Jump to content

Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement


Warp9

Recommended Posts

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Because I don't want to use a "rules lite" system. Not only do I like Hero a great deal just as it is' date=' but I also have co-GMs who have differing levels of comfort with the level of provided rules. I concede I could probably run with a lighter rules system, but why switch systems when this one works quite well, I have decades of experience with it, and I also have to take my co-GMs own preferences into account (as well as that of my players who are not GMs)?[/quote']

Fair enough. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 357
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Fair enough. :)
No one game system is going to satisfy everyone. Some players will be happy with a mere pamphlet of rules; others want a system the size of the Greater Tokyo phone directory. Neither is wrong, but neither is quite what I want either. Even Hero isn't exactly perfect from my POV (I absolutely loathe the Stun Lotto), but it's a close enough approximation that it'll work until something better comes along.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Actually I'm just assuming that if other GMs can make their calls using a rules lite system, then so can you.

 

I have faith in you! :)

 

How can you disagree with that? :P

 

why are you telling Trebuchet what type of system he should be using?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

The guy with the rapier and the guy with the battle axe pay the same points for their 1d6+1 attacks; why should the guy with the battle axe get a (major?) mechanical advantage for his points (that is' date=' the ability to chop down doors)?[/quote']

One thing would be that if they're paying points, they can probably both chop down doors, because they're in a superheroic genre and they probably don't buy the real weapon limitation. The inability to chop down doors isn't just a function of special effect; it's a function of that limitation. Without it, the rapier becomes an uber-rapier to rival the uber-katana of fiction, and it can most certainly chop down a door, or into a bank vault, or through a tank's main gun.

 

There are cases in Hero which inexplicably place different points values on different special effets (see: missile deflection, which should be costed differently in heroic and superheroic games, IMO), but they're more spot-problems with the rules than a problem with the theory in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

The guy with the rapier and the guy with the battle axe pay the same points for their 1d6+1 attacks; why should the guy with the battle axe get a (major?) mechanical advantage for his points (that is' date=' the ability to chop down doors)?[/quote']

 

In a campaign where I'd most likely have characters using rapiers and battle axes, they would most likely be paid for (in-game) with money, not points. A battleaxe is a much less expensive (and less prestigious) weapon than a Rapier, in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest steamteck

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Actually I'm just assuming that if other GMs can make their calls using a rules lite system, then so can you.

 

I have faith in you! :)

 

How can you disagree with that? :P

 

Well your faith is maybe misplaced if I"m included.:nonp: I find rules light systems exhausting to run while HERO has already thought out so much I can concentrate on a thrilling story and role playing instead of constantly making off the cuff decisions that then become unofficial "law'.:idjit:

 

HERO has enough detail to get the flavor I like and take most of the "nuts and Bolts' decision making off me so I can get down to business.:thumbup:

 

With HERO everyone knows the basic Physics of the universe are pretty stable so they feel more comfortable in that universe. it hits everyone's comfort level just about perfectly for character detail also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

One thing would be that if they're paying points' date=' they can probably both chop down doors, because they're in a superheroic genre and they probably don't buy the [i']real weapon[/i] limitation. The inability to chop down doors isn't just a function of special effect; it's a function of that limitation. Without it, the rapier becomes an uber-rapier to rival the uber-katana of fiction, and it can most certainly chop down a door, or into a bank vault, or through a tank's main gun.

 

Ah! Now you're bringing Genre and Genre Convention into things - both of which usually involve heavy amounts of GM Judgement call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

why are you telling Trebuchet what type of system he should be using?

 

If not Warp9' date=' who? :P[/quote']

 

Exactly! :)

 

And now, we get to the topic of what system ghost-angel should be using. . . . :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

One thing would be that if they're paying points' date=' they can probably both chop down doors, because they're in a superheroic genre and they probably don't buy the [i']real weapon[/i] limitation. The inability to chop down doors isn't just a function of special effect; it's a function of that limitation. Without it, the rapier becomes an uber-rapier to rival the uber-katana of fiction, and it can most certainly chop down a door, or into a bank vault, or through a tank's main gun.

