Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Then we'll have to' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

OK, he's human. I just don't see that as such a big deal. I personally won't play long with a GM I didn't trust but that doesn't mean I always expect perfection. If he's a complete jerk about something and blows you off time to find another GM. I normally play with close friends and we're on the same wavelength so maybe I don't see the problem because of that.

I do feel you really should find another GM if you feel you need "protection" from him.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Warp9 sorta reminds me of the legendary gambler Canada Bill. Bill was losing his entire bankroll at Faro when a friend approached and said, "Bill, don't you know this game is crooked?" "Yes," answered Canada Bill, "but it's the only game in town."

 

I'd rather not play than have to deal with a GM I could not trust. A heavier set of rules will not make a bad GM better. It will give him even more opportunity to misinterpret the rules to your detriment. There's an engineering proverb that applies here: "When attempting to make anything 'foolproof', never underestimate the ingenuity of a fool."

[Warp9]

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.

 

But at least having the rules spelled out in advance gives everybody a chance to see what they are. And they are not being written during a situation where the people in the game have a stake in the out come.

 

I agree that following the letter of the damage rules can lead to some silly results, but at least we know where we stand. If we follow the letter of the rules, I know what my magic short sword will do when I swing it at that brick wall. But if we are going on the GM's judgement that is a different matter, I have no idea what he'd say about magical short swords and brick walls.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

But at least having the rules spelled out in advance gives everybody a chance to see what they are. And they are not being written during a situation where the people in the game have a stake in the out come.

 

I agree that following the letter of the damage rules can lead to some silly results, but at least we know where we stand. If we follow the letter of the rules, I know what my magic short sword will do when I swing it at that brick wall. But if we are going on the GM's judgement that is a different matter, I have no idea what he'd say about magical short swords and brick walls.

Why is that a bad thing? Do you have any idea what would happen if you (yourself, IRL) took a real short sword and hit a brick wall with it? Would it break? Bend? Shatter the bricks?

 

There are other ways to differentiate between (say) a rapier and a battleaxe. A rapier might not chop through a door, but it might be able to poke through a peephole or gap between slats of wood in the door while a battleaxe could not. Realistically, they should not be built identically anyway. A rapier would be almost useless against someone on decent armor; a battleaxe would be just the ticket against an armored foe. Nobles and gentlemen might be able to wear a rapier as they go about their business in town; few city guards are going to look kindly at someone carrying a weapon of war like a battleaxe. And of course, a rapier is much lighter and much easier to carry around all day. That kind of thing seldom means much in role-playing games, but it would in the real world.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Why is that a bad thing? Do you have any idea what would happen if you (yourself, IRL) took a real short sword and hit a brick wall with it? Would it break? Bend? Shatter the bricks?

I'm sort of guessing that a normal short sword would probably not be a great weapon to use against that sort of target. Of course I did say "magic short sword."

 

One of the problems is that, at least many of us, do not have extensive experience with using weapons, such as short swords, on a variety of targets.

 

And I'm assuming that none of us has much experience with magic weapons.

 

There is not really a strong basis for many common sense decisions here.

 

 

It seems like somewhat of a gray area to me. And if the GM has a tendency to throw the letter of the rules out the window in other similiar cases (such as the rapier vs the door), you really don't know what result you are going to get.

 

Why is that a bad thing?

 

First of all, my character might have a fair idea of what is weapons are capable of doing.

 

Also, if it is a point based thing (a weapon you paid points for), I think that you should get what you pay for. And if the GM is basing the results on his personal judgement of what he thinks "makes sense" then you may not be getting what you pay for.

 

 

 

There are other ways to differentiate between (say) a rapier and a battleaxe. A rapier might not chop through a door, but it might be able to poke through a peephole or gap between slats of wood in the door while a battleaxe could not. Realistically, they should not be built identically anyway.

I agree. The differences between weapons should be handled by the system where possible (in the actual builds of the items).

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

It seems like somewhat of a gray area to me. And if the GM has a tendency to throw the letter of the rules out the window in other similiar cases (such as the rapier vs the door), you really don't know what result you are going to get.

 

Why is that a bad thing?

 

First of all, my character might have a fair idea of what is weapons are capable of doing.

 

Also, if it is a point based thing (a weapon you paid points for), I think that you should get what you pay for. And if the GM is basing the results on his personal judgement of what he thinks "makes sense" then you may not be getting what you pay for.

