) following you and nothing in the game attacks unless you attack it first.  Then the "enemy" runs up to face you and it's melee time (which means repeatedly pressing a button faster and faster than the other guy until someone falls dead).

Repeat this same process ad nauseum.

Quote from: gleichman;532987Not meaning to be snide, but don't you think it might be possible for you to do the same in a RPG if you but used a map and minis? And thus used your brain to play the game instead of wasting it on (incorrectly) visuallizing it.

Quote from: Novastar;533005But I've found there are far more (and far more heated) arguements about "line-of-sight" and "cover" from using mini's, than "oh, that's not what I visualized..." in keeping it more freeform.

Quote from: gleichman;533006Line of sight and cover problems when using grid and minis? I see the uses of rules and a length of string are are beyond you.

Maybe you should play with people who understand the method for a while. It's amazing what you can learn.

Quote from: gleichman;533006Line of sight and cover problems when using grid and minis? I see the uses of rules and a length of string are are beyond you.

Maybe you should play with people who understand the method for a while. It's amazing what you can learn.

Quote from: misterguignol;533008Yes, the way you pay a make-believe game about comic book heroes (a genre invented for children) is very, very sophisticated.

Quote from: Kuroth;532751These issues are the reason systems with this level of complexity for players should have a concise description of a tailored character creation interview process.  It would alleviate many of the concept conflicts that may occur in the final result.

Quote from: One Horse Town;533012I'd sort that grammar out if i were you.

I don't think that either Hero or GURPS is a make-believe game.

They actually exist!

Quote from: misterguignol;533015Fixed, Dad!

Quote from: One Horse Town;533018D'oh! Your edit reason isn't grammatically correct.

I'm having coniptions here! ;)

Quote from: misterguignol;533019Looks like my work is done here; I aim for causing at least one seizure a day on the RPGsite.

Quote from: gleichman;532978No, but I don't prefer it.


Here's a example of why grids and minis are needed

The (P)layers are in position A
Tango A is 50 meters directly north of them
Tango B is 75 meters directly west of the tem
There's a 5 meter by 6 meter (runing east-west) building 25 meters to the northwest.
(A)llied NPC is 25 meters to the south and 5 meters to the west of (P)


(A) attempts to uses their telepathic Dominate power to subvert Tango B into attacking Tango A


Questions:
What's the Range between (A) and Tango B
What's the range between Tango B and Tango A?
Does the building block line of sight between Tango B and Tango A?
Does the building block line of sight between (A) and Tango B?

Yes, you can figure that out by basic Geometry- have fun with the squaring and square roots. meanwhile A grid and mini (or well scaled drawing) will reveal the answers in a glance. And have fun placing the building in relation to the newly revealed line of fire.

Now, mulitple the number of figures on both sides by a factor of ten or more. I run battles with 20 to 60 combatants typically- and at times up to 300 figures on the board. Muliple the terrain features by a factor of ten as well. And I want correct and consistent answers to any question of range, position, facing, and line of sight *immediately* to keep the battle flowing.

This isn't your D&D hallway fight with a 10' front followed by another hallway fight with a 10' fight. I outgrewth those 36 years ago.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533011The game is all the cool shit that happens in the collective imaginations of those playing.

Quote from: 1989;533023You OUTGREW them! That's rich, man.

Please tell me this is a joke.

Quote from: gleichman;533024Anyone can imagine stuff, it's only interesting if it's done correctly by the rules. Otherwise it's just an excercise in freely getting what you want. The mark of a child's imagination, not an adult's.

Quote from: misterguignol;533008Yes, the way you play a game of make-believe about comic book heroes (a genre invented for children) is very, very sophisticated.

Quote from: misterguignol;533028How does someone imagine incorrectly?

Quote from: gleichman;533029If you don't want grids and minis- play a game that doesn't have ranges and line of sight. They exist.

Quote from: misterguignol;533032Oh, like Hero, you mean? ;)

Quote from: gleichman;533031When what they've imagined breaks the rules of the game they are playing, i.e. when they don't apply the correct range modifiers and/or fail to account for blocking terrain when the rules require otherwise.

Quote from: gleichman;533033Sadly for you, it still has both in 6th edition. It just offers little support for using them.

Quote from: misterguignol;533034Isn't that what the GM is for?  You don't need a grid or minis for that.  All you need is a GM to say, "There is blocking terrain in your way."

Quote from: gleichman;533038The GM is as bound by the rules as the players. He can't handwave away blocking terrain or alter distances at his whim.

Any GM willing to do so is not worthy of the title and responsiblity granted him.

Quote from: misterguignol;533028How does someone imagine incorrectly?

Quote from: Rincewind1;533039This thread feels like an episode of Twilight Zone, where RPG.site and The Forge collided, and merged into one beast.

Quote from: ggroy;533043As The Road Runner vs. Wile E. Coyote type of "physics"?  :D

Quote from: misterguignol;533045What if you're playing Toon?  WHAT THEN??

Quote from: misterguignol;533041Rule 0 is the best rule though.

Quote from: misterguignol;533041As far as titles and responsibilities go, "Game Master" ranks way low on the totem pole.

Quote from: gleichman;533048In your case, yes.

Quote from: misterguignol;533049Please enlighten me to the roles in life one finds oneself inhabiting that rank lower than the vaulted status of Game Master.

Quote from: misterguignol;533049Please enlighten me to the roles in life one finds oneself inhabiting that rank lower than the vaulted status of Game Master.

Quote from: gleichman;533048Rule 0 when used to justify plainly incorrect decisions by the GM is a lie. Such a GM should soon find himself lacking players.

Quote from: ggroy;533052For some individuals, "Game Master" is an extension of their ego.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533053Well, since I managed to play this way for 5 years and still have a huge stream of players...how much time have I left, Doctor?

Quote from: gleichman;533055Bad GMs often find bad players.

In fact, they seem to be the majority online.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533056Remember guys how Ancient Gamer used to know how good of a GM you were from online posts?

Quote from: gleichman;533050In that narrow range, you suck. In the wider range of all of life- you don't even rate.

Quote from: gleichman;532752This is one of the features of HERO, and why a single person designing everything (generally the GM) works best. How a character is built directly effects the flavor of the game world and that character's interaction with all the NPCs in there.

If it isn't done that way you can easily end up in conflict. For example a GM wanting a four color world can build things that way, but that would conflict with a player wanting a gritty death dealer PC. Thus Player and GM expectation  must match or the conflict will be plain in the game mechanics as well as in role-play.

Quote from: gleichman;532752I think highly of you John, but I know your PC expectations will never submit to another's in a game. I wouldn't recommend HERO to you as a result, you'd either end up unable to play the character correctly as you see it- or controlling the game world instead of the GM.

Quote from: gleichman;532752In it's original and best genre of four color supers (and to a lesser extent most other genres) work on a NPC is never wasted in that way.

Doctor Doom doesn't just show up for issue #2 and that's it. He's around as long as the Fantastic Four are. Hydra agents are there for the life of S.H.I.E.L.D., etc.

Quote from: gleichman;532752Outside of supers there is still great reuse, just like one Skeleton in D&D is much the same as any other.

Quote from: gleichman;532752If you ended making a hour long creation one shot- It's because you decided to. Not because the system forced you to.

Quote from: gleichman;532752One rule book was the one benefit, the core 4th edition was missing a lot of good things covered in 4th edition expansion. Given the choice, I always want one rulebook to cover the rules 5th was the first edition to almost do just that.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533056Remember guys how Ancient Gamer used to know how good of a GM you were from online posts?

Quote from: misterguignol;533061OMG I was totally thinking "Ancient Gamer" too!  We're Psychic Twins today, Rince.  But I assume because OHT seems to know this fellow it can't be the same person.

Can it?

Quote from: gleichman;533024Anyone can imagine stuff, it's only interesting if it's done correctly by the rules.

Quote from: misterguignol;533059Question 1: How often do you play RPGs and how many players do you have?.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533062Well, he certainly has a tighter hold on English - my bet would be he's AG from parallel universe.

Quote from: John Morrow;533060We talk about tone and setting before anyone creates characters.  We've also always used more than just points to define the limits of a valid character, akin to the Character Ability Guidelines Table.  That puts everyone on the same page with respect to what ability ranges are valid.  It also helps to respect the caution and stop signs in the book and the GM generally says no to using those without scrutiny.  It's worked out pretty well for us.

Quote from: gleichman;533064If you've been reading my posts, you should already know the answer to that question.

Since it's plain you're not reading them, I'll waste no time on you going forward.

Quote from: misterguignol;533069So, unemployed, huh?  That's rough.

Quote from: gleichman;532913Too much of D&D are corridoor and doorway fights, but even then I have never seen any version of D&D played without a grid and minis (or some markers) in real life.

Quote from: gleichman;532978Now, mulitple the number of figures on both sides by a factor of ten or more. I run battles with 20 to 60 combatants typically- and at times up to 300 figures on the board. Muliple the terrain features by a factor of ten as well. And I want correct and consistent answers to any question of range, position, facing, and line of sight *immediately* to keep the battle flowing.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533071Hey now, most unemployed people I played RPG online were great and chill people. The answer I'd have deduced would be "Never".