If we can all agree that a rapier, which was paid for with points, and which was built without the "real weapon" limitation, would be able to chop down doors, then I'd be happy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

One thing would be that if they're paying points' date=' they can probably both chop down doors, because they're in a superheroic genre and they probably don't buy the [i']real weapon[/i] limitation. The inability to chop down doors isn't just a function of special effect; it's a function of that limitation. Without it, the rapier becomes an uber-rapier to rival the uber-katana of fiction, and it can most certainly chop down a door, or into a bank vault, or through a tank's main gun.

 

Ah! Now you're bringing Genre and Genre Convention into things - both of which usually involve heavy amounts of GM Judgement call.

It sounds to me as if all he's saying is that if you send points for something it plays by the rules as written. And if those rules say that a rapier can bring down a big door, then so be it.

 

Obviously the "real world weapon" limitation involves some GM Judgement calls, I don't think that anybody would argue otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I thought the Beam limitation could also hinder things like rapiers chopping through doors.

 

And as far as "no one is perfect" being an argument against GMs with good judgement and GMs with bad judgement, unless you have a copy of "The Ten Commandments: the role playing game" handy, the game designers are human too. They can have agendas. They can make silly rules. They can make mistakes too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

If we can all agree that a rapier' date=' which was paid for with points, and which was built without the "[i']real weapon[/i]" limitation, would be able to chop down doors, then I'd be happy. :)

 

Or it was built wrong.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

It sounds to me as if all he's saying is that if you spend points for something it plays by the rules as written. And if those rules say that a rapier can bring down a big door, then so be it.

 

Obviously the "real world weapon" limitation involves some GM Judgement calls, I don't think that anybody would argue otherwise.

What I'm saying is that if points were paid for it, it's more likely to play as written. That's no guarantee it will work as written when I GM; I take that on a case by case basis.

 

Let me give an actual example from a Champions scenario I ran over 20 years ago: The team was fighting a bunch of agents (VIPER or the like) in an underground complex. They'd forced their way down the elevator shaft, leaving the elevator doors open to a shaft going down several more levels. During the course of the battle, an agent threw a grenade at the feet of one of our heroes who was a Green Beret. The character simply kicked the grenade down the nearby elevator shaft, where it exploded harmlessly a second later, and went on fighting. One of the other players complained that that wasn't fair, because she knew the grenade was simply built as a RKA EX with no delay. I told her 'No, it's a grenade. Grenades have timers and delay several seconds after they're thrown before they blow up, as we've all seen in countless war movies." Since I've personally witnessed a drill sergeant kick a live grenade into a grenade sump (ie, a deep hole dug for that exact purpose) before it blew up and thus prevent it from killing both him and the recruit who dropped it, I didn't think this was unrealistic. She grumbled a bit, but we went on with the game.

 

A bit later, the team captured one of the agents with several grenades on his belt. The same player who'd complained earlier was nearly ecstatic when she found out I'd let the characters throw the grenades and bounce them off walls to hit bad guys around corners or down staircases to hit bad guys they couldn't even see. The sfx giveth, and the sfx taketh away.

 

In both instances I was using what I know about hand grenades to run them as the sfx, not strictly as they were built. The build is not irrelevant, but it's not the trump either. Sfx, concept, and common sense take precedence in my campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

In both instances I was using what I know about hand grenades to run them as the sfx' date=' not strictly as they were built. The build is not irrelevant, but it's not the trump either. Sfx, concept, and common sense take precedence in my campaign.[/quote']

This is a perfect example of the balance and expectations of players I had posted about earlier.

 

Since you're the GM, you define the Campaign and the NPCs. Thus, generic grenades will always be built with a Triggered, Time Delay, and so forth (whatever would fit the SFX you described). It doesn't matter what might happen to be written on some NPC sheet, it's considered a typo in the build criteria for generic grenades in your campaign. And you were consistent in your application of the proper build and SFX.

 

Now if the player had purchased with points his own grenades without the Time Delay, his expectations would be that there wouldn't be a 2 Second Delay or whatever since that is why he built it that way. When he uses his grenades he expects them to explode on impact and has built them with that in mind, but if the GM then forces the SFX of generic grenades on them, it becomes a violation of the players expectations and would be inconsistent with the rules.

 

What a player would expect from the GM is to be told that his grenades are built incorrectly and need to be corrected before game play. Or simply be informed that he may have them built in that fashion, but that there will be downsides to having that missing time delay since you will consistently applying the SFX the player had in mind.

