Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

The basic message is that if you want a rule system to cover every possibility then you are either going to limit the in-game possibilities or you are going to have an extremely large multi-FRED sized volume of rulebooks.

We already do limit in-game possibilities to some extent.

 

In many games, a character can't pick up and use an item he hasn't paid points for.

 

A character doesn't increase his stats simply by going to the gym (without experience anyway).

 

My teleporting character can teleport the mass of a whole person, but he can't teleport just that person's head.

 

 

 

 

The next basic message is that if you have a decent rule framework (like Hero) then you can add the detail where you want. The GM needs to take an interest either - for the liking of someone like Warp9- during character creation to ensure that all builds are valid for the game you intend to play in or - for other people - when things come up in play.

 

Obviously the level of trust you have in the GM will dictate to what extent you veer toward the former or latter positions.

 

I dont think anyone want an Encyclopedia Brittanica core ruleset....

 

 

Doc

Hmm. "Encyclopedia Brittanica core ruleset."

 

Very interesting concept.

 

I've never seen a set of rules that was too complex for me. I've seen bad rules. But never rules that were too complex.

[Starlight]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

The basic message is that if you want a rule system to cover every possibility then you are either going to limit the in-game possibilities or you are going to have an extremely large multi-FRED sized volume of rulebooks.

 

We already do limit in-game possibilities to some extent.

 

In many games, a character can't pick up and use an item he hasn't paid points for.

 

A character doesn't increase his stats simply by going to the gym (without experience anyway).

 

My teleporting character can teleport the mass of a whole person, but he can't teleport just that person's head.

 

You are not restricted to just a choice between no rules or covering every possible aspect of the game experience by rules. There's a middle ground. That middle ground is where every game that isn't entirely free-form resides.

 

The only truly realistic model of the real world IS the real world. Every other model is limited in both scope and accuracy. If you want a set of rules that models as accurately as currently possible the real world there is a place to find them. Try any reasonable comprehensive University Library. I recommend starting in the Physics section. Six or seven years of study, undergraduate and doctorate, will give you a pretty good start towards applying that rule set.

 

Alternatively you pick a rule set that hopefully combines moderate realism, consistency, clarity, and conciseness, and trust the game master to use (and also sometimes ignore) those rules to create a game world that is fun to play in. Good rules are a framework on which to build a game. They are not a straitjacket to confine and negate the imagination of the game master and players.

 

If you cannot trust the game master you have then you need to look for another game master. If you cannot trust any game master then quite possibly you need to look for an alternative hobby. No feasible, usable, rule set can cover the diversity of role-playing experience. No feasible, usable, rule set can be strictly applied with no use of game master judgement - without at some stage, and probably very early on, shattering the 'willing suspension of disbelief' that makes a game come to life.

[SteveZilla]

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']

 

I agree that Hero System depends upon the GM more than the Rules-Lite games, but the GM should still follow the rules of mechanics. He can fudge dice rolls and effect values, but the*how* of any certain power shouldn't be modified on a whim.

 

Personal Experience: I was in a group (gaming on my Lunch Hour from work ) when my character was "grabbed Telekinetically and smashed into a teammate!" I responed, "Okay, I roll my casual STR to resist the Grab." GM says "Nope." And I never got an answer why.

 

Grabs, regardless of the power involved (TK, Stretching, or just regular STR) *don't* deprive you of the ability to resist it before being hurled. Yet, "in the interest of a good story", my character was deprived of this. Didn't make for a good story element from where I was standing.

 

Building a NPC's powers one way and playing them as if build another way (on a recurring basis) is just plain wrong. As is using different character construction rules for PCs and NPCs. What's good for the Goose...

 

Suppose I started telling the GM that those my character grabbed didn't get their breakout rolls because I thought that made for a good story?

 

Sorry. Rant over now. I just expect the GM to be impartial. If he's not impartial, he's also not consistent IMO. And I can't count on that GM to be consistent in his inconsistencies to both sides. Thus this GM has introduced a bias into his game.

