Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

[Warp9]

This thread is actually a spin off from the discussion over in the special effects poll thread.

 

The issue here is the relationship between game systems and GM judgement.

 

 

Added on Edit: This is also an issue about the difference between a game like Hero (which has a bit more rules than some other games), and games which might be described as "rules-lite." I personally like to have predefined game mechanics and actually use them to resolve combat, rather than relying on the GM. But if one feels that it would be better to work from a GM's judgement, then why not opt to move in a more "rules lite" direction?

 

 

And to pick up from the other thread. . . .

 

Probably because it takes the combination of both rules and GM input to make a complete system.

But there is a difference between situations which which go beyond the game mechanics, and situations where the GM contradicts the game mechanics.

 

It is not like there is no GM input when I'm running a game, I just tend to stay out of areas which are already covered by the game mechanics.

 

A rules lite system puts much more of the burden on the GM.

It doesn't seem to be that much of a problem for those who use such systems. If they can handle such a system, I'm sure that most Hero GMs could handle it too.

 

 

In our campaign, it's because we have 5 GMs and since we don't all agree 100% on every issue we need a game system with enough detail to provide a common framework to build the campaign on. Hero fills that niche admirably.

If you don't agree on every issue, and you start overriding the game mechanics with your own personal judgement calls, it seems to me that you'd lose some of your common framework.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I ddnt read the entire original thread... actually I ddnt make it past post 1.

 

But I gotta agree with what you posted of Treb's comment:

 

It takes both Mechanics and GM Judgement to make a Complete System, I'd modify it slight personally - To Make a Complete Game.

 

Sometimes, as a GM, you look at the Mechanics/Rules, Look at what a Player is trying to do and ignore the Rules in favor of the Cool.

 

Not always, and you don't have to be 100% consistent. If you think if would tell a better story or generally be more fun to take an instances of something and break the rules I don't see how that could possibly be wrong.

 

From my personal stance I've played with people who are By The Book And Only By The Book and quite frankly - I didn't like it. Wasn't as fun as going with the flow, making a few judgment calls and generally letting the rules be a framework and guideline around the game instead of a straitjacket.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Played Harnmaster, much?

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Hey, you changed your user name.

 

Anyway, in regard to Harnmaster---is that the same system as RoleMaster?

 

If so, I would say that the issue there is that the rules were bad. They used charts rather than formula's which IMO is not the way to go.

 

 

 

Serious answer: A good game exists at a point of dynamic tension between mechanics and talented game-mastering. Hero, with its unique balance of mechanics and special effects hits the sweet spot in terms of when the mechanics come into play, and when good judgement comes into play. I don't want a totally amorphous system because those are actually harder to run - and because their are times when a mechanical function result is required. Its just a question of when those times are.

 

While hero is crunchy, I don't regard it as rules heavy. I regard it as well defined. And that's important. Good judgement doesn't exist in a vaccum. The character definition hero provides - and that's the thing I really love about hero - is a remarkable tool for "eye-balling" what a character or item can and can't accomplish in a given situation. And those mechanics include effects based definition. And the mechanics it does provide are robust enough to handle the traditional role-playing game "arbitrary" rolls.

 

And that's the key: I keep saying good judgment, not arbitrary judgement. This is a medium that does need mechanics. The mechanics provide impartial resolution for what I term "arbitrary rolls." These are decisions that could go either way in most situations: skill rolls, to hit rolls, damage rolls. The gamemaster shouldn't have to decide everything by fiat. That puts an unfair burden on his shoulders and that does often turn out badly. Trust doesn't always mean universal agreement. Instead, the system needs to provide a solid structure and common frame of reference from which good judgement flows.

I believe that even many rules lite games provide a basic framework, and basic guide lines, which give the GM a good place to base his judgements.

 

In terms of the cases where things could go either way, the GM doesn't have to keep the decision totally on his own shoulders.

 

I'm not all that familiar with the rules lite games. But it is my understanding that they are not quite the same as "diceless" games. A GM can still have the Player throw the dice, even in a rules lite system.