 

As long as the rules (including Campaign rules - such as all generic grenades are built with Time Delay regardless) are given and adhered to consistently, then the players know what to expect. It's when they aren't adhered to in a consistent manner that leads to problems for the players and the GM.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

One thing would be that if they're paying points' date=' they can probably both chop down doors, because they're in a superheroic genre and they probably don't buy the [i']real weapon[/i] limitation. The inability to chop down doors isn't just a function of special effect; it's a function of that limitation. Without it, the rapier becomes an uber-rapier to rival the uber-katana of fiction, and it can most certainly chop down a door, or into a bank vault, or through a tank's main gun.

 

In a campaign where I'd most likely have characters using rapiers and battle axes' date=' they would most likely be paid for (in-game) with money, not points. A battleaxe is a much less expensive (and less prestigious) weapon than a Rapier, in most cases.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I fully understand that. I'm just trying to put myself in Warp9's shoes to see where his argument is coming from. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Now if the player had purchased with points his own grenades without the Time Delay' date=' his expectations would be that there wouldn't be a 2 Second Delay or whatever since that is why he built it that way. When he uses his grenades he expects them to explode on impact and has built them with that in mind, but if the GM then forces the SFX of generic grenades on them, it becomes a violation of the players expectations and would be inconsistent with the rules.[/quote']

 

Using what I know about grenades, I would ask the player a few questions to clarify how his grenades would act. Some grenades are time-delayed, while others are (or, at least, historically were) impact-fused. I'd treat either as a 0-point advantage/limitation unless the impact-fused grenade could be set to detonate after a variable amount of impacts or the time-delayed grenade had an adjustable delay. But that's just me.

 

In one campaign I ran, several supers were trying to put out a tenament fire in Havana. One of the characters used a rowboat to scoop water from the harbor and douse the fire. Another character, whose energy blast was basically just a broad stream of water, was allowed to spread his energy blast (8d6) to fill seven hexes (his and the adjacent six) at 0d6, providing him with some protection from the flames while he rescued innocents. GM's fiat isn't always to the detriment of the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

If we can all agree that a rapier' date=' which was paid for with points, and which was built without the "[i']real weapon[/i]" limitation, would be able to chop down doors, then I'd be happy. :)

 

One of the players in my group is, outside the game, a rules lawyer. He looks at anything that is build in any book, and looks at the description and always reacts with "The way it is described isn't the way it is built" - he had immense fun with the strict reading of some spells in the grimoire II that needed some "handwavium".

 

And he would comment about the rapier much like you would.

 

In my games, anything I build has the details worked out, in mechanics, because I can. In pre built stuff, I expect some SFX "handwavium".

 

For how the SFX can give benefit or drawbacks in the game I would suggest reading Special Effects on page 96 of 5ER. It talks about powers having small drawbacks and advantages without having to purchase them.

 

I see the rapier on the door is one of them. The example in the book is a fire based character keeping friends warm in the cold. The character could buy LS Cold area usable by other, but it's just special effects. The ability of SFX to adjust and give small bonuses and lims without a cost differential is hardcoded into the system. It's just exactly where the "small" line is drawn is the difference.

 

If you are looking for a system that is built to give power to the rules and players to limiit the problems of a bad GM, take a look at Savage Worlds (IIRC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

In other words, the players are still the cause of more problems than GMs are. That being the case, I fail to see how cutting back the GM's authority leads to improvement of the game. The GM is the one who put the work into creating the scenario and/or campaign; he should by rights get more of the authority.

 

 

I used to buy that too, but I don't any more. GMs for the most part do the work they do because they like to GM. And its entirely possible if they don't want to do some of it to offload it on some of the players.

 

And while _individual_ players may cause more problems than GMs (because they're less prone to seeing the big picture), I think GMs cause more problems than the group _as a whole_ does, so I think giving them a collective tool to restrain his excesses is, on the whole, good.

 

 

Players and GMs should constitute a team. Making them into adversaries is a guaranteed way to destroy a campaign. Making the printed rules into some kind of Bible to pummel one group or another into submission sounds like an even worse idea.