I think that in situations like that it's incumbent upon the GM to inform the player that (for example) trying to chop his way through a metal-shod door with a rapier will probably damage or even break his sword. That's only fair.

 

Think about The Princess Bride. When Count Ruggio was running away from Inigo Montoya and went through a door, Inigo didn't try to chop through the door with his excellent sword ("I've never seen its equal." - Wesley) even though he was clearly one of the finest swordsmen on Earth. He called for Fezzik to come open the door for him before Ruggio escaped. Had that been in a role-playing scenario, it would have been only reasonable for the GM to tell Inigo's player that so he doesn't break his sword.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I agree. The differences between weapons should be handled by the system where possible (in the actual builds of the items).

 

In Hero this is called "Real Weapon" and it then falls on the GM (and Players) to decide what such a Limitation does and does not allow.

 

So, obviously the rules allow for a differentiation between a Battle Axe and a Rapier, and yet still fall back on the GM to fairly and correctly interpret the situation at hand.

 

And you thread topic: Trust is the wrong word I believe.

You don't "trust" the Rules, You utilize and adjudicate the rules.

 

Even with a set of minute rules it cannot cover everything. The best you can hope for is for the Rules to cover most common situations and provide guidelines for less common ones.

 

Hero does that more than adequately.

[Kenn]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

But at least having the rules spelled out in advance gives everybody a chance to see what they are. And they are not being written during a situation where the people in the game have a stake in the out come.

 

I agree that following the letter of the damage rules can lead to some silly results, but at least we know where we stand. If we follow the letter of the rules, I know what my magic short sword will do when I swing it at that brick wall. But if we are going on the GM's judgement that is a different matter, I have no idea what he'd say about magical short swords and brick walls.

 

The fact is, that's a special effects call. And no, Hero doesn't cover those. It let's individual GMs make the call. Which is why there has to be a rudimentary amount of trust between the GM and the players.

 

I'm with Trebuchet. You should be playing with friends and with the understanding that the GM and players are to be working together, not players vs the GM. Because the friendly environment allows players to ask "Hey Kenn, what would happen if I used my magic short sword against that brick wall?"

[Paragon]

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

 

Yes. The latter is what I've been trying to refer to as "judgment" problems (though I think its a bit broader than that; deciding that a particular level of difficulty is "appropriate" for something can also turn into a judgment problem. A set of hard rules doesn't prevent that, but it tends to make it more obvious in the first place, and more arguable when its done). As I said, its not intentions where the problems of most GMs run into difficulty; its execution.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

OK, he's human. I just don't see that as such a big deal. I personally won't play long with a GM I didn't trust but that doesn't mean I always expect perfection. If he's a complete jerk about something and blows you off time to find another GM. I normally play with close friends and we're on the same wavelength so maybe I don't see the problem because of that.

I do feel you really should find another GM if you feel you need "protection" from him.

 

But see, I feel I need that sort of "protection" from every GM. Scott Bennie is a fine GM; he's in fact one of the finest I've ever played under, and ran one of the finest campaigns I ever played in (his Hollywood Knights Gestalt-based campaign). Yet even with Scott, I felt it was good from time to time when he was doing something to be able to go "Scott, you are aware the rules do X here, right? Is this really a good idea? If so, do you want to house rule this so we know its going to work that way from now on?"

 

And most GMs _aren't_ as good as Scott.

 

In addition, I honestly think that the less detailed the rules are, the less consistently you can play your characters on the whole, because you simply don't know what sort of difficulty or process the GM is going to use to resolve things. Sometimes if you know your GM very well this is less of an issue, but I'd argue in those cases the people are really working on a pretty detailed rules set, its just that a lot of them are being stored in everyone's head rather than on paper.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I agree. The differences between weapons should be handled by the system where possible (in the actual builds of the items).

In Hero this is called "Real Weapon" and it then falls on the GM (and Players) to decide what such a Limitation does and does not allow.

 

So, obviously the rules allow for a differentiation between a Battle Axe and a Rapier, and yet still fall back on the GM to fairly and correctly interpret the situation at hand.

Why not use something like the "reduced penetration" limitation?

 

This method limits the weapon's damage against things like a massive door, or an iron golem, but unlike the method you describe, this method allows us to clearly see what the effect will be without having to fall back to the GM.