 

 

 

 

I know it sounds like those are contradictory principles, but they aren't. Most people are uncomfortable striking a balance in every aspect of life. They either want no rules, or rules for everthing. They go all the way one direction or all the way the other. That's not healthy. Gaming, like most things in life, requires you to walk the golden path, and that's what the balance between mechanics and special effects in hero is vested in. Its the mixture of the two, not one or the other, that makes a good system.

 

I keep playing hero because I think hero is one of the few games that hits the sweet spot.

As I said in the opening post, there is a difference between having the GM provide input in areas not covered by the game mechanics, and having the GM contradict the mechanics.

 

There are no specific mechanics for what Duke Aroton will do when one of the PCs accidentally spills his drink on the Duke. But there are specific mechanics for breaking things.

 

It is not really that there needs to be a rule for EVERYTHING. It's just that I'd like to trust the system in the places which the game mechanics do cover.

[Maur]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I don't trust any system. I read them, study them and learn them, but don't trust them. There isn't anything there to trust, heheh. GMs on the other hand you have to learn to trust (or get really good about arguing over to your point of view) or find another GM/group.

[CTaylor]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Hero is a bit more heavy on the "trust the GM" side of the equation, and that's good in my opinion. The rules are there for consistency, to be a framework upon which to build a campaign or a game session on, they are there to facilitate the entertainment and make interaction with the game environment predictable and functional. The GM has the final call, that's one of the cardinal rules that Gary Gygax established for role playing and it's a good one.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I need to be more clear: I'm talking about a general social trend, but then commenting on the approach to it that occurs on these boards. The rules intensity (light or heavy) isn't at the heart of the trend. I'm talking about something that manifests itself in different ways depending on whether the rules are light or heavy.

 

In rules light games it manifests itself in a number of ways that we don't need to go into here as they have nothing to do with hero. Suffice it to say many meta-gaming and meta-narrative principles aren't there to facilitate good role-play or simulate a particuliar genre as much as they are to serve the individual ego and not the group as a whole.

 

In rules heavy games it manifests itself in a desire to mechanize everything so that the gamemaster's judgement can be done away with - because God forbid we should have to trust another human being, or exercise the gray cells God gave us. Frankly, if I wanted a totally automated system I'd be playing MMOs.

There is a difference between automating the intelligence behind the NPCs and automating things such as breaking down doors.

 

 

and since you mentioned them, here is a little side rant about MMOs

 

And on the topic of MMOs I believe that many of them are coded poorly in terms on being open ended simulations. It should be possible to build a world which would be more interactive (characters being able to alter the landscapce and that sort of thing), if that were a design priority.

 

But I think that the basic problem is that intelligence behind the NPCs is just not there yet. Systems may have to advance a bit before we have that level of AI.

 

 

A system actually represts the expertise of a person (who built the system) in a hard coded form. Even humans don't (as far as I know) reach their decisions through magic powers. The methods they use are not totally alien to the game systems that we are discussing here.

 

 

I guess there are people who would like complex computer systems to automate the criminal justice system as well - because then it really would be impartial. No silly judges exercising... judgement. But then, there would be no justice because at the heart of the experience is humanity and a system of rules has no judgement and no sense of justice of its own.

There are many complexities which would need to be addressed by such a system. But if it could handle the complexity then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

 

 

So too the rules for games: in of itself the rules serve to create a structured, orderly play experience, and resolve potential conflicts, but in of themselves, they aren't much fun without human beings exercising good judgement as they play them together. And, most groups need a leader, even if that leader changes every few sessions, to drive the narrative and make things happen.

Again, there is a difference between using judgement in terms of figuring out what an NPC will do, and having to over-rule the mechanics in an area which they cover.

 

 

I've been in business meetings where consensus was the hot and bothered principle of the day. Utter and complete disaster. At microsoft (back in the day), the teams I worked on that were consensus driven were prone to petty bickering, ineffeciency, and disgusting meeting bloat. I got paid to foot-dangle in meetings where time crept on like a slow worm on a straight razor more than I got paid to work. Those teams also tended to miss deadlines, go over budget, and have unhappy managers who took the heat and failed to get promoted.