Quote from: John Morrow;533073While we don't generally go into the hundreds, battles with 20-30 combatants are fairly common.  This led me to ask people who claim that grid or hex maps aren't necessary how large their battles normally are in a thread a while back because I'm not sure how a GM and players could keep track of the actions of 20 NPCs without one.  I think a lot of people simply don't have battles this large.  It's also my experience that timing and position matter a great deal but a lot of people don't seem to do much with that, either.  Yes, you can handle 20 NPCs in a fight in a hallway because the battle movement becomes one dimensional, like the old Wizardry computer game.

Quote from: misterguignol;533074I have nothing against the unemployed and wish them the best of luck.  

I was merely noting that Kewlman didn't want to answer Question 2 after suggesting that I inhabit a lowly rank in life; I can only assume his rank is even lowlier and he feels a bit bad about this.  I hope the economy takes a turn for the better and he does well for himself someday.

Quote from: John Morrow;533073I think I've always used a grid or hex map for anything but the most simple battles, going back to Traveller in high school.  We even use Battle Mats when we play Fudge.

Quote from: John Morrow;533073While we don't generally go into the hundreds, battles with 20-30 combatants are fairly common.  This led me to ask people who claim that grid or hex maps aren't necessary how large their battles normally are in a thread a while back because I'm not sure how a GM and players could keep track of the actions of 20 NPCs without one.  I think a lot of people simply don't have battles this large.  It's also my experience that timing and position matter a great deal but a lot of people don't seem to do much with that, either.  Yes, you can handle 20 NPCs in a fight in a hallway because the battle movement becomes one dimensional, like the old Wizardry computer game.

Quote from: gleichman;533068So why is it that you have to design the character instead of the GM if you are in fact meeting his requirements?

Quote from: John Morrow;533078Because I'm going to take things into account about how I want to play the character that the GM may not and also capture nuances of the concept that I might not communicate well.  For example, when I create Martial Artists, I tend to work within Normal Characteristic Maxima under the assumption that the characters abilities are the result of special training.  The Hero GM in my group tends to do what I'd do with Skills and Damage Levels with attributes, so he might build me a hero with Strength of 30 or 40 to get the damage I'd get with Damage Levels but without the other Strength advantages like lifting ability..

Quote from: John Morrow;533078At the most basic level, another person is going to make different choices than I would, and that's going to impact the way the character plays, especially in a system like Hero where things are so specifically defined.

Quote from: gleichman;533077My first D&D session used a chess board and some plastic knights we had from an old toy set. Battle maps and mins weren't availble yet although that quickly changed.

Quote from: gleichman;533077This seems to be the case with most of the members of this site. One-dimensional combats (forward/reverse) or limited to very small numbers of characters and a GM and players willing to ignore the rules and just have things go the way they want them to.

Quote from: gleichman;533077The course of this thread would have been very different say 10 or 15 years ago.

Quote from: gleichman;533077This seems to be the case with most of the members of this site. One-dimensional combats (forward/reverse) or limited to very small numbers of characters and a GM and players willing to ignore the rules and just have things go the way they want them to.

Quote from: gleichman;533080That sort of thing would cause me a real problem as a player because normal humans shouldn't have a Strength at that level. It would unhinge my ability to make sense of his world unless I started to treat it like a cartoon where normal men hurl cars whenever they want to.

Quote from: gleichman;533080It's all good if the GM signs off on it. And it doesn't appear that he's a very demanding sort.

Quote from: John Morrow;533082If people enjoy one-dimensional combats or combats with limited tactical details, I'm fine with that.

Quote from: John Morrow;533082I do wonder if the people most interested in tactical combat have migrated to MMORPGs, first person shooters, and other online games that are all about representing the tactical situation of characters.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;533085For simple combats I'll eyeball it - for more complex encounters, out comes the tape measure and the protractor.

Grids are for pussies.

Quote from: gleichman;533087First HERO removes grid and mini supports and now they are calling for D&D to do the same. They're killing the table top hobby because they are too lazy to kept doing what they've claim they've always been doing- ignoring the rules.

Quote from: gleichman;533087I think the cause is more cultural than that myself.

Quote from: gleichman;533038The GM is as bound by the rules as the players. He can't handwave away blocking terrain or alter distances at his whim.

Any GM willing to do so is not worthy of the title and responsiblity granted him.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;533095Not everyone is after simulated realism when playing an RPG.  I have noticed though that any other game (Milton Bradley, Parker Bros, Jumbo, Wizk!ds, Hoyle, etc) will be played by its written rules.  But for an RPG, players all of a sudden don't play by the rules.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533096Perhaps because they are competitive games, rather then cooperative, as RPGs are? Comparing RPGs to other games in regard of keeping to the rules is RPG Fallacy #2, straight after "RPGs as technology" one.

Quote from: gleichman;533087I'd be fine with it too if they weren't pushing it on game design as a requirement.

First HERO removes grid and mini supports and now they are calling for D&D to do the same. They're killing the table top hobby because they are too lazy to kept doing what they've claim they've always been doing- ignoring the rules.




Perhaps, but few of those games actually offer a true tactical experience, although some do. And unlike table-top games, one doesn't own them. You're at the mercy of the developer's whims. You might log on one day to find your class gone from the game.

I think the cause is more cultural than that myself.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;533098If rules don't matter in an RPG, then why all the fuss about which RPG game has better rules or not?  :)

Quote from: Rincewind1;533105There is however a difference between "fuss about rules" and "rules that make a game unplayable".

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;533092Just to try to give give gleichman some seizures though, I'd like to point out that minis - even with an exact positioning system - are going to give you unrealistic results unless you have a turn-based action system that basically lets everyone move and act realistically.

Quote from: 1989;533104You need to go back to playing wargames.

Quote from: John Morrow;533073A few years ago, someone on RPG.net was describing how one of the minor darlings handled one-on-one combats really well but didn't do so well if the PCs tried to fight the same opponent together.

Quote from: 1989;533104You need to go back to playing wargames.

Quote from: John Morrow;533073A few years ago, someone on RPG.net was describing how one of the minor darlings handled one-on-one combats really well but didn't do so well if the PCs tried to fight the same opponent together.  I found that a stunning deficiency, akin to saying a car is great so long as you drive it fast straight ahead, but it doesn't turn very well and can't go in reverse.  I don't drag race so I wouldn't have much use for a car like that.

Quote from: Novastar;533115I have to admit, having over a dozen combatants is rare.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;532970They learned that way of thinking from their video games.

Quote from: Imperator;533132And videogames learned it from D&D. Now the circle is complete.

Quote from: gleichman;532877A great deal has changed. In fact, everything has.

Without a grid and minis- you're combats are a made up fantasy, inconsistent and without a doubt breaking the rules multiple times during play. Unless of course all you battles are one-dimensional, in which case they are boring.

I'd never play in such a campaign, watching re-runs of NCIS is a better use of my time.

Quote from: misterguignol;533069So, unemployed, huh?  That's rough.

Quote from: misterguignol;533061OMG I was totally thinking "Ancient Gamer" too!  We're Psychic Twins today, Rince.  But I assume because OHT seems to know this fellow it can't be the same person.

Can it?

Quote from: One Horse Town;533169Brian Gleichman. Blogger, writer, sometime agent provocataur.

Quote from: James Gillen;532471The Hero Designer program is good.
The designer of Hero Designer has a lot of bugs that need to be worked out.  :D

JG

Quote from: danbuter;533196Gleichman has been around a long time on boards. He's nowhere near as bad as AG.

And don't make snide remarks about people's unemployment, especially in this economy. A good percentage of people I know are now either unemployed or have been fired from good jobs and are now working crap jobs just to make ends meet. Many of them are good folks, but there just aren't any decent jobs around (that don't have insane requirements to get hired). Many of the companies in my area have either downsized or disappeared altogether.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;532763I wonder how many GURPS sales would have been generated for Steve Jackson Games if SJ never pulled its license from Interplay's Fallout?

Quote from: One Horse Town;533169Brian Gleichman. Blogger, writer, sometime agent provocataur.

Quote from: Marleycat;533252He sounds fine to me. Real classic old school but not a condensending jerk. Which is all good in my book. Also yeah "unenjoyment" is not fun, so no jokes from me.

Quote from: gleichman;533268I can be very concise, which a lot of people seem to take as condescending.

Quote from: One Horse Town;533169Brian Gleichman. Blogger, writer, sometime agent provocataur.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;533106I'm guessing that RPGs that have "rules that make a game unplayable" don't get much coverage on forums.  Or do people fuss over those RPGs as well?

Quote from: flyingcircus;533218Thats because they need to let the Professionals of HERO LAB do the damn thing, they do good work and HERO LAB is far easier to use than anything else out there on the market today!

Quote from: James Gillen;533315I'll have to check it out.  

JG

Quote from: gleichman;533038The GM is as bound by the rules as the players. He can't handwave away blocking terrain or alter distances at his whim.

Quote from: RandallS;533331I only play in or run RPG campaigns where there are no rules, only guidelines for the GM. Every game I run falls into that category as my new play info sheet always states that the "rule books" for whatever system we are using are just "guidelines for the GM, not rules". Players who read my info sheet and object to that do not have to play. I strongly suspect you would opt not to play, thus saving you, me and the other players in the game much painful argument.