 

This method allows us to build a magical rapier, which might not take the "real weapon" limitation, but which still should not be hacking through massive doors.

 

This method actually gives a point reduction on the rapier, as compared to other weapons which do not have this reduced penetration limitation. (I can even take both "reduced penetration" and "real weapon" and save more points)

 

 

And there are still other methods that could be used besides RP, we could design much of the damage of the weapon with the limitation "only vs soft targets."

 

Also we might make a limited burnout roll for the rapier, so it would break against a target like the heavy door. That limitation might look something like this: Burnout (break) on 11-, but only when used against hard targets such as heavy doors or iron golems. Again, if this is going to happen to my weapon anyway, I might is well have it clearly spelled out, and save some points while I'm at it.

[Alibear]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

We could stick 20 different limitations and advantages on each weapon to cover each and every eventuality and call it good but it might hinder playability somewhat.

 

Real weapon does an admirable job of backing up common sense in any situation.

 

And let's be honest any scenario or campaign where the GM was lacking common sense would be a nightmare (for me at least)

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

We could stick 20 different limitations and advantages on each weapon to cover each and every eventuality and call it good but it might hinder playability somewhat.

 

Real weapon does an admirable job of backing up common sense in any situation.

But isn't that how things are done in Hero?

 

I'm assuming that you are aware that there are a number of limitations which make shotguns function the way that they do.

 

Are you suggesting that rather than apply limitations such as "reduced penetration" to that sort of weapon? And that we should intead just leave the qualities of the shotgun to the GM's common sense?

 

That seems to contradict the way that things are done in the book.

 

 

 

 

And to take this a bit further, lets say that Joe and Tom are building rapier like weapons for their characters.

 

Tom builds his rapier-like weapon with "real weapon."

 

Joe builds his rapier-like weapon with "real weapon" and "reduced penetration."

 

Obviously Joe spends less points than Tom.

 

If the GM rules that Tom's weapon is ineffective against higher def targets, then Tom's weapon basically has the same sort of limitation as Joe's weapon, he just doesn't get points for it.

 

So where does that leave us?

 

Do we shrug our shoulders and let it ride as is? That doesn't sound very fair to Tom.

 

Do we say that weapons such as shotguns (which, by their special effect, would have reduced penetration anyway) simply can't take reduced penetration because it would be redundant to take a limitation which is already assumed to exist for that weapon?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Why did you open a discussion on a topic where you've already decided everyone else is wrong?

 

 

Have fun.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

And to take this a bit further, lets say that Joe and Tom are building rapier like weapons for their characters.

 

Tom builds his rapier-like weapon with "real weapon."

 

Joe builds his rapier-like weapon with "real weapon" and "reduced penetration."

 

Obviously Joe spends less points than Tom.

 

If the GM rules that Tom's weapon is ineffective against higher def targets, then Tom's weapon basically has the same sort of limitation as Joe's weapon, he just doesn't get points for it.

 

So where does that leave us?

 

Do we shrug our shoulders and let it ride as is? That doesn't sound very fair to Tom.

This is ultimately a matter to be determined by sfx. Why does Joe's "rapier-like weapon" have Reduced Penetration? Is it dull or does it have a short blade (Neither of which sound very rapier-like)? Is it broken or poorly made? What's Joe's reasoning behind taking that Limitation? There has to be more justification to a Limitation (or Advantage, for that matter) than just "It saves me points."

 

If the two players both came to me with custom weapons described as being identical (perhaps a matched set), but one took Reduced Penetration and the other didn't, I'd tell them to decide between them which it is and then instruct them both to use that version. That would be fair to both.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Why did you open a discussion on a topic where you've already decided everyone else is wrong?

 

 

Have fun.

I obviously have an opinion on this issue. In fact, I have a number of opinions about all sorts of things.

 

However, I can be wrong (I know, I know, you're going to say that is not possible for me to be wrong, and that I'm perfect, but that is only a common misconception )

 

 

I discuss these things because I may be wrong, and I may actually learn something.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

This is ultimately a matter to be determined by sfx. Why does Joe's "rapier-like weapon" have Reduced Penetration?

As I understand it, the purpose behind the limitation "reduced penetration" is simulates an attack which does a decent amount of damage to unarmored targets, but which is ineffective against higher defense targets. The damage is haved against the defense so they are basically applied twice and are thus twice as effective.