 

The teams that succeeded, and the managers who got promoted, were the one's with a manager who - while hearing the employees out - made the final decision themselves. I'm not saying a role-playing group is a business group, but the principle of having a mover driving things along has applied to most of the gaming groups I've played with. They tend to stagnate, or devolve into bickering, unless you have someone who steps forward to drive the story and resolve disputes using plain, old, fair-minded common sense.

If we are dealing which issues which a system can handle, then in many ways, having a predefined system already in place will do that even better.

 

If I just blindly follow the game mechanics to find out what happend when a PC applies his weapon to a door, there is no need for any discussion at all. It is all black and white and pre-defined.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I ddnt read the entire original thread... actually I ddnt make it past post 1.

 

But I gotta agree with what you posted of Treb's comment:

 

It takes both Mechanics and GM Judgement to make a Complete System, I'd modify it slight personally - To Make a Complete Game.

 

Sometimes, as a GM, you look at the Mechanics/Rules, Look at what a Player is trying to do and ignore the Rules in favor of the Cool.

 

Not always, and you don't have to be 100% consistent. If you think if would tell a better story or generally be more fun to take an instances of something and break the rules I don't see how that could possibly be wrong.

Of course that is only one motivation a GM might have for "breaking the rules." Some GMs will try to railroad the PCs, and breaking the rules is often a good way to do that. This situation often comes up if the rules allow the PCs to do something which doesn't fit with the GM's plans.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I don't trust any system. I read them' date=' study them and learn them, but don't trust them. There isn't anything there to trust, heheh. GMs on the other hand you have to learn to trust (or get really good about arguing over to your point of view) or find another GM/group.[/quote']

 

Maybe I should have found some other term than "Trusting Systems."

 

To me, a game system is a pre-agreed upon method for resolving situations. If the GM uses the game mechanics, then I know basically what my character can do in the game.

 

If we get to the point where the GM is over-ruling the system based on his own judgement, then that is a different matter.

 

I may find that my character is more limited than what I expected---especially if I've managed to annoy the GM by being a rules lawyer---which is something I have experiece with.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Hero is a bit more heavy on the "trust the GM" side of the equation' date=' and that's good in my opinion. The rules are there for consistency, to be a framework upon which to build a campaign or a game session on, they are there to facilitate the entertainment and make interaction with the game environment predictable and functional. The GM has the final call, that's one of the cardinal rules that Gary Gygax established for role playing and it's a good one.[/quote']

How would you compare the role of a GM in Hero to the role of a GM in a rules lite game?

[Vondy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Hey, you changed your user name.

 

Anyway, in regard to Harnmaster---is that the same system as RoleMaster?

 

If so, I would say that the issue there is that the rules were bad. They used charts rather than formula's which IMO is not the way to go.

 

Username: got tired of VD jokes.

 

Harnmaster: No. HM's a separate system. It was born out of chartmaster, but was inspired by comparison at the time and has made it through 3 versions and a lot of revisions. It also has a dueling alternate 3rd edition. I mentioned it because the philosophy behind it is rock chewing simulationist crunchiness. They try to have a rule for everything. Its uber-cumbersome system (IMO) - hence the joke in terms of Hero not being that rules heavy.

 

I believe that even many rules lite games provide a basic framework, and basic guide lines, which give the GM a good place to base his judgements.

 

In terms of the cases where things could go either way, the GM doesn't have to keep the decision totally on his own shoulders.

 

I'm not all that familiar with the rules lite games. But it is my understanding that they are not quite the same as "diceless" games. A GM can still have the Player throw the dice, even in a rules lite system.

 

All true. But like I said, for me Hero hits the sweet spot. It has robust mechanics, but they are balanced by effects based definition and a little social contract theory.

 

As I said in the opening post, there is a difference between having the GM provide input in areas not covered by the game mechanics, and having the GM contradict the mechanics.