 

Its a nice theory that the GM and players are a team, but the flat out reality is that in the majority of cases there are conflicts of interest on some levels involved, and some method other than "the GM wins" needs to be used for that. I've seen far worse problems when there weren't solid rules as the basis of discussion than when they were. Otherwise, it all comes down to what everyone's personal perceptions of the situation are, and that's not a jot better than arguing rules--far worse, in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

 

What a player would expect from the GM is to be told that his grenades are built incorrectly and need to be corrected before game play. Or simply be informed that he may have them built in that fashion, but that there will be downsides to having that missing time delay since you will consistently applying the SFX the player had in mind.

 

As long as the rules (including Campaign rules - such as all generic grenades are built with Time Delay regardless) are given and adhered to consistently, then the players know what to expect. It's when they aren't adhered to in a consistent manner that leads to problems for the players and the GM.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I agree completely. One of the functions a rules set does is to provide the players an interface into a game world; and the truth is, that interface is never going to match their real world experiences perfectly, even in cases where the real world is something they know about. (Just to be clear, I mean in areas where they have experience; a lot of people's knowledge of specific areas of life is lacking or formed by things they see in media.) In addition, there may well be genre or style based things that don't match reality at all.

 

Yet people need to be able to run characters who have some understanding of their world, in some cases a far better understanding than the player does. The only way to be able to even halfway consistently do this is when there's a set of rules in play that are visible to the players, so that even if they don't match the player's concept of reality, he can run his characters effectively. The more sketchy the rules are, the harder this is, since few players are able to read the mind of the GM.

 

(There _is_ a downside to this; when a given character is doing something they aren't familiar with, the player may know too _much_ about how things will likely resolve, but on the whole, I think its a far lesser sin to have characters who are overcompetent in judging areas outside their expertise than characters who are undercompetent in judging areas within it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I used to buy that too, but I don't any more. GMs for the most part do the work they do because they like to GM. And its entirely possible if they don't want to do some of it to offload it on some of the players.

 

And while _individual_ players may cause more problems than GMs (because they're less prone to seeing the big picture), I think GMs cause more problems than the group _as a whole_ does, so I think giving them a collective tool to restrain his excesses is, on the whole, good.

 

Its a nice theory that the GM and players are a team, but the flat out reality is that in the majority of cases there are conflicts of interest on some levels involved, and some method other than "the GM wins" needs to be used for that. I've seen far worse problems when there weren't solid rules as the basis of discussion than when they were. Otherwise, it all comes down to what everyone's personal perceptions of the situation are, and that's not a jot better than arguing rules--far worse, in fact.

 

Time to find another GM, methinks. If a player can't trust his GM to adjucate the game fairly, then it's time for that player to move on (or perhaps volunteer to GM, if he thinks he can do better). :)

 

As a GM, I've asked players to leave my game because I could tell they didn't trust me. I hope they found a better GM elsewhere. As a player, I've walked out of games where the GM couldn't be trusted. I hope those GMs were able to take my frustrations as a sign to grow better at their craft. But in no case did it really have much to do with the rules -- it had to do with trust and communication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Time to find another GM, methinks. If a player can't trust his GM to adjucate the game fairly, then it's time for that player to move on (or perhaps volunteer to GM, if he thinks he can do better). :)

 

 

Since I consider this a universal problem (its just a question of degree) I don't find that much of an answer, honestly.

 

 

As a GM, I've asked players to leave my game because I could tell they didn't trust me. I hope they found a better GM elsewhere. As a player, I've walked out of games where the GM couldn't be trusted. I hope those GMs were able to take my frustrations as a sign to grow better at their craft. But in no case did it really have much to do with the rules -- it had to do with trust and communication.

 

As I said, I trust the intentions of a GM or I don't play. But I don't trust the judgment of any GM absolutely, and nothing I've ever seen in the hobby tells me I should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Then we'll have to disagree' date=' because I don't see that at all.[/quote']

 

Then we'll have to, because that is, indeed my opinion. As I said, every GM exhibits poor judgement from time to time; the only questions are how frequently, how severely, and how willing he is to address it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I think there are two ideas getting confused here in the exchange.

 

I think there are two different definitions of "Trusting the GM" being used here.

 

One has to do with the intent of the GM using the rules to force the storyline against the players.

 

The other has to do with the GM making a mistake in rules interpretation or mis-judgment of application of the rules (with no real intent of forcing the storyline against the players).

 

- Christopher Mullilns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...