Quote from: estar;533335From my point of view as a referee, the printed rules are useful as a means to remain consistent so the players can feel confident in planning what their character can do in a variety of situations. The rules are not a shackle that must be adhered to the Nth details.

it is impossible to make a perfect simulation. I.e. the only thing that simulate the universe perfectly is the universe itself. At some level the referee has to wing it and make a judgement call.

Quote from: RandallS;533331I only play in or run RPG campaigns where there are no rules, only guidelines for the GM.

...

I strongly suspect you would opt not to play, thus saving you, me and the other players in the game much painful argument.

Quote from: Marleycat;533346Who wants a simulation anyway? The fun about TTRG's is the human factor. I could play a computer MMO for a simulation, less aggravation also.

Quote from: gleichman;533351But I will give you one thing, at least you admit what you're doing- So I can't say you're not at honest about your cheating.

Quote from: gleichman;533353MMO's are not necessary simulations, far from it in most cases.

And if you think a smimulation based table top RPG lacks human factors- you've never played in one.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533360Let me guess, you think rpgs are a contest between GM and players with only the almighty RAW to decide who gains ultimate victory?

Quote from: Marleycat;533362I think you are misunderstanding my use of the word "simulation". I most definitely like simulationist elements in my TTRG's but when I am saying "simulation" overall I meant it like a realistic simulator like a flight simulator not that playstyle. What you are describing to me I consider more wargaming than roleplaying. Which is a valid playstyle just not something I do.

Quote from: gleichman;533364I stand by my statement, you have no idea what a simulation style RPG is like if you think it lacks any human elements.

Quote from: Marleycat;533369Never said that but if you think that's what I meant more power to you.

QuoteWho wants a simulation anyway? The fun about TTRG's is the human factor.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533367Oh, how I wish that "Simulation" in RPG terminology hadn't been hijacked to mean "the rules are a physics engine for the setting."

Quote from: gleichman;533371Here's what you said (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=533346&postcount=187):



It stongly implies that simulation and human factors do not conexist. Do you wish to withdraw you statement?

Quote from: Marleycat;533375No I wish that I had defined the word better before I used it and the context I was trying to use it in.:)

As I meant to say I don't want a simulator. Simulation is in all rpg's I consider rpg's and all rpg's have a human element in them.

Quote from: Marleycat;533346Who wants a simulation anyway? The fun about TTRG's is the human factor. I could play a computer MMO for a simulation, less aggravation also.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533356I simply don't need a game as complex as GURPS to do what I would do with GURPS. From some people's perspective I'm sure it's a simple game; from my perspective I find the different rules for Wrestling vs. Judo vs. Brawling vs. Karate in the skill lists, and the effects of the many advantages and disadvantages, to be quite cumbersome.

Quote from: gleichman;533353And if you think a smimulation based table top RPG lacks human factors- you've never played in one.

Quote from: estar;533377It all a simulation but people different about what they are want to simulate. What interest many is either particular situations, like dungeon crawling, hunting things that man not meant to know, or interacting with other NPCs, VtM focuses on this a lot.

And the rules are never good enough, leaving the human referee to use his judgment to best plug in the gap. Note the rules can be helpful but ultimately it comes down to the referee making judgment calls.

Quote from: 1989;533379I think that the backlash from 4e led to a general malaise in the RPG world. Companies have been dying left and right since 4e came out. The RPG world is not well. Maybe 5e can bring health and goodness and hope back into the RPG world.

There's an Arthurian analogy in there somewhere.

Quote from: estar;533377And the rules are never good enough, leaving the human referee to use his judgment to best plug in the gap. Note the rules can be helpful but ultimately it comes down to the referee making judgment calls.

Quote from: estar;533380He not saying that. Reread what he said, he to focus on human element of RPGs rather than detailed mechanics. Many have this preference.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533309Note to self: It ain't a troll if it's OHT's luvvie. It's 'agent provocataur'

Quote from: gleichman;533383It's far more likely that your view of the rules are at fault than the rules themselves although there are a lot of really bad games out there.

Quote from: One Horse Town;533385You say tomato, i say tomayto.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533381Damn bloody straight spot on, estar. But you are aware that you're  trying to argue in a case that requires a flamethrower and a priest, rather then common sense.

Quote from: gleichman;533376Then your original reponse to me makes little sense I'm afraid. I not taking about playing a simulator (such as Falcon 4.0)- I'm talking about simulation style table-top RPGs specifically and games in general.

Quote from: estar;533377It all a simulation but people different about what they are want to simulate. What interest many is either particular situations, like dungeon crawling, hunting things that man not meant to know, or interacting with other NPCs, VtM focuses on this a lot.

And the rules are never good enough, leaving the human referee to use his judgment to best plug in the gap. Note the rules can be helpful but ultimately it comes down to the referee making judgment calls.

Quote from: estar;533389I can be aggressively moderate and slug it out with anybody on the forum. ;)

What I would like to see from Gliechman and others (on both sides) a little less one wayisms and more stuff like.

When I want to do X, I do Y for Z reason.

So if you want to use a lot of minatures, what techniques have worked?
...
.... more detail in tactical rules, etc, etc.

Quote from: Marleycat;533390Totally understand that. I pretty much agree with you because I was inferring a simulation like Falcon 4.0 with my original statement. I do not want that. I do want simulation in my rpg's though.

Quote from: gleichman;533383It's far more likely that your view of the rules are at fault than the rules themselves although there are a lot of really bad games out there.

Quote from: misterguignol;533386All along Estar has been doin' it rong.

Quote from: estar;533399I highly doubt that in my case considering the variety of systems I played for the past 30 years.

Quote from: gleichman;533403I highly doubt your highly doubting, for the simple reason that you completely missed the point of my reply to you.

Do you want to reread it and try again or do you need it to be further detailed?

Quote from: estar;533400Damn, I guess I will have to return that $2,000 I made off the Majestic Wilderlands.

Quote from: estar;533400Damn, I guess I will have to return that $2,000 I made off the Majestic Wilderlands.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533410You should donate that to GURPs fund and BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF YOU CHEAT!!!1

Quote from: gleichman;533351But I will give you one thing, at least you admit what you're doing- So I can't say you're not at honest about your cheating.

Quote from: gleichman;533363No. RPGs don't have have traditional winner and losers. Only good and bad players.


RPGs are a game. Games have rules. People who break or change the rules on the fly are cheating. It's that simple.

We wouldn't praise a football ref who moves the goal posts to allow or prevent a fieldgoal. In the same way, I don't praise GMs who make up ranges and line of sight judgements at their whim.

If the rules are there use them, or find a game that doesn't have them at all (easy to do these days).

Quote from: misterguignol;533386All along Estar has been doin' it rong.

Quote from: RandallS;533429If the rules say they are nothing but guidelines for the GM, then one isn't cheating if one treats them as such.

Quote from: gleichman;533393In fact, I doubt you even have those questions and certainly wouldn't be interested in the answers. I think you're just writing that to gain some sort of self-defined high ground.

Quote from: estar;533335it is impossible to make a perfect simulation. I.e. the only thing that simulate the universe perfectly is the universe itself. At some level the referee has to wing it and make a judgement call.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533367Oh, how I wish that "Simulation" in RPG terminology hadn't been hijacked to mean "the rules are a physics engine for the setting."

QuoteAge of Heroes A 80s-Style Fantasy RPG done right. Lulu Link

Quote from: estar;533389My problem with GURPS in the last decade has been I want one book that I can give to a person to get them going either as a player or referee. Preferably focusing on the fantasy genre.

Quote from: estar;533437I have posted and blogged exactly those sort of questions.

Quote from: gleichman;533436I just lost what respect I did have for you, which wasn't all that much.

Rules in a rpg book are guildelines in that they may be replaced by consistent house rules- not random judgements of the moment and whim as you are insisting.

Of course too many house rules and it means that you cannot be said to be playing Game X at all. And at this point, I willing to say that the only game RandallS plays is "What RandallS wants" game. Boring game.

Quote from: John Morrow;533441And what's wrong with the rules being the physics engine for the setting?  That's pretty much what I want out of a set of RPG rules.

Quote from: estar;533389I am frustrated because the Line Editors and some hard core GURPS gamers don't get how much an issue this is. It like reporting a software bug for years and the programmer does nothing about it. Sure they have reasons for not doing this project even some compelling ones. But since I first brought up the issue a lot more stepped forward with the same concern. Enough that I don't think that the problem is limited to my slice of the hobby.

Quote from: gleichman;533403I highly doubt your highly doubting, for the simple reason that you completely missed the point of my reply to you.

Do you want to reread it and try again or do you need it to be further detailed?

Quote from: John Morrow;533447Out of curiosity, why isn't GURPS Lite (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/) an adequate introduction for new players, since that seems to be its purpose?

Quote from: John Morrow;533438I don't think Brian is claiming to make a perfect simulation, so this is a bit of a straw man for you to knock down.  I think his point is simply that to the extent that there are rules, all of the participants (including the GM) should follow them and not following them is cheating, because that's what it would be called in any other game context.  For the most part, I agree, and open rolls for the GM have also been the norm for the games I've been in, too.  Where the rules are silent, one can often extrapolate from existing rules, especially in many rules-heavy games like the Hero System.