 

There are no specific mechanics for what Duke Aroton will do when one of the PCs accidentally spills his drink on the Duke. But there are specific mechanics for breaking things.

 

It is not really that there needs to be a rule for EVERYTHING. It's just that I'd like to trust the system in the places which the game mechanics do cover.

 

In general I agree with you about GMs not contradicting the mechanics unless there is a house rule or a general consensus, however, I think we are talking at cross purposes. We don't see eye to eye on a basic premise, which is why I question the need for this thread. We haven't finished with effects based definition yet.

 

I view effects based definition as being a part and parcel of the mechanics. The GM isn't contradicting the mechanics when he says a mundane rapier can't hack through a three inch thick iron bound metal door irrespective of the body damage it can do because the special effect is a part of the rules-side definition of the object.

 

It may make some gamers uncomfortable, but effects based definition is a part of the system. Its a rule. It functions in tandem with the mathematical model to create a construct. It is a mechanic in of itself, or, if you prefer, one of the driving meta-principles of the system. Hero exists at a point of dynamic tension between the mechanical number definition and the effect based definition. Insofar as he's fair and working from that point of dynamic tension the GM is playing by the rules and contradicting nothing. He's leveraging, not ignoring, the system.

 

I don't know if you know much about Leon Lederman, but he wrote a great book on particle physics titled The God Particle (1993). I generally use the following excerpt to illustrate Talmudic method, but it also applies to Hero, and maybe, to our talking past one another. The issue here is that Hero has meta-principles that drive the system and make it what it is. Not all of those principles are mathematical, but the mechanics only work if they are in play.

 

The Invisible Soccer Ball

 

Imagine an intelligent race of beings from the planet Twilo. They look more or less like us, they talk like us, they do everything like humans - except for one thing. They have a fluke in their visual apparatus. They can't see objects with sharp juxtapositions of black and white. They can't see zebras, for example. Or shirts on NFL referees. Or soccer balls. This is not such a bizarre fluke, by the way. Earthlings are even stranger. We have two literal blinds plots in the center of our field of vision. The reason we don't see these holes is because our brain extrapolates from the information in the rest of the field to guess what should be in these holes, then fills it in for us. Humans routinely drive 100 miles per hour on the autobahn, perform brain surgery, and juggle flaming torches, even though a portion of what they see is merely a good guess.

 

Let's say this contingent from the planet Twilo comes to earth on a goodwill mission. To give them a taste of our culture, we take them to see one of the most popular cultural events on the planet: a World Cup soccer match. We, of course, don't know that they can't see the black-and-white soccer ball. So they sit there watching the match with polite but confused looks on their faces. As far as the Twiloans are concerned, a bunch of short-pantsed people are running up and down the field kicking their legs pointlessly in the air, banging into each other, and falling down. At times an official blows a whistle, a player runs to the sideline, stands there, and extends both his arms over his head while the other players watch him. Once in a great while, the goalie inexplicably falls to the ground, a great cheer goes up, and one point is awarded to the opposite team.

 

The Twiloans spend about fifteen minutes being totally mystified. Then, to pass the time, they attempt to understand the game. Some use classification techniques. They deduce, partially because of the clothing, that there are two teams in conflict with one another. They chart the movements of the various players, discovering that each player appears to remain more or less within a certain geographical territory on the field. They discover that different players display different physical motions. The Twiloans, as humans would do, clarify their search for meaning in World Cup soccer by giving names to the different positions played by each footballer. The positions are categorized, compared, and contrasted. The qualities and limitations of each position are listed on a giant chart. A major break comes when the Twiloans discovery that symmetry is at work. For each position on Team A, there is a counterpart position on Team B.

 

With two minutes remaining in the game, the Twiloans have composed dozens of charts, hundreds of tables and formulas, and scores of complicated rules about soccer matches. And though the rules might all be, in a limited way, correct, none would really capture the essence of the game. Then one young pipsqueak of a Twiloan, silent until now, speaks his mind. "Let's postulate," he ventures nervously, "the existence of an invisible ball."