 

If that was Gary Gygax's last word on the subject of GMs, IMO he was a bit heavy handed, and not entirely correct. The *real* last word lies not with the GM, but with the player's ability to get up and walk out of a game. I have done this. Yes, the game goes on without me, but I refuse to support and contribute my time and energy to a badly biased game.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Personal Experience: I was in a group (gaming on my Lunch Hour from work ) when my character was "grabbed Telekinetically and smashed into a teammate!" I responed' date=' "Okay, I roll my casual STR to resist the Grab." GM says "Nope." And I never got an answer why.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure if there's a disconnect, or if we're talking oranges and apples ... or what.

 

But Trabuchet and I are NOT talking about situations like this. Where a Bad GM makes a Bad Decision.

 

What Treb and I are saying is that the Hero System builds into itself a set of Guidelines (not Mechanics, not Rules) to handle the SFX of an item and what's going to happen. And these are judged and metered out by the GM (hopefully with some player input).

 

Now, Mechanics does play a part. If you're expecting a thing (say, a Rapier) to act like that thing, but have not built all the Mechanics into it (like, say, Real Weapon) that's a discussion that needs to happen between GM and Player to determine exactly why either this particular Rapier should be modeled more correctly to expectations (thus the GMs judgement then makes sense) or why the GMs judgement call should be amended (it's not a normal Rapier, for instance, and its magic does in fact allow it to slice open an iron bound door...)

 

Gaming is a contract between Players and GM. And then in game the GM is asked to mitigate anything that comes up. And Hero System builds in a whole slew of things that it won't even pretend to anticipate leaving out a whole number of things and then provided a set of guidelines to judge them.

 

Rules Heavy AND GM Trust.

 

stunning really. It's like a whole gaming contract between a group of like minded people...

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Despite the thread title, this debate is about special effects vs printed mechanics. The GM has to "fill in the blank" sometimes because no set of rules can cover every situation and item; and occasionally that process has to trump what's put in the writeup; like the fact that a rapier used against a heavy iron-shod wooden door would break long before it succeeded in chopping through the door.

 

That doesn't mean someone armed with said broken rapier couldn't eventually chisel his way through said door; but that would undoubtedly take a long time and Hero doesn't have any strict method to determine incremental damage like that. Barring an obscene - and ridiculously unrealistic - amount of BODY, someone who can manage even 1 BODY per Phase to an object can chop through almost anything in just a minute or two. How long that process would take is going to be a GM call based on what he or she knows about cutting through wood with the incorrect tools.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

So do you think that a shotgun should be able to take both "reduced penetration" and "real weapon" limitations?

 

If the answer is "yes" then why is it not OK for the guy building the rapier to do that as well?

 

Dunno. It's never come up in any of my games. If it did come up, I would look to the rules for guidance, and make a judgement based on my own experience and understanding (taking into account any input my players gave).

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

 

 

 

 

Even though the GM can step in and deal with the issue of the rapier vs the heavy door, it seems to me that we can still fix the mechanics so that he does not have to do so. Instead of dealing with this point, people have just re-itereated the idea that the GM has the power to use his own judgement to fix things, and tried to make this into an argument about whether or not the GM has that power or not.

 

In my personal case, I'd say you do start to get to some issues of diminishing returns; in particular, the matter at hand turns on how the mechanics of damaging objects or barriers is done, and I don't think that works very well for conventional weapons in almost any game. While theoretically you could set up rules for the specifics of the problem you're looking at, I'd have to question whether the system overhead justifies the process, honestly.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

You are not restricted to just a choice between no rules or covering every possible aspect of the game experience by rules.

It is not really a question of whether or not you "can" do it. It is more a question of how things should be.

 

There are many options for middle ground.

 

Clearly many games get by just fine with a much smaller rule set than Hero. Being "rules lite" doesn't mean that they have "no rules," it just means that they have less rules.