One of the strengths of the Hero System, in my experience, is that there is very little that one can't resolve using either the rules that are there or through an obvious extrapolation of the rules or the meta-rules by which the rules are often tied together.  While I'm sure there are situations where it would, I never encountered situation in play where the Hero System did not provide a reasonable answer in the rules for how to resolve a situation to the satisfaction of all involved.

Quote from: estar;533335it is impossible to make a perfect simulation. I.e. the only thing that simulate the universe perfectly is the universe itself.

Quote from: John Morrow;533441And what's wrong with the rules being the physics engine for the setting?  That's pretty much what I want out of a set of RPG rules.

Quote from: ggroy;533463We don't know whether this is true.

If one has the underlying equations of motion and a large amount of computing power, can the universe be simulated perfectly or to whatever precision one wants?

If such a simulation is possible, in principle it should tell us why Planck's constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant) has the value 6.626068 * 10^(-34) J.s  :pundit:

Quote from: estar;533465No, uncertainty at the quantum level has effectively ruled out a perfect simulator.

Quote from: estar;533465The classic problem is weather prediction. No matter how many stations you have the conditions in the gaps between will eventually cause predictions to fail.

Quote from: estar;533458Son,we live in a world that has gamers, gamers that need to play a character and kick in some dungeon doors, and those character have to be adjudicated by referees, referees with dice.

Who's gonna do it? You, Gleichman? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for those who make up rules on the fly, and you curse the referees that do so. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know.

That on the fly rules, while random and at a whim, are fun for a lot of gamers. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, is fun for gamers. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at gaming tables, you want me making up rules, you need me making up rules. We use random tables, rumors, and wandering monsters. We use these as the backbone of a life spent refereeing. You use them as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a referee who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very fun that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up some dice, and make up some rules. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you is wrong about playing RPGs.

Quote from: estar;533458Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you is wrong about playing RPGs.

Quote from: gleichman;533436I just lost what respect I did have for you, which wasn't all that much.

Quote from: RandallS;533484Woe is me. Someone on the Internet lost their respect for me because I don't run RPGs the way they want me to. And they don't even play in my campaign.

Quote from: gleichman;533486Yeah, don't you hate when people lose respect for self-admitted cheaters? People actually having standards, what's the world coming to?

Quote from: Novastar;533489Tis a shame you don't extend those same standards to common courtesy.
But I guess we all have a dump stat somewhere.

Quote from: RandallS;533484Woe is me. Someone on the Internet lost their respect for me because I don't run RPGs the way they want me to. And they don't even play in my campaign.

Quote from: Novastar;533489But I guess we all have a dump stat somewhere.

Quote from: ggroy;533492Wonder what Sheldon Cooper's dump stats are.  ;)

(For that matter, does Sheldon Cooper have several dump stats?)

Quote from: Rincewind1;533493*Alright alright, 1st season was pretty decent, but I just couldn't find the 2nd one funny.

Quote from: ggroy;533498I watch the show every now and then, mostly in reruns when random channel surfing.  (Though not every week).

Sometimes funny.  Other times kinda tragic.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533490For a man of such 'high standards', I find it quite sad that he spelled "A 80s game" rather then "An 80s game", since Eighties obviously begin with an "e".

Quote from: Rincewind1;533499I much prefer the IT crowd - always funny, sometimes tragicomic ;). It takes shots at both sides of the barricade, so to speak.

Quote from: Opaopajr;533503I normally wouldn't care, as I consider it unnecessary to correct someone else's grammar and spelling, especially since this is just an internet forum. But this does open an opportunity to correct something that has been consistently bugging my inner 5th Grade Teacher grammarian for months now about your posts. Please don't take this as hostility, just a helpful clarifier on usage.:

It's "Rather THAN."

Then v. Than
http://grammartips.homestead.com/than.html

Then is about time, either as a time marker or sequentiality.

Than is not about time. It is used in comparison.

Here's mnemonic aids:

"If not then, when?"
"If you can, do that rather than..."

Or, as it relates to ice cream (in an imperfectly grammatical conversation):

I'm deathly allergic to chocolate and nuts. So I'm going to eat vanilla than rocky road ice cream. (This is choosing one versus the other, to stay alive.)

I'm deathly allergic to chocolate and nuts. So I'm going to eat vanilla then rocky road ice cream. (This is a delicious form of suicide.)

See? That one letter, it's important! :D

Quote from: Novastar;533489Tis a shame you don't extend those same standards to common courtesy.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533506Now, I never claimed to be a man of high standards though, have I? Interesting enough, I must had forgotten about this ages ago - thanks. Although the link'd had sufficed, I'm not a idiot, you now.

Quote from: Opaopajr;533511But how often do you get to create an example of suicide by ice cream for a good cause?
:p

Quote from: Rincewind1;533512Are you threatening me?

Quote from: gleichman;533509Common courtesy should be checked at the door to therpgsite, or one will be ganged rape.

Quote from: Novastar;533489Tis a shame you don't extend those same standards to common courtesy.
But I guess we all have a dump stat somewhere.

Quote from: gleichman;533509Common courtesy should be checked at the door to therpgsite, or one will be ganged rape.

Quote from: James Gillen;533532If you're a real gamer, courtesy isn't EVEN a stat.  :D

JG

Quote from: estar;533465No, uncertainty at the quantum level has effectively ruled out a perfect simulator.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;533544I believe Estar is correct. To be more specific, in order to simulate this universe exactly, we would have to amass a perfect record of everything in this universe. And the fundamental laws of physics ensure this is utterly impossible.

There are limits on, for example, knowing the speed and position of an electron. The more you know about one, the less you can know about the other. This is not a limitation on equipment or process. It is a law of the universe. No matter what equipment you use, there is a limit on the knowledge one can acquire.

Also, even with an arbitrarily large amount of information, there are events that cannot be predicted. If a specific atom will decay in the next minute for example. This is a purely probabilistic event, it cannot be predicted from any amount of knowledge you could gather before the event.

There is also the limitation on information storage. To construct a simulator, you have to store all of the information you can't get. And the laws of the universe (in specific, the Laws of Thermodynamics) ensure that, even if you could get all the information that you can't get, you couldn't store it.

The universe ensures that there is a limit on the knowledge and information we can gather, store, and use. It's odd, but its the laws of physics we live under.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533360:rotfl:  Cheating. That's funny.

Let me guess, you think rpgs are a contest between GM and players with only the almighty RAW to decide who gains ultimate victory?

If so you are wargaming.

Quote from: James Gillen;533550So in other words... rules are the physics of the setting?

Quote from: Rincewind1;533506Now, I never claimed to be a man of high standards though, have I? Interesting enough, I must had forgotten about this ages ago - thanks. Although the link'd had sufficed, I'm not a idiot, you now.

Quote from: Imperator;533551I think he has a point. Maybe his wording is not the best to convey it.

I don't fudge dice. Never. I can and do houserule my games, but then those rules are "official" and well known to my players. Of course, in some games I will have to make a ruling on the spot. And I treat them as houserules: once they are tested and approved by  the group, they bind everyone. I play with the same rules as the rest of the players, and I don't think that I am entitled to change a dice roll, or fudge an stat in a bad guy to make a combat tougher / easier. I really think those things are cheating, and I don't understand why in RPGs we make that exception so readily.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533490Here, Randall. Come and join us, the rest of ZHE CHEATERZ. And if you somehow managed to get players into your campaign, do not worry - it just means they are BAD.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533571Totally with you here on the fudging issue but letting the dice fall where they may is completely a different issue from the GM as referee vs GM as antagonist one. The antagonistic GM believes that a game with fair rules means actively trying to defeat the players while adhering to those rules is what the game is about. That isn't an rpg, its a wargame dressed up as roleplaying.

QuoteA GM shouldn't be working for or against the players. The GM should judge the game from a neutral perspective and any game rules, canon or house should be applied from this perspective.

QuotePersonally, I like minis, both painting them and using them in game sessions. I'm an adult kid and enjoy playing with toys.

Quote from: Imperator;533573I find the hate of maps, grids, minis and markers baffling. D&D was born from miniature games, and minis were an integral part of it. Nothing wrong with that. I have found that my players have more interesting combats when they can see everyone's position, the environment and the distances to everyone else.

I use lots of fog of war effects, and I try to show only what can be perceived from the group's perspective. It beats imagination-only every time, IME.

Quote from: Imperator;533573I find the hate of maps, grids, minis and markers baffling. D&D was born from miniature games, and minis were an integral part of it. Nothing wrong with that. I have found that my players have more interesting combats when they can see everyone's position, the environment and the distances to everyone else.

Quote from: John Morrow;533441And what's wrong with the rules being the physics engine for the setting?  That's pretty much what I want out of a set of RPG rules.

Quote from: Imperator;533551I think he has a point. Maybe his wording is not the best to convey it.

Quote from: Imperator;533551I don't fudge dice. Never. I can and do houserule my games, but then those rules are "official" and well known to my players. ...

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533584Nor can you emulate Sherlock Holmes without giving the PC some narrative control to say "I see from the red mud on your shoe that you must have come past the new construction on Wilmot Lane" and suchlike.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533584Simulation is about emulating genre and theme. Pendragon is an example of great simulation--concepts like Glory are an actual thing in the rules, and align the players' goals with what should be the characters' goals.