 

"Say what?" reply the elder Twiloans.

 

While his elders were monitoring what appeared to be the core of the game, the comings and goings of the various players and the demarcations of the field, the pipsqueak was keeping his eyes peeled for rare events. And he found one. Immediately before the referee announced a score, and a split second before the crowd cheered wildly, the young Twiloan noticed the momentary appearance of a bulge in the back of the goal net. Soccer is a low-scoring game, so there were few bulges to observe, and each was very shortlived. Even so, there were enough events for the pipsqueak to note that the shape of each bulge was hemispherical. Hence his wild conclusion that the game of soccer is dependent upon the existence of an invisible ball (invisible, at least, to the Twiloans).

 

The rest of the contingent from Twilo listen to this theory and, weak as the empirical evidence is, after much arguing, they conclude that the youngster has a point. An elder statesman in the group observes that a few rare events are sometimes more illuminating than a thousand mundane events. But the real clincher is the simple fact that there must be a ball. Posit the existence of a ball, which for some reason the Twiloans cannot see, and suddenly everything works. The game makes sense. Not only that, but all the theories, charts, and diagrams compiled over the past afternoon remain valid. The ball simply gives meaning to the rules.

 

This is an extended metaphor for many puzzles in physics, and it is especially relevant to particle physics. We can't understand the rules (the laws of nature) without knowing the objects (the ball) and, without a belief in a logical set of laws, we would never deduce the existence of all the particles.

 

The mechanics are the rules, the meta-principles are the objects. One of the meta-principles (written into the rules) is effects based definition.

 

We postulate the existence of an invisible ball: effects based definition.

 

And draw a logical conlusion from its existance: the need for a talented adjudicator.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Of course that is only one motivation a GM might have for "breaking the rules." Some GMs will try to railroad the PCs' date=' and breaking the rules is often a good way to do that. This situation often comes up if the rules allow the PCs to do something which doesn't fit with the GM's plans.[/quote']

 

Mechanics and Rules won't fix bad GMing, just like Rules and Mechanics won't make good Players. So really, moot point.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

 

In general I agree with you about GMs not contradicting the mechanics unless there is a house rule or a general consensus, however, I think we are talking at cross purposes. We don't see eye to eye on a basic premise, which is why I question the need for this thread. We haven't finished with effects based definition yet.

 

I view effects based definition as being a part and parcel of the mechanics. The GM isn't contradicting the mechanics when he says a mundane rapier can't hack through a three inch thick iron bound metal door irrespective of the body damage it can do because the special effect is a part of the rules-side definition of the object.

 

It may make some gamers uncomfortable, but effects based definition is a part of the system. Its a rule. It functions in tandem with the mathematical model to create a construct. It is a mechanic in of itself, or, if you prefer, one of the driving meta-principles of the system. Hero exists at a point of dynamic tension between the mechanical number definition and the effect based definition. Insofar as he's fair and working from that point of dynamic tension the GM is playing by the rules and contradicting nothing. He's leveraging, not ignoring, the system.

 

I don't know if you know much about Leon Lederman, but he wrote a great book on particle physics titled The God Particle (1993). I generally use the following excerpt to illustrate Talmudic method, but it also applies to Hero, and maybe, to our talking past one another. The issue here is that Hero has meta-principles that drive the system and make it what it is. Not all of those principles are mathematical, but the mechanics only work if they are in play.

 

 

 

The mechanics are the rules, the meta-principles are the objects. One of the meta-principles (written into the rules) is effects based definition.

 

We postulate the existence of an invisible ball: effects based definition.

 

And draw a logical conlusion from its existance: the need for a talented adjudicator.

 

It is possible that we are talking past each other.

 

For me, a part of the matter comes back to the following statment which you made above:

 

The GM isn't contradicting the mechanics when he says a mundane rapier can't hack through a three inch thick iron bound metal door irrespective of the body damage it can do because the special effect is a part of the rules-side definition of the object.