 

 

The only truly realistic model of the real world IS the real world. Every other model is limited in both scope and accuracy. If you want a set of rules that models as accurately as currently possible the real world there is a place to find them. Try any reasonable comprehensive University Library. I recommend starting in the Physics section. Six or seven years of study, undergraduate and doctorate, will give you a pretty good start towards applying that rule set.

I agree with the above. But it misses the point.

 

We really don't need a "truly realistic model" just one that is in the ball park.

 

The Physics piont is good, in that is shows the world does follow patterns which can be modeled. And while to deal some physical processes may require an advanced degree, others can be handled by a first semester Physics student.

 

IMO the goal is to get a "pesudo-Physics" which models things well enough for a game. That is what I'd describe the goal of game mechanics as being.

 

 

 

 

No feasible, usable, rule set can cover the diversity of role-playing experience.

First, that depends on how diverse you want to get. As I've mentioned, it is clear that many game already intenionally limit the PCs from doing somethings (such as bumping their stats up for free by simply going to the gym, or constantly using an item that they did not pay point for).

 

Second, depending on what limitations you are willing to live with, it may very well be possible to come up with a rule set that does enough and is still feasible.

 

 

 

No feasible, usable, rule set can be strictly applied with no use of game master judgement - without at some stage, and probably very early on, shattering the 'willing suspension of disbelief' that makes a game come to life.

Again, there are a number of factors which will probably violate some people's 'willing suspension of disbelief' no matter what, a game is not going to be 100% realistic. And adding a GM's judgement calls will probably not make it 100% realistic.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Despite the thread title, this debate is about special effects vs printed mechanics. The GM has to "fill in the blank" sometimes because no set of rules can cover every situation and item; and occasionally that process has to trump what's put in the writeup; like the fact that a rapier used against a heavy iron-shod wooden door would break long before it succeeded in chopping through the door.

 

There is a larger question about whether or not the rules can cover ALL possible situations and items. But even if you do not agree with that concept, the example with the rapier vs the door is not an example of using an exotic weapon in some bizzare manner.

 

The mechanics do cover the rapier and the metal bound wooden door. And simply using a weapon, in a straight forward manner, against a target with X Defense and Y BODY, is not IMO a "special" situation or at least is should not be.

 

And making it so that a weapon bounces harmlessly off an object is EASY in Hero, just make sure the stats are correct.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

There is a larger question about whether or not the rules can cover ALL possible situations and items. But even if you do not agree with that concept' date=' the example with the rapier vs the door is not an example of using an exotic weapon in some bizzare manner.[/quote']Au contraire. No non-fictional sword should be used to hack through building material; and a rapier would be among the poorest choices to attempt it with.

 

The mechanics do cover the rapier and the metal bound wooden door. And simply using a weapon, in a straight forward manner, against a target with X Defense and Y BODY, is not IMO a "special" situation or at least is should not be.

Really? What's the DEF of the metal reinforcement compared to that of the wood? (The Hero system really doesn't handle non-homogenous items at all.) How thick is either? How much more time will it require if the reinforcement is steel instead of bronze or iron?

 

And making it so that a weapon bounces harmlessly off an object is EASY in Hero, just make sure the stats are correct.

Sure, but making it take 10 or 20 minutes to cut through is not so easy. Either you do 1 or more BODY per attack and cut through anything without a ridiculous amount of BODY in a Turn or so, or you can't get through it at all. There's no real middle ground. The GM has to make the call in such a case. Making it work differently would require a completely way of calculating defenses, BODY, and damage.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Despite the thread title' date=' this debate is about special effects vs printed mechanics.[/quote']

There are larger issues involving GM judgement than the concerns about special effects.

 

 

This thread is also about the question of how far it is practical to go with an "automated" system. If we notice that something is wrong with the mechanics, do we try to fix them? Or do we simple assume it is simply not possible to fix them, and decide that the only way to proceed is to allow a human to enter the picture and correct the problem on a case by case basis? That could be about special effects, but it could be about many other things as well, the rules for character building would be another example (do we try to limit bad builds by "Rule of X" methods, or is it all on a case by case basis).