You cannot get a game that feels and plays like Justice League using physics-engine rules, because Batman goes splat before the rules can account for his ability to pull an anti-Darkseid tactic out of his Bat-butt. Nor can you emulate Sherlock Holmes without giving the PC some narrative control to say "I see from the red mud on your shoe that you must have come past the new construction on Wilmot Lane" and suchlike.

Quote from: Marleycat;533576I don't hate any of that it is just that after a certain point it literally overloads my brain and I shut down. It has to do with how my cerebral palsy affects my brain and my cognition. The doctors say it's quite common for that particular handicap. It's a major factor in why I can't drive also.

As for the intent you're trying to achieve I totally agree just not the implementation.

Quote from: Ladybird;533578I don't use minis as they aren't suitable for where we play, but we do draw maps and diagrams of locations.

I think the thing to bear in mind, though, is that the situation the characters are experiencing on the ground is not the same as the representation on our table. The characters aren't standing rigidly in place; they're moving about, looking around, taking non-direct routes, checking stowed gear, etc... pretty much all the time, but especially in combat. And everyone is doing this all at the same time, not in initiative order.

Being obsessive about the details interaction of the figures completely misses the point - it's the spatial relationships of the characters and items the figures represent that are important, and those are only similar to, not identical to, the spatial relationships of the figures themselves. It's counter-intuitive, but you have to be willing to fudge it to maintain an accurate simulation.

Quote from: estar;533586Gliechman's wording is inflammatory period. Among the surefire ways to start a gaming flamewar is to tell other gamers they are "doing it" wrong and that they are cheaters for not playing the way the poster say they ought to play.

QuoteThis and the rest of your post is reasonably put. Along with John Morrow's in this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=533438&postcount=230) earlier in the thread.

QuoteIn my view the only wrong way to play is when a gamer fails to accomplish his goal (take your pick) by a particular method. Keeps using it over and over saying it ought work and ignoring reasonable suggestions for alternatives.

Quote from: estar;533586Gliechman's wording is inflammatory period. Among the surefire ways to start a gaming flamewar is to tell other gamers they are "doing it" wrong and that they are cheaters for not playing the way the poster say they ought to play.

Quote from: jhkim;533593I enjoy both emulation and physics-engine rules. However, couldn't we call this emulating genre and theme "emulation"?  

It seems to me that the everyday use of the word "simulation" implies something more like physics-engine rules.  If I tell someone who knows nothing about role-playing games that I play a simulation game, they will probably picture something like a flight simulator program or game like SimCity, or a boardgame that imitates reality like a wargame or the economy simulation of Power Grid.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533565Care to retract that? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533613If you told someone "emulation" they'd probably think of a program that lets you play NES games on your PC. ;)

Physics-engine has become the everyday use of the term "simulation" because D&D edition warriors didn't understand its original meaning and/or found the misuse of the term to be a handy bludgeon.

Quote from: Imperator;533573Well, I don't get an adversarial position from Gleichman's posts. Where do you see that?

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533584You cannot get a game that feels and plays like Justice League using physics-engine rules, because Batman goes splat before the rules can account for his ability to pull an anti-Darkseid tactic out of his Bat-butt.

Quote from: Ladybird;533578Being obsessive about the details interaction of the figures completely misses the point - it's the spatial relationships of the characters and items the figures represent that are important, and those are only similar to, not identical to, the spatial relationships of the figures themselves. It's counter-intuitive, but you have to be willing to fudge it to maintain an accurate simulation.

Quote from: gleichman;533622But that really doesn't matter, following the rules forces neutral and objective decisions,  greatly reducing the ability of the GM to alter outcomes. The result is that the players earn what victories (and defeats) are to come.

Quote from: gleichman;533044Over the years, therpgsite has become more and more like the Forge. They were big on removing grid and minis as well, lumping them into the Gamist definition which wasn't taken seriously.

Grids and minis get in the way of Narrative you know. No Forger would stand for it.

Quote from: gleichman;533625You do not understand the nature and use of abstaction in game design. Few do.

And you do not understand your own limits, go back to my example and provide me the answers I requested- it will take you an extended period of time and likely require you to graft it all out in scale.

Despite this you want to claim that you can ignore the abstraction and provide correct answers on the fly without any sort of mechanical aid- and I'm afraid that's a joke.

Yes, you're providing answers. But your answers are not correct and they are in addition are breaking the rules and abstraction layer provided by the game. The game you brought specifically to provide those rules and abstraction layer.

QuoteBetter to use a systems that ignore the subject upfront.

Quote from: Daedalus;533677The minis fans turned D&D (from 3.0 up) from a role playing games to a minis game.   Hopefully 5e will reverse that mistake

Quote from: gleichman;533689...instead of inflecting your limits on the rest of the hobby.

Quote from: Ladybird;533687How many...

Quote from: Ladybird;533687So the answer to your question is - the building might not anyone's line of sight, and I have my own homework so you can do your own trig. The allied NPC can roll their telepathic discipline to see if they pull the trick off.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;533693Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.

Quote from: gleichman;533689I'm sorry Daedalus

Quote from: gleichman;533689but you're not being rational in your thoughts.

Quote from: gleichman;533689Also maybe you should go play RISUS or the like instead of inflecting your limits on the rest of the hobby.

Quote from: gleichman;533700If you have the ability to keep a completely updated and accurate mental map of all ranges and positions at all times- able to provide *correct* answers to all possible range and light sight questions within seconds...

...then I grant you the ability to play correctly without a map. Chess grandmasters seem to have nearly that ability, so I won't deny it's possiblity.

But you... nah, I don't think you have it.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;533706Throughout your participation in this thread I have been wondering what it must be like for you to have such a desperate need to be right all the time, even to the exclusion of polite recognition that others play these games for different reasons than you might.

Is it some pathological issue that drives this need, or is it simply that you are too socially retarded to comprehend that others can differ in opinion about what they find enjoyable and not be wrong?

-TGA

Quote from: misterguignol;533619Can you clear up what the original meaning was?  I find the hobby's jargon to be often impenetrable and contradictory, so that would be helpful.  (Don't even get me started on how "verisimilitude" gets used.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;533709I think the anti-mini backlash from 3.0+ isn't really due to the use of minis, lots of people have been doing that since the hobby began.  What started the resentment was the way in which the minis were used.  Instead of just providing easy accessible ranges, line of sight, positioning, all the elements Gleichman is talking about that minis easily provide, starting really with 3.5, and then going off the deep end in 4.0, the grid and minis became a metagame unto themselves, with special movements not meant to represent the physics of what was happening, but bringing boardgame level tactics into play similar to chess, checkers, go, etc.

Quote from: gleichman;533710And I've wondered why people just won't admit that they are cheating, have no idea what the ranges and line of sight limits are, and have been playing heavily modified versions of games that should no longer be called D&D, HERO or whatever range/los system they've been abusing.

When I get my answer, you're get yours.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533613If you told someone "emulation" they'd probably think of a program that lets you play NES games on your PC. ;)

Physics-engine has become the everyday use of the term "simulation" because D&D edition warriors didn't understand its original meaning and/or found the misuse of the term to be a handy bludgeon.

Quote from: misterguignol;533619Can you clear up what the original meaning was?  I find the hobby's jargon to be often impenetrable and contradictory, so that would be helpful.  (Don't even get me started on how "verisimilitude" gets used.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;533711You're asking a Something Awful 4venger to describe how a term was used in the early days of the hobby?  You having an off day?  :D

Ask Morrow, he's the rec.games.frp.advocacy historian.

Quote from: jhkim;533737Useful stuff.

Quote from: jhkim;533737As far as I know, "simulation" as applied to RPGs mostly derives from the Threefold Model of rec.games.frp.advocacy - mostly via my FAQ from August 1996.  That usage was consistent with the physics-engine description - it meant wanting the game-world to resolve consistently from in-game causes.  The word was around prior to that, of course, but the meaning was generally similar.  For example, the game company SPI that made DragonQuest and Universe was an abbreviation for Simulations Publications Inc. - and that reflected their core simulation wargames.  

If you want to I have an article on the origin of the Threefold Model,

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/origin.html

and on later usage and modification to the model terms,

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/evolution.html

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533565Care to retract that? :rolleyes:

Quote from: One Horse Town;533869IME, trolls tend to stand back and admire their work. That isn't happening here.

It's quite easy to mistake bloody-mindessness and cleaving to ones beliefs in spite of almost universal disagreement, to trolling, but i don't think they are the same thing.

Quote from: One Horse Town;533869IME, trolls tend to stand back and admire their work. That isn't happening here.

It's quite easy to mistake bloody-mindessness and cleaving to ones beliefs in spite of almost universal disagreement, to trolling, but i don't think they are the same thing.

Logic is your liberator in this case.

Quote from: gleichman;533876It's easy to call troll when logic fails, and logic has certainly failed those calling troll here.

I should note that it's nowhere near universal disagreement, I've have a good number of people agree with me on the importance of following the rules. Nearly as many as disagree.