 

It may make some gamers uncomfortable, but effects based definition is a part of the system. Its a rule.

 

OK, let us assume that some other GM allows a rapier to break down a three inch thick iron bound oak door. Is he breaking the Hero rules by doing so?

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Mechanics and Rules won't fix bad GMing' date=' just like Rules and Mechanics won't make good Players. So really, moot point.[/quote']

That all depends on what you want out of a game. I actually had one of my favorite gaming experiences inspite of the GM.

 

If the GM wants to say "you can't," but you can show him in the rule book where it says that "you can," then you can sometimes (depending on the GM) still get away with doing what you want to do.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

This thread is actually a spin off from the discussion over in the special effects poll thread.

 

The issue here is the relationship between game systems and GM judgement.

 

 

Added on Edit: This is also an issue about the difference between a game like Hero (which has a bit more rules than some other games), and games which might be described as "rules-lite." I personally like to have predefined game mechanics and actually use them to resolve combat, rather than relying on the GM. But if one feels that it would be better to work from a GM's judgement, then why not opt to move in a more "rules lite" direction?

 

 

And to pick up from the other thread. . . .

 

 

But there is a difference between situations which which go beyond the game mechanics, and situations where the GM contradicts the game mechanics.

I see it as a continuum, not a hard line. To use the rapier example from the other thread, most of us can agree what a rapier is and what it does. But to me the sfx trumps the build; and I'm not going to allow a character with an ordinary rapier chop through a bank vault door regardless of extra damage generated from martial arts, Skill levels, or other factors such as Find Weakness.

 

It is not like there is no GM input when I'm running a game, I just tend to stay out of areas which are already covered by the game mechanics.

Me too. But I'll override the rules if I think the result is illogical or contrary to the story. The rules are my tool; I don't work for them.

 

If you don't agree on every issue, and you start overriding the game mechanics with your own personal judgement calls, it seems to me that you'd lose some of your common framework.

That's always been simple enough to deal with with two simple guidelines 1) We can discuss issues we disagree on in game with the understanding that 2) The GM running the current session has the final say within his scenario.

 

We very seldom have serious disagreements, because we talk over game issues on a fairly regular basis outside of game sessions.

[schir1964]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I think this is touching on a subject that was discussed before in a thread a couple of years ago.

 

With Hero you could define the different aspects of the RPG into the following:

 

• Campaign: The imaginary world/universe the GM creates to interactively tell a story with the players. The GM defines many of the Campaigns rules that define how it works and how the characters are viewed by the world in general. Typically, this aspect is where the GM may exert direct influence over the story. If the GM exerts this influence in a manner that is too inconsistent, the players may think they are nothing more than pawns in the story the GM is telling (equates to no fun).
  
• Player Characters: This aspect is what grants the Player direct influence over the story and the campaign world. The PC tends to be the protagonist of the story being told. The player can only have as much affect as the character the control allows. The character's actions is the one aspect that the Player may have absolute control over (disadvantages grant the GM some control over the PC, but the player decides this at character creation). Certain powers may allow other players to have influence over the character, but the player knows this at the beginning and chooses to build the character to mitigate this or whether the Campaign is one they want to play in or not.
  
• Non-Player Characters: This aspect is what grants the GM direct influence over the story and the campaign world. This is similar to PCs, but they can sometimes be part of the Campaign world. Blurring this too much can create sense of helplessness in the players since NPCs tend to be the antagonists of the story.
  
• Mechanics: This aspect is what gives the Players a framework for which to know how the PCs can interact in the Story/Campaign and have an idea of the results from that interaction. If the mechanics allow for some uncertainty, then the Player knows this and can expect that uncertainty. If the mechanics are reliable, then the player will expect consistency in that reliability.
  

 

 

The GM has the power to ignore the mechanics and results of the mechanics in order to make the story better (possibly even for the players). But there is fine line that must not be crossed. If the GM does this too much, then the players will no longer have framework for interacting with the story/campaign since they have nothing to base their expectations on as far as the mechanics.