 

 

 

It is also about how trustworthy human judgement actually is. Is it a matter of having a few bad GMs, or is it that all GMs are human, and all GMs make mistakes from time to time?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

It is also about how trustworthy human judgement actually is. Is it a matter of having a few bad GMs' date=' or is it that all GMs are human, and all GMs make mistakes from time to time?[/quote']All of the above, of course.

 

I don't expect perfection from my GMs (nor do I make any claim to be perfect when I'm GMing); all I ask is they make an honest attempt to resolve any game problems.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

There is a larger question about whether or not the rules can cover ALL possible situations and items. But even if you do not agree with that concept, the example with the rapier vs the door is not an example of using an exotic weapon in some bizzare manner.

Au contraire. No non-fictional sword should be used to hack through building material; and a rapier would be among the poorest choices to attempt it with.

That's right. Nor is a 1d6 RKA pistol a good choice to shoot a tank with. The diffrence is that the "pistol vs tank" works out fine with the current mechanics. All you have to do is roll the damage and subtract the defences, and the bullet will bounce right off.

 

 

The mechanics do cover the rapier and the metal bound wooden door. And simply using a weapon, in a straight forward manner, against a target with X Defense and Y BODY, is not IMO a "special" situation or at least is should not be.

Really? What's the DEF of the metal reinforcement compared to that of the wood? (The Hero system really doesn't handle non-homogenous items at all.) How thick is either? How much more time will it require if the reinforcement is steel instead of bronze or iron?

Just how accurate do you want things to be?

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

All of the above, of course.

 

I don't expect perfection from my GMs (nor do I make any claim to be perfect when I'm GMing); all I ask is they make an honest attempt to resolve any game problems.

 

To me, a part of it is that a human GM might subconsciously favor some players.

 

I believe that often a player who is charismatic and persuasive is likely to get better treatment than a "rules lawyer," who the GM may not like that much, and who he may feel is already trying to take advantage of the rules anyway.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Just how accurate do you want things to be?

Oh, about where they are now.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

To me, a part of it is that a human GM might subconsciously favor some players.

 

I believe that often a player who is charismatic and persuasive is likely to get better treatment than a "rules lawyer," who the GM may not like that much, and who he may feel is already trying to take advantage of the rules anyway.

Sounds to me like the rules lawyer might need to improve his interpersonal skills. Rules lawyers are seldom popular with anyone. The relationship between players and between players and GMs shouldn't be an adversarial one. That's not something that can be regulated with rules.

 

While I won't deny that preferences almost certainly exist in any human interaction, I'd prefer to see it as something positive that goes along with the social aspects of roleplaying. I roleplay with my friends; people who I like to spend time with regardless of what we're doing.

[Alibear]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

If you want to remove the human GM aspect then you really should be playing an online 'roleplaying' game not a social contact game.

 

I like Hero as it gives me the GM guidelines how to do things but I rarely strictly follow the rules in game. I use Hero to give me a feeling for GMing not as a straightjacket.

 

I know the rules and like the rules but am not constrained by them. They are there to help me get things in perspective not to hold me back.

 

I wonder if that's very clear? Re-reading my post I would have to say that it isn't but what are you gonna do?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

As a GM, I want a system that allows me to make a ruling when I need it. When I am telling a story I dont want the rules to be telling me that the drama needs to stop because the rules dont allow for it.

 

One of my most successful games had, at its centre, me completely ignoring the rules about mental illusions - it was a haunted house scenario for superheroes and when the heroes had ignored or discounted all of the 'outs' I had provided them then things inside the house began to change at my whim. The players, by this time, knew it was illusion and that I was not going to be rolling dice or working out effects and that they were effectively now being funnelled to the final fight of the scenario and that loss of control actually added to the element of horror that the characters should have been feeling at that time.