Rather what you have are a really loud group of people who would rather drown out opposing ideas than admit their own failures. A comman feature online.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;533897For the record, I agree with OHT that you are not a troll.  I also think that calling people that reflexively diminishes the meaning of the word for the very real trolls we do have around here.

But I do believe that your pathological limitations make meaningful communication and discussion with you largely impossible. And since that is my reason for my being here (I can't speak to why you are here), that limits my interest in what you say greatly.  I am sure you can live with that, as can I.


-TGA

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;533897For the record, I agree with OHT that you are not a troll.  I also think that calling people that reflexively diminishes the meaning of the word for the very real trolls we do have around here.

But I do believe that your pathological limitations make meaningful communication and discussion with you largely impossible. And since that is my reason for my being here (I can't speak to why you are here), that limits my interest in what you say greatly.  I am sure you can live with that, as can I.


-TGA

Quote from: Marleycat;533905I am definitely in this camp. He doesn't bother me and I agree with a lot of what he is trying to say. But there's a language barrier that makes it impossible to have a real discussion.  Which pisses me off actually, because it shouldn't be that way.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533906So you agree that everyone who is "Rulings, not rules" and does not use a grid is a cheater, child and a bad GM? Because that's what his argumentation boils down to.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533906And I think that due to this "RPG.net marks everyone they don't agree with as trolls" meme, we are now afraid to call douches by their true names. In other words - we had somewhat completed the Circle of Spite, by having our own species of users we're afraid to call out on their bullshit. At least because of "fear", and I use that term very loosely, of branding people incorrectly and being like RPG.net, rather then fear of being banned and being like RPG.site.

PS - good to see you around posting again, TGA, and not in the Out of Chara- *coughs* Topic forums :D. Ever gonna come back to the 4e series?

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;533922It should be apparent that I am not afraid to call a spade, a spade.  Although I find gleichman's shitty behavior remarkably unproductive to the goals I have for being on this site, I can differentiate between that and purposeful trolling, which in my experience is for the pleasure of seeing others fight - the throwing of the hand grenade and watching the carnage ensue.  My big clue on trolls is when they start flame-bait threads and then disappear, only popping in when the flames die down. For all his faults, gleichman doesn't do that in my opinion.

And thanks for the kind words.  Real life stuff has a way of interfering with the time I can devote to posting, but it has been a good week for it.  Some friends are trying to rope me into another 4e game so there is hope yet for more posting on that topic. ;)


-TGA

Quote from: Rincewind1;533924There are various species of trolls - fanning the flames is not uncommon behaviour. I myself encountered more of the kind I describe, to be honest. But anyway. Good luck on your gaming :).

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;533926Thanks!

Frankly, in the end whether you want to call shitty behavior trolling or something else, the fact remains that the best response is to not engage those who suffer from those limitations in their ability to conduct social interaction.  It is never profitable for you to do so, in the end.

-TGA

Quote from: misterguignol;533619Can you clear up what the original meaning was?  I find the hobby's jargon to be often impenetrable and contradictory, so that would be helpful.  (Don't even get me started on how "verisimilitude" gets used.)

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533584Simulation is about emulating genre and theme. Pendragon is an example of great simulation--concepts like Glory are an actual thing in the rules, and align the players' goals with what should be the characters' goals.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533584Nor can you emulate Sherlock Holmes without giving the PC some narrative control to say "I see from the red mud on your shoe that you must have come past the new construction on Wilmot Lane" and suchlike.

Quote from: One Horse Town;533869IME, trolls tend to stand back and admire their work. That isn't happening here.

It's quite easy to mistake bloody-mindessness and cleaving to ones beliefs in spite of almost universal disagreement, to trolling, but i don't think they are the same thing.

Logic is your liberator in this case.

Quote from: Imperator;534007I completely agree. If Gleichman is a troll, most poters here would too, under that definition.

Quote from: John Morrow;533984What does it mean to "simulate" Sherlock Holmes like that and what, exactly, are you emulating?  To simulate the experience of being Sherlock Holmes, you'd need to let the player actually solve the mystery using their knowledge and intelligence.  To simulate the experience of reading a Sherlock Holmes story, you'd need to surprise the players with an unexpected solution at the end.  Neither of those fit what you are describing.  So are you trying to simulate the experience of writing a Sherlock Holmes story?  If so, how is that role-playing or simulating the genre?

Quote from: Halloween Jack;534116I didn't play D&D until 3rd edition. Before that point, whatever D&D was doing had zero effect on my enthusiasm for the hobby or the games I was playing at the time.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;534120I don't doubt this. Your experience is your own.

QuoteThough i am sure a lot of people who started with 3E still embraced a lot of the classic assumptions tha edition carried with it, and 4E was too far in the direction of board games for their tastes.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;534125I don't get this. I've never met anyone who played 3e without a gridmap. I'm not saying they don't exist.

Quote from: John Morrow;533984What does it mean to "simulate" Sherlock Holmes like that and what, exactly, are you emulating?  To simulate the experience of being Sherlock Holmes, you'd need to let the player actually solve the mystery using their knowledge and intelligence.  To simulate the experience of reading a Sherlock Holmes story, you'd need to surprise the players with an unexpected solution at the end.  Neither of those fit what you are describing.  So are you trying to simulate the experience of writing a Sherlock Holmes story?  If so, how is that role-playing or simulating the genre?

Quote from: Halloween Jack;534125I don't doubt the current state of D&D has a big influence on how many new gamers enter the hobby and stay involved. But as for it having a positive or chilling effect on people currently playing White Wolf, Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu...I just don't see it.

QuoteI don't get this. I've never met anyone who played 3e without a gridmap. I'm not saying they don't exist.

Quote from: TheHistorian;534170But, if you're interested in something that gives each combatant a fog of war/chaotic battlefield experience, then giving the entire group the overhead layout doesn't make sense (unless they have reason to achieve that, like someone perched at elevation communicating position or appropriate magic).

Quote from: TheHistorian;534170But, if you're interested in something that gives each combatant a fog of war/chaotic battlefield experience, then giving the entire group the overhead layout doesn't make sense (unless they have reason to achieve that, like someone perched at elevation communicating position or appropriate magic).

Quote from: gleichman;534177Hidden movement can be a blast in an RPG, and is quite possible. But that's not 'Hidden Map' which is what you seem to be wanting.

Quote from: John Morrow;534312This is becoming possible with electronic role-playing aids like MapTool, which can handle things like line of sight (http://rptools.net/dorpond/demos/ClickVisionVid/ClickVisionVid.html) and, if each player is using their own laptop, gives each player a subjective view.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;534382By the late '90s, the continued popularity of GURPS rested almost entirely on its massive library of supplemental material. When they upgraded to 4th Edition, they rendered that library of supplemental material obsolete while simultaneously making their core rules substantially more expensive.

Quote from: gleichman;534335Yes, but I think in the end it would be effectively a waste of time and money in many cases. Modern/fantasy characters will just buy equipment to extend their 'sight', while fantasy ones will use magic.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;534382By the late '90s, the continued popularity of GURPS rested almost entirely on its massive library of supplemental material. When they upgraded to 4th Edition, they rendered that library of supplemental material obsolete while simultaneously making their core rules substantially more expensive.

Hero's claim to fame was its robust, effects-based character creation system. But other games have come in, stolen its stuff, and (arguably) done it better. Meanwhile, Hero has completely fractured its player base (and customer loyalty) by churning through multiple editions.

Basically, both games ultimately suffer from something which becomes more apparent with every passing year: No reboot edition of an RPG has ever succeeded unless there is clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction in the existing customer base.

This will probably remain true as long as the TTRPG consumer base remains predominantly stagnant.

Quote from: The Butcher;533063(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT6hEtwnnnlFm7nWZ5VDowj269CUY3NJ5qXuZaG2ndbpIlzWMnsng)

QuoteAgain, the problem with HERO 6 (And arguably GURPS 4th) is that for it to be a business success it had to both appeal to new players and to people who still had their last edition and liked it just fine.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;534811I prefer to play with miniatures and a grid, even if the "miniatures" are tokens and the "grid" is a bare tabletop and we're using tape measurement.  (It's the way I played BattleTech back in the 1990s when I played on Saturdays at Phoenix Games in Minneapolis, so it's way doable on the cheap.)  I agree with Gleichman as to the reason for doing so--clear picture of the action, easy to resolve Line Of Sight questions, etc.--and I find his attitude towards rules to be understandable, and not unreasonable.  It is my experience that players would rather honestly fail than succeed only because the GM made it so, for whatever reason, hence why I play the game even when I run it, if you follow me.

Quote from: jhkim;534869I don't have anything against playing with miniatures and a grid.  However, I also think that you can play without a grid without being stupid and/or a cheater.

Quote from: jhkim;534869I think problems with Gleichman weren't over how he preferred to play with a grid, as with what he was saying about people who didn't play his way.

Quote from: Sommerjon;534907No it's the opposite of what TRSwarriors say is the 'correct way' to play.

Quote from: jhkim;534869I don't have anything against playing with miniatures and a grid.  However, I also think that you can play without a grid without being stupid and/or a cheater.

Quote from: gleichman;534924That's not what people who play without a grid/mini claim. Instead they say one of two things and thus define themselves:

1. They can't play with grid and minis because it's a wargame to them, i.e. they're are not capable of playing by the rules and role-playing at the same time.