 

The GM has the power to adhere to the mechanics and let the results of the mechanics drive the story. While this is consistent it could end the story early for one or more of the players. As long as the players know this from the start and have some way to re-enter the story then frustration can be avoided.

 

In addition, there are some mechanic results that are easily ignored with very little frustration for the players (such as a good to-hit roll), but there are other mechanics that are more difficult to avoid frustrating the players if ignored (such as a good damage roll).

 

Just A Summation

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Of course that is only one motivation a GM might have for "breaking the rules." Some GMs will try to railroad the PCs' date=' and breaking the rules is often a good way to do that. This situation often comes up if the rules allow the PCs to do something which doesn't fit with the GM's plans.[/quote']No set of rules, no matter how complete, will solve bad gamemastering. But overriding the rules is not a hallmark of a bad GM. Bad GMs might alter the rules to fit their own agenda, but so might a good GM.

 

Overriding the rules still shouldn't be an everyday occurrence; it should be done only when the sfx would logically trump the rules as written.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I see it as a continuum, not a hard line. To use the rapier example from the other thread, most of us can agree what a rapier is and what it does. But to me the sfx trumps the build; and I'm not going to allow a character with an ordinary rapier chop through a bank vault door regardless of extra damage generated from martial arts, Skill levels, or other factors such as Find Weakness.

I like your example above because it shows how some of these concepts can become more complex (with martial arts, skill levels and other factors such as find weakness).

 

I agree that it may be possible to reach some agreement about what a rapier is and what it does in the hands of Joe Average.

 

But what about what a rapier can do in the hands of a martial arts master with some mystical ability to find weakness? And what about such a character who exists in a world which, rather than being based upon our reality, is based on heroic fiction where increadible events can and do happen?

 

I think that there is a great deal of room for honest disagreement about what such a character could do with the weapon. And matters can get even worse when some of the players actually have a stake in the outcome---having your character involved in the events can cloud objectivity.

 

 

 

Also, if you are unhappy with the damage that a rapier can do against a vault door, are you also unhappy with the damage that a rapier can do against an iron golem?

 

And what about other types of blades, are you going to let my character hack down a vault door with a short sword? What about a long sword?

 

It seems to me that, if the system is so far off when it comes to rapiers against heavy targets, some of the same problems are likely to exist with a wider range of weapons and a wider range of targets.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

That's always been simple enough to deal with with two simple guidelines 1) We can discuss issues we disagree on in game with the understanding that 2) The GM running the current session has the final say within his scenario.

 

We very seldom have serious disagreements, because we talk over game issues on a fairly regular basis outside of game sessions.

But that brings us back to the question of why you can't get by with a rules lite system.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I like your example above because it shows how some of these concepts can become more complex (with martial arts, skill levels and other factors such as find weakness).

 

I agree that it may be possible to reach some agreement about what a rapier is and what it does in the hands of Joe Average.

 

But what about what a rapier can do in the hands of a martial arts master with some mystical ability to find weakness? And what about such a character who exists in a world which, rather than being based upon our reality, is based on heroic fiction where increadible events can and do happen?

That would depend on the setting and genre. A swashbuckler in a pirates campaign is not hacking through a stone wall with a rapier - in fact, the sword will probably break the second or third time he hits it. Blademaster, the sword-wielding superhero with a mystic sword and applicable Find Weakness is likely to be another thing entirely. My general approach is if the player paid points for it or it's his schtick it's probably going to be a lot more effective than a picked up weapon.

 

I think that there is a great deal of room for honest disagreement about what such a character could do with the weapon. And matters can get even worse when some of the players actually have a stake in the outcome---having your character involved in the events can cloud objectivity.

Agreed. That's why we discuss character concepts with each other. With most of us being GMs as well as players we have a fair amount of insight into what would be unbalancing in game as well as an incentive to be fair. (It also helps that we're all friends first and foremost, then fellow gamers.) It is also incumbent upon the GM of each scenario to give some thought to likely combinations of abilities and defenses before play starts. He isn't going to be able to foresee everything, but the examination beforehand is likely to provide some probable guidelines for unforeseen conflicts.