 

One conversation with the players went

Player1 "OK, I've had enough. We're getting out of here."

 

me "How"

 

Player1 "Through the door, obviously"

 

me "What door?"

 

Player2 "Well the windows..."

 

me "What windows?"

 

Player3 "I dont suppose that I can blast through these plasterboard walls?"

 

me "The only door you can see is the one to the kitchen where there is a dim red pulsing light coming from the cellar door. Your energy blasts simply flare against the walls, not even singeing the wallpaper. It begins to grow dark and the darkness herds you towards the kitchen.

 

Do you want to wait until the darkness envelops you or will you go to the kitchen."

 

AllPlayers "Oh *****!"

 

 

To have stopped and rolled or even stopped and compared pre-rolls with stats etc detracts from the drama of that situation. The players knew where they had made mistakes, they knew they had missed the opportunity to avoid the fight that had been trailed for them earlier in the session and they were enjoying the story enough to ignore the rolls and start thinking about the fight to come.

 

GM call to improve the game by completely abandoning the rules. You have to trust your GM to make things a better gaming experience and if you cant then you GM yourself or find a better GM. No amount of rules will make a bad GM a better one and the best GMs often go off piste to make the game more enjoyable.

 

 

Doc

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

As a GM, I want a system that allows me to make a ruling when I need it. When I am telling a story I dont want the rules to be telling me that the drama needs to stop because the rules dont allow for it.

 

 

There's a fundamental divide here though; to me, being a GM is not about telling stories; its about setting up situations that let stories occur. If the rules don't let the stories I want to occur do so, that's a sign I need to change the rules, not that I want to ignore them.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

There's a fundamental divide here though; to me' date=' being a GM is not about telling stories; its about setting up situations that let stories occur. If the rules don't let the stories I want to occur do so, that's a sign I need to change the rules, not that I want to ignore them.[/quote']

 

let me rephrase then.

 

When I am facilitating a story I dont want the rules to be telling me that the drama needs to stop because the rules dont allow for it.

 

In the example I provided I did ignore the rules. It was a one off ignore because I believed that the story and the game would benefit. It was a judgement call.

 

I didn't want to change the metal illusion rules I just didn't want to use them at that point in the game...

 

 

Doc

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I didn't want to change the metal illusion rules I just didn't want to use them at that point in the game...

 

 

Doc

 

And to me, the latter is intrinsically undesirable, both as a GM and a player. Its either the sign of inconsistency in the world, or that the rules aren't versatile enough to serve the purposes needed.

 

If mental illusions don't work the way you want them to once (especially with a build and modify system like Hero) to me, they probably just don't work. To me that's a sign they should be fixed, not ignored.

[Maur]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Or since this was for dramatic effect and not for player use a build wasn't needed.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Or since this was for dramatic effect and not for player use a build wasn't needed.

 

I've never been fond of effects the GM simply pulls out of thin air that can't otherwise be approximated by a player, barring issues of degree that are simply not practical in-scale to the campaign. While I agree they're sometimes a necessary evil, I still consider them an evil.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I've never been fond of effects the GM simply pulls out of thin air that can't otherwise be approximated by a player' date=' barring issues of degree that are simply not practical in-scale to the campaign. While I agree they're sometimes a necessary evil, I still consider them an evil.[/quote']

 

Then that is indeed where we part company....anything that adds to the fun of the game is not (and cannot be) evil.

 

 

Doc

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Then that is indeed where we part company....anything that adds to the fun of the game is not (and cannot be) evil.

 

 

Doc

 

But you see, in the long run I'm of the opinion that's a habit that does more harm to the fun of a game than good; it leads to lazy GMing, and lazy GMing leads to a lot of negative experiences.

 

So essentially, I don't buy the premise that this really _does_ add to the fun of the game. At most the limits of process sometimes make it a necessity, but like most such things its not a virtue in and of itself.