2. They don't want to be bound by the rules, i.e. they want to cheat.

Quote from: Drohem;534926Do you have some hard data that supports this claim?  Can you please point me to the research that supports this claim?

Quote from: gleichman;534927This very thread. Go read it, and note what people opposed to grid and minis are actually saying.

Quote from: Drohem;534933So, you don't.  Thank you.

Quote from: Drohem;534933So, you don't.  Thank you.

Quote from: Marleycat;534941See, he thinks his playstyle in "the one true way" and if you play another way not only "badwrongfun" but you cheat. He forgets his opinion isn't an objective fact.

Quote from: gleichman;534942It's not a question of "one true way" nor of opinion.

The rules are objective fact. If a spell has X Range, then a player/GM not determining the correct range means those rules have been broken. It's that simple.

And I've heard only two reasons why people break those rules in this thread- 1) they can't follow them and role-play, and 2) They want to override the rules at their whim (i.e. cheat). This is also objective fact.


I'm not against anyone playing a game without such rules, they would not be cheating nor dumbing down their game. I would find such games boring, but that's a matter of taste.

Quote from: Drohem;534923What is a 'TRSwarrior,' please?  :)

Quote from: Marleycat;534941See, he thinks his playstyle is "the one true way" and if you play another way it's not only "badwrongfun" but you cheat. He forgets his opinion isn't an objective fact.

Quote from: Sommerjon;534948the rpgsite warrior
AYFKM?
This whole site is based around Onetruewayism.  Except gleichman's onetrueway happens to be different.

Quote from: gleichman;5349241. They can't play with grid and minis because it's a wargame to them, i.e. they're are not capable of playing by the rules and role-playing at the same time.

Quote from: gleichman;5349242. They don't want to be bound by the rules, i.e. they want to cheat.

Quote from: Benoist;534956What if the rules are not about tactical combat with a grid in the first place? .

Quote from: Benoist;534956So, let me get this straight: if you are not playing 100% by the letter of the rules, you are cheating? I'm sorry, but about 99% of the role playing game books and manuals I have here, as well as my personal gaming experience, completely disagree with that ludicrous idea.

Quote from: gleichman;534960If the game doesn't include ranges and line of sight, then it doesn't include them. I've taken pains to note such as a different creature completely, one that bores me but also one that I'm not talking about.

Quote from: gleichman;534960The books and manuals don't want to lose sales, so they'll tell you it's ok. And of course you'll tell yourself that it's ok.

Quote from: gleichman;534960But the fact remains- you can't play the game by the rules. And that is failure pure and simple.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;534811It is my experience that players would rather honestly fail than succeed only because the GM made it so, for whatever reason, hence why I play the game even when I run it, if you follow me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;535069Huh. I see Gleichman is back. Yet again.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;534966Ranges and lines of sight don't make a game that would have to be played with miniatures. You can verbally tell the player "you're about 50 feet away from your target and he's running between boulders from time to time as he slaloms between them"

Quote from: Benoist;534966Ah, no. I'm actually playing the game by the rules as per my example above. Check out http://praemal.blogspot.com to see how I use miniatures and grids when I want to.

Quote from: gleichman;535289And you're gridless version of D&D isn't D&D.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;535111Are you really surprised?


-TGA

Quote from: Benoist;534966Man. I'd love to have authors and publishers of RPGs commenting on that one. I suppose they'll obviously all lie for PR on this thread when in fact they're all convinced their games are meant to be played BTB at all times. That's awesome ESP you got there.

QuoteGuidelines Not Rules

Finally, remember that these rules are a tool for the GM. If something herein does not work right in your campaign, change it. The object is to have fun, not be a slave to rules or to players who think being a rules-lawyer is the way to get ahead. In many roleplaying games, the Rules As Written (RAW) are often considered sacrosanct or at least somehow better than those a GM can come up with himself. This is not true of Microlite74 so please change anything you do not like.

QuoteReality/Common Sense Trumps Rules: Old-school games use loose and simple rules that cover average cases and the GM and players are supposed to apply common sense and their knowledge of how reality works to cover the unusual and edge cases. "Reality/Common Sense" as interpreted by the GM always trumps the written rules if they conflict. For example, a character has a magic weapon and the rules for that weapon say it always causes its target to fall prone if hit. The character hits a gelatinous cube moving down the corridor toward them with the weapon. The rules say that the target should fall and be in a prone position. Reality, however, says otherwise. Gelatinous cubes don't have a top and bottom (so prone penalties make no sense) and a 10 foot cube can't fall when it is moving through a 10 foot corridor. In some modern games, the rules would be applied anyway and the cube would suffer the effects of falling prone no matter how little sense that makes. In an old school game, the GM ignores the rule because it makes no sense in the specific situation.

Forget "Rules Mastery": As some of the above differences have hinted, player skill in "old school" style games isn't about mastering the game rules so you can solve any problem by knowing the right combination of rules from 20 different rule books. Microlite20 is designed to be rules light and Microlite74 tries to stress this even more by encouraging GMs to make rulings on the spot taking into account specific circumstances instead of trying to hunt up special cases in the SRD or a stack of optional rule books. This is faster and helps players immerse themselves in their character and the game world instead of in rule books. GM rulings will be based on specific circumstances and common sense, not just on the written rules and prior rulings. Just because it requires a certain roll to jump one 10 foot pit does not mean all 10 foot wide pits will require the same roll. After all, all sorts of variables can affect the roll (terrain, weather, lighting, pressure to jump quickly, etc.). Players need to remember that these rules are merely a tool for the GM. They are just guidelines for the GM, not something written in stone that the GM must obey. If something herein does not work right in your campaign (or the GM just does not like a rule), the GM is well within his right to change it. Microlite74 is not a game for rules lawyers or for those who believe that the game designer always knows what is best.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;532973I've watched such games.  It's painful.  People sitting around the room asking the DM where their character is in relation to the guy they want to attack.  And the DM saying, "He's behind you."  And another player asking, "What is my character doing?  Am I close enough to help them?"

These people obviously have known each other for years and this is more just a social night for them and not a serious RPG session.

Quote from: RandallS;535342Microlite74 clearly states:



It also says stuff like:



Considering Microlite74 has one author and no marketing department, I believe I actually do intend for GMs to make spot rulings, treat the rules as guidelines, and generally ignore or change anything they do not like. This, of course, means that the resulting game will be completely unacceptable to some -- but I do not care. I am not trying to make the one true game that will please everyone.

Quote from: gleichman;535289In short, don't call you'r T-Ball version of Professional Baseball Professional Baseball, it's not. And you're gridless version of D&D isn't D&D.

QuoteRECOMMENDED EQUIPMENT:

Dungeons and Dragons (you have it!)

Outdoor Survival (available from your hobby dealer or directly from Avalon Hill
Company, 4517 Harford Road, Baltimore MD 21214)

Dice — the following different kinds of dice are available from TSR
1 pair 4-sided dice 1 pair 20-sided dice
1 pair 8-sided dice 1 pair 12-sided dice
4 to 20 pairs 6-sided dice

Chainmail miniature rules, latest edition (available from your hobby dealer or
directly from TSR Hobbies, POB 756, Lake Geneva, Wi. 53147)

1 3-Ring Notebook (referee and each player)
Graph Paper (6 lines per inch is best)
Sheet Protectors (heaviest possible)
3-Ring Lined Paper
Drafting Equipment and Colored Pencils
Scratch Paper and Pencils
Imagination
1 Patient Referee
Players

Quote from: Exploderwizard;535368Well then obviously OD&D isn't real D&D! ;)

Quote from: RandallS;535356There no mention of grids or grid substitutes either.

Quote from: RandallS;535356Note that minis (or substitutes), grids, terrain for minis, a sand table, rulers, and the other items needed for minis or gridded combat are not included in this list of recommended items. I'm sure you will try to read minis into the system because of a set of minis rules are included, but without minis, etc. being listed as needed (or even recommended) those rules would be useless for for actual minis use.

Quote from: John Morrow;535372Further, the Chainmail rules, which are recommended to play D&D on that list, do recomment "rules, miniature figures, and accompanying equipment, a play area, and terrain to place upon it."

Quote from: CRKrueger;535384Most of the time I use a physical representation of what's happening to various degrees.  I like painting minis and doing modeling, so I prefer that to quarters and a plastic cap, but whatever.  I think being able to determine things at a glance is priceless as a GM, which is why I loved the old TSR modules with "illustration books" as well as the Hackmaster modules that include them.  However, I also combine that with what I hope are good descriptions, pictures, lighting, music, sound effects, and other things that help people get into what's happening.