 

Also, if you are unhappy with the damage that a rapier can do against a vault door, are you also unhappy with the damage that a rapier can do against an iron golem?

Whatever gave you the idea I'm unhappy with the damage a rapier can do to a bank vault? In point of fact, a typical rapier in the hands of a normal won't do more than scratch a modern steel bank vault door. That seem perfectly reasonable to me. I can't see it being any better against an iron golem were I to throw such a thing at my players.

 

And what about other types of blades, are you going to let my character hack down a vault door with a short sword? What about a long sword?

 

It seems to me that, if the system is so far off when it comes to rapiers against heavy targets, some of the same problems are likely to exist with a wider range of weapons and a wider range of targets.

In general, I'm not going to allow any sword to cut through a bank vault unless it's magic or the tech equivalent (light saber, sonic blade, monomolecular edge, etc.) The issue is not something I've given no thought to even for our Champions game because we have a PC MA with a special sword (the Green Destiny sword from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) and whose backstory had him punching through steel plates as a mere teenager using his chi. But the Green Destiny is still bought with the Real Weapon Limitation and even though he can do 3d6+1 HKA with it he's not cutting through vault doors (even if he might be able to knock it off its hinges using his bare hands and Find Weakness).

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

But that brings us back to the question of why you can't get by with a rules lite system.

Because I need a system with enough meat to base GM rulings on. There still has to be some logic to the GM overruling the rules. Most GM rulings are probably just common sense applied to situations the rules didn't anticipate.

[Vondy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

But that brings us back to the question of why you can't get by with a rules lite system.

 

I find this tack you're taking disturbing. You started it with me and are now moving on to Treb. We like Hero. That is sufficient. The fact that we also embrace effects based definition and good judgement makes it no less our system than anyone elses. Why should we "get by" with a rules light system? What point is there in this line of questioning?

[Vondy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

It is possible that we are talking past each other.

 

For me, a part of the matter comes back to the following statment which you made above:

 

The GM isn't contradicting the mechanics when he says a mundane rapier can't hack through a three inch thick iron bound metal door irrespective of the body damage it can do because the special effect is a part of the rules-side definition of the object.

 

It may make some gamers uncomfortable, but effects based definition is a part of the system. Its a rule.

 

OK, let us assume that some other GM allows a rapier to break down a three inch thick iron bound oak door. Is he breaking the Hero rules by doing so?

 

Yes.

 

He is ignoring effects based definition.

 

Effects based definition is written explicitly in the rules.

 

He is ignoring a basic premise of the system.

 

There is the letter of the law, and the intent of the law.

 

He's got one and not the other.

 

Nor much horse sense.

[Vondy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Overriding the rules still shouldn't be an everyday occurrence; it should be done only when the sfx would logically trump the rules as written.

 

Agreed, but that judgement - when mechanics of effects take precedence - is the sign of a "talented adjudicator."

[Vondy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

.

 

That's always been simple enough to deal with with two simple guidelines 1) We can discuss issues we disagree on in game with the understanding that 2) The GM running the current session has the final say within his scenario.

 

We very seldom have serious disagreements, because we talk over game issues on a fairly regular basis outside of game sessions.

 

This has been our method, and experience as well.

 

Communication, communication, communication.

 

I owe you Rep.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I find this tack you're taking disturbing. You started it with me and are now moving on to Treb. We like Hero. That is sufficient. The fact that we also embrace effects based definition and good judgement makes it no less our system than anyone elses. Why should we "get by" with a rules light system? What point is there in this line of questioning?

I think, since it's clear Warp9 himself prefers a rules-heavy approach to gaming, that he's trying to push us all the way into the "rules lite" camp to make some kind of point. What that point might be escapes me, unless he's trying to make us look like some kind of wild-eyed-gaming-anarchist-radicals so his preferred rules-heavy "statist" approach looks more reasonable.