 

Joe's rapier has reduced penetration because a light rapier like blade is fairly effective against soft targets (such as unarmored humans), and ineffective against high defense targets (such as heavy iron bound doors).

 

But again there are a number of ways (in Hero) to build this same concept, each of which would simulate what we are talking about with the "rapier vs door" contest without the need for a GM judgement calls.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

As I understand it, the purpose behind the limitation "reduced penetration" is simulates an attack which does a decent amount of damage to unarmored targets, but which is ineffective against higher defense targets. The damage is haved against the defense so they are basically applied twice and are thus twice as effective.

 

Joe's rapier has reduced penetration because a light rapier like blade is fairly effective against soft targets (such as unarmored humans), and ineffective against high defense targets (such as heavy iron bound doors).

 

But again there are a number of ways (in Hero) to build this same concept, each of which would simulate what we are talking about with the "rapier vs door" contest without the need for a GM judgement calls.

You didn't answer my question: Why is Joe's weapon different from Tom's when you described both as "rapier like"? Why does one have Reduced Penetration and the other not?

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

You didn't answer my question: Why is Joe's weapon different from Tom's when you described both as "rapier like"? Why does one have Reduced Penetration and the other not?

 

It comes down to a difference in perspective over how things should be built.

 

Probably Joe felt that the stats of the blade should be reflected in the system mechanics (in this case the mechanics for reduced penetration), whereas Tom felt that "special effects" would be enough to describe how his character's blade functioned in the game.

 

Tom felt that, rather than pile on limitations, those sorts of things should be left up to the common sense of the GM.

 

If Tom were building a shot gun, or the claw attack of a mundane creature, he probably wouldn't use reduced penetration there either. He would probably feel that GM judgement calls are all that is necessary in those cases as well.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

It comes down to a difference in perspective over how things should be built.

 

Probably Joe felt that the stats of the blade should be reflected in the system mechanics (in this case the mechanics for reduced penetration), whereas Tom felt that "special effects" would be enough to describe how his character's blade functioned in the game.

 

Tom felt that, rather than pile on limitations, those sorts of things should be left up to the common sense of the GM.

 

If Tom were building a shot gun, or the claw attack of a mundane creature, he probably wouldn't use reduced penetration there either. He would probably feel that GM judgement calls are all that is necessary in those cases as well.

Then why wouldn't that be fair to both players? Joe takes the Reduced Penetration Limitation, guaranteeing that his attack will do less BODY damage every single time he uses it. Tom's doesn't have that Limitation, so his attack will always do full BODY damage unless the GM overrides it based on a specific situation - probably not a very common occurrence in most campaigns. Both got what they wanted, right?

 

BTW, I would not build a shotgun with Reduced Penetration myself. I'd use fewer Damage Classes than a rifle and Autofire to represent the multiple pellets. A 12 gauge blast of 00 buckshot is equivalent in damage to 9 .38 caliber lead pistol bullets if every pellet hits.

[Maur]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Why would you build a rapier with reduced penetration? Is a person in armor that much more protected from the rapier vs other blades? Why do you think that all these items need to be written up with that much level of detail? Stats of items in any game (rule lite and rule heavy) are just abstractions of all the various physical properties and as such none of them can truly get every detail down in the rules to account for all the various possible situations that players/GMs can run into. As such, all gamers have to have a level of trust, or at least experience, with each other or why game...

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Then why wouldn't that be fair to both players? Joe takes the Reduced Penetration Limitation, guaranteeing that his attack will do less BODY damage every single time he uses it.

Unless I've misread the rules for reduced penetration, it does not guarantee anything of the sort. Against an unarmored human type target, both weapons will function identically. It is only targets with defenses which apply to the attack which will case problems for the reduced penetration weapon.

 

A 2d6 RP killing attack will be applied to the defenses as if it were 2 X 1d6 K attacks. However, with no resistant defenses, 2 X 1d6 K is the same thing as 2d6 Killing damage. Also both weapons will be totally ineffective against a target such as the heavy iron bound oak door.

 

 

Tom's doesn't have that Limitation, so his attack will always do full BODY damage unless the GM overrides it based on a specific situation - probably not a very common occurrence in most campaigns.

But how common is this really?