From my experience (meaning people I have personally gamed with or GMed), people who say they cannot immerse if there are minis and a map, have been exposed to it at the table of a GM who basically ignored description and the other intangibles that aided immersion.  If all you're looking at is lines on a grid and the GM makes no effort to transform those into dark, crumbling, foetid sewers, then I could see why you brand map and minis as "wargame only".  I can't tell you the number of times I've heard someone say something similar to "I didn't think you could have good roleplay in a game that used minis and a map".  I wish I had the money to grab Benoist and DungeonDelver and take them on an "Old School with Map and Minis" tour around the country.  :D  I'm sure the fact that we would end up running games only in areas with good wineries, microbreweries and restaurants would be solely coincidental.  :cool:

All that having been said, I don't always use exact measurements even if I do have a map, simply because a character can't tell how far something is, or the scale is too large to represent exactly.  So, in that case, a ruling is made.  "About 100 yards" works until you have a spell that cannot affect things past 100 yards.  SO at that point a determination of actual range has to take place, the detail of the rules needs to "zoom in".  A lot of the times I will make such a determination myself, frequently because even if I said "around 100 yards" I actually know the distance, or I might just roll randomly when it comes time to say whether it's 98 yards or 102.

I think there's a difference between using ranges, los, etc and having every possible range and los calculated before it is going to be used.

In a game like 3.5, if I'm just at the end of an effective range to do something, you need to use the rules system to take a 5' step as one type of action, then accomplish your task using another type of action, and the whole thing is broken down very succinctly using defined movement rules.  For some people that's what turns it into a wargame I think.

Now in Gleichman's defense, I've seen people at Meetups whose claim against a grid basically does come down to cheating.  In other words, "Rules schmules, me not being able to attack this round because last round I moved 35ft instead of 40ft is deprotagonizing, I'm a special snowflake hero RRAAWWR!"  I can't attest to my ability to show them the light side of maps and minis because people like that usually leave or are tossed off the table somewhere during character creation. ;)

Quote from: John Morrow;535371Incorrect.

"Graph Paper (6 lines per inch is best)"

Graph Paper is a grid, is it not?

QuoteActually, this isn't necessarily true, either. Avalon Hill's Outdoor Survival looks like it contains a hex map and die-cut counters. Further, the Chainmail rules, which are recommended to play D&D on that list, do recomment "rules, miniature figures, and accompanying equipment, a play area, and terrain to place upon it."

Quote from: John Morrow;535372Actually, this isn't necessarily true, either.  Avalon Hill's Outdoor Survival looks like it contains a hex map and die-cut counters.  

Quote from: John Morrow;535372Further, the Chainmail rules, which are recommended to play D&D on that list, do recomment "rules, miniature figures, and accompanying equipment, a play area, and terrain to place upon it."  So while the original D&D rules may not have explicitly recommended those things, it recommended other games that either had or recommended those things.

Quote from: RPGPundit;536117GURPS and Hero, along with Shadowrun, embody everything I think is terrible about point-buy.

And I think this kind of point-buy isn't very popular right now.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Sommerjon;536123and you would be wrong.

Quote from: Sommerjon;536123and you would be wrong.

Quote from: James Gillen;536241WRONG, I tell you!

JG

Quote from: Rincewind1;536380Madness, I tell you! Madness!

Quote from: CRKrueger;536381Seriously though, I think GURPS and HERO could increase their sales by a factor of 50 with some late 20th century layout skills.  :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;536117GURPS and Hero, along with Shadowrun, embody everything I think is terrible about point-buy.

And I think this kind of point-buy isn't very popular right now.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BlazFeem;546147I sure wouldn't lump Shadowrun in with GURPS and Hero. GURPS and Hero are meta-games - they're game design toolkits, not games in and of themselves. Shadowrun's pretty much a set game at this point.

Quote from: John Morrow;533447Out of curiosity, why isn't GURPS Lite (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/) an adequate introduction for new players, since that seems to be its purpose?

Quote from: Piestrio;546352In the hopes this thread hasn't been completely killed by gliechman's pseudo autistic antics I'll talk about GURPS :)

GURPS lite fails as an introductory product because it's not a complete game.

You can't play "GURPS Lite" , you can only use it to play whatever.

As a system introduction it's great, as an "introductory game" it sucks.

Quote from: estar;546412I felt the 3rd Edition GURPS Lite functioned adequately as a intro fantasy game. I agree with that 4th edition GURPS Lite is only a system introduction.

3rd Edition
http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG30-6094

4th Edition
http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG31-0004

Quote from: BlazFeem;546147I sure wouldn't lump Shadowrun in with GURPS and Hero. GURPS and Hero are meta-games - they're game design toolkits, not games in and of themselves. Shadowrun's pretty much a set game at this point.

Though I'm curious - what is it about them that you despise? I'm new here, so if you've ranted about this before, a link would be fine. :)

Quote from: RPGPundit;546639In terms of point-buy, Shadowrun is probably worse than the other two.

The whole notion of "here's 400 points, now spend the next two hours fiddling with how many points you're going to put into each of our 200 skills, and buying advantages and disadvantages to try to min-max the most ridiculous fucking character that isn't really anything recognizable as an archetype" is pretty much the antithesis of what I want in both character creation and roleplaying games in general.

QuoteIn fact, let's reverse that: "here's 3d6, spend the next five minutes rolling up ability scores then choosing a class and gaining fixed abilities, with no more than 3 or 4 actual choices having to be made in the whole process; if there are skills and choice it should be between two packages, or randomly determined; if there are advantages and disadvantages they should be rolled so you can't just pick the stuff you think will give you the most benefit for the least possible cost, you will be playing a recognizable archetype with maybe a few special tweaks to make him your own, and everything else to make him distinguishable will come not from stats but from how you roleplay him. Your five minutes are now up, go into the dungeon and rock on".
That's what I want.

QuoteWelcome to theRPGsite

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;546639In terms of point-buy, Shadowrun is probably worse than the other two.

"here's 400 points, now spend the next two hours fiddling"

(vs)

spend five minutes [and] you will be playing a recognizable archetype with maybe a few special tweaks to make him your own

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;547103SR 1 & 2: Templates. That is all.

(No idea if SR4's "sample characters" are as well-done. But, on a quick glance, they seem to be similar.)

Quote from: The Butcher;532411In three words? Front-loaded complexity. Once you're done with chargen the game runs smooth, but God help you through your first (and sometimes second and third) character sheet.

A free-to-download, easy-to-use automated chargen app works wonders on both cases. It's not to everyone's liking, though.

Quote from: Lynn;547169Absolutely. Ideally, such a program would have a "campaign profile" that the GM could create, deactivating any options that aren't appropriate for the campaign.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;547103SR 1 & 2: Templates. That is all.

(No idea if SR4's "sample characters" are as well-done. But, on a quick glance, they seem to be similar.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;547293Those are never satisfactory.

Quote from: RPGPundit;5472931: they only work if you forbid other players from point-building characters.

Quote from: RPGPundit;547293I've never seen a game where the sample pregens are actually efficient at what they're supposed to be, much less ideally set up for it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;547293It fails to address the fundamental issue: essential archetypes are missed,

Quote from: RPGPundit;547293basically it fails to create iconic classes.

Quote from: BlazFeem;546951I'd agree that there are definitely issues with the Shadowrun system, but the issue that you point out above is really, to my mind, a player problem - not a system problem. If you're playing with minmaxing munchkins, you're going to get that effect out of Shadowrun - "I've got eighty-five dice when I use my sniper rifle!" just as often as you get it out of Pathfinder - "I've used every feat, trait and class feature possible that gives me a bonus to hit with my bow!" and likely just as often in free-form games "My vision for my character is the best marksman in the world - literally none better - I can hit a fly in the eye at a range of twelve light years..." Every one of them points to a character (ha) flaw in the player, and a lack of will on the part of the GM to bring things back into some sense of order.

Quote from: RPGPundit;547846system affects how players play.  In fact, a system that is DESIGNED (as D&D 3e was, according to some of the people behind it) to encourage "character optimization" will lead to players doing all kinds of stupid tricks to try to get the ideal character.  That's just how it is: its not that you have either totally honest people or utter cads; there's plenty of people who wouldn't normally think of cheating on their wives, but if a woman throws herself on them and starts to fellate them, they're not going to say no.  That's exactly what these kinds of systems do.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;547846You say this as though there's a clear duality of type-of-player going on; a player is either a paragon of virtue or a powergaming freak and you just shouldn't play with the latter.

QuoteThis is naive; system affects how players play.  In fact, a system that is DESIGNED (as D&D 3e was, according to some of the people behind it) to encourage "character optimization" will lead to players doing all kinds of stupid tricks to try to get the ideal character.  That's just how it is: its not that you have either totally honest people or utter cads; there's plenty of people who wouldn't normally think of cheating on their wives, but if a woman throws herself on them and starts to fellate them, they're not going to say no.  That's exactly what these kinds of systems do.

Quote from: BlazFeem;548092What sort of system do you think minimizes the incentive to powergame?

Quote from: James Gillen;548021Way to NOT make point-buy sound attractive.

JG

Quote from: BlazFeem;548092What sort of system do you think minimizes the incentive to powergame?

Quote from: RPGPundit;548383A game where character creation has high levels of randomness, and very controlled sets of choices.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;548382Well, it is relevant to the OP in a way; its certainly why I don't consider GURPS or Hero popular systems for me!

RPGPundit

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;548398Like Classic Traveller?

Quote from: James GillenHERO System: It will pull down your shorts and fellate you.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;548398Like Classic Traveller?

Quote from: RPGPundit;548594Among others, sure.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;548675That was the first game that popped in my head for that method of chargen.  What's another game system that uses a similar method?