 

It seems that people agree that the rapier does too much damage against a target such as a heavy door. It seems likely that it probably does too much damage against other similar types of targets. As you said yourself: "A rapier is a cutting tool designed to poke holes in humans, not a light saber." It is also not an axe. The damage given is fine against unarmored humans. It is a light weapon and it is just not going to do that much damage against high defense targets. We can simply rule out doing any damage against the heavy iron bound door, and we reduce the damage against anything with high defenses.

 

I'm not saying that you have to run it that way, but it seems that it would not be unreasonable for a GM to do so in the name of common sense.

 

If I personally were going to start making rulings about the rapier and the iron bound door, I wouldn't just stop there. I'd want to be sure that the damage fit against other types of targets too.

 

 

 

BTW, I would not build a shotgun with Reduced Penetration myself. I'd use fewer Damage Classes than a rifle and Autofire to represent the multiple pellets. A 12 gauge blast of 00 buckshot is equivalent in damage to 9 .38 caliber lead pistol bullets if every pellet hits.

That is something which might be interesting to talk about at some point, but it is also opening a different can of worms.

[Alibear]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I'd not use reduced penetration for a lighter more flexible blade. I'd imagine that a rapier would target the weakspots or chinks in a foes armour and leave it as it is. SFX of light blade here.

 

If a rapier did target the most heavily armoured spot of a foe you might have a point but I can't imagine anyone but a simpleton using a rapier in that manner. GM common sense here!

 

Btw. I know how a shotgun works, thank you very much.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Why would you build a rapier with reduced penetration? Is a person in armor that much more protected from the rapier vs other blades?

It seems that there is a consensus that, at least for the rapier, the damage comes out too high against targets made of hard materials.

 

I wouldn't try to use a rapier to hack down a massive door, and I wouldn't try to use it to hack through thick armor (although if the armor had openings where I could poke my rapier, that might be a different matter).

 

Since people seem to agree about the idea that a rapier should not hack down a heavy door, I would ask: is a heavy door that much more protected from the rapier than it would be from other blades? If the answer is "yes," then the rapier becomes a unique case. If the answer is "no" then I would look to modifying the write up for all blades.

 

Rather than modifying all blades to become reduced penetration, I would probabaly make use of some other tactics. There are many different ways that these things can be built using Hero.

 

 

Why do you think that all these items need to be written up with that much level of detail?

I like detail. And I like to have some meat to my system. I've seen rules lite systems which offer vague defintions/write ups which leave too much up to the GM.

 

I am quite happy with teh write ups of weapons like the shot gun. The shot gun is given limitations, such as reduced penetration, rather than simply relying on the GM's common sense to deal with the way such a weapon does damage to various objects.

 

What level of detail do you think that items need?

 

 

Stats of items in any game (rule lite and rule heavy) are just abstractions of all the various physical properties and as such none of them can truly get every detail down in the rules to account for all the various possible situations that players/GMs can run into. As such, all gamers have to have a level of trust, or at least experience, with each other or why game...

One doesn't have to ask for a set of rules to cover any possible situation. But I do want to know what happens in the game when I use my attack in a straightforward manner against a target.

 

If I have the stats on the weapon and the target, the game system should be able to give me a good answer.

 

A universal system like Hero should be able to do that.

 

The system should be able to do that if the target is the Hulk, and the weapon is a .44 magnum.

 

The system should be able to do that if the target is a tank, and the weapon is a boomerang.

 

The system should be able to do that if the target is an oak table, and the weapon is a battle axe.

 

And the system should be able to do that if the target is an iron bound oak door, and the weapon is a rapier.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I'd not use reduced penetration for a lighter more flexible blade. I'd imagine that a rapier would target the weakspots or chinks in a foes armour and leave it as it is. SFX of light blade here.

 

If a rapier did target the most heavily armoured spot of a foe you might have a point but I can't imagine anyone but a simpleton using a rapier in that manner. GM common sense here!

 

Btw. I know how a shotgun works, thank you very much.

The problem is that the basic damage system assumes that you are hitting the armor.

 

My plate armor has the same defense whether I'm being hit by a very skilled opponet with an ice pick, or a beserk orc with a broadsword.

 

And clearly some defenses don't really have weakspots anyway (where are the weakspots on an iron bound door?). And where are the weakspots in an iron golem? And how easy is it to find chinks in a shield spell?

 

But there are a number ways to simulate finding the weak spots.

 

Find weakness would be one method.

 

Also for many types of armor, one might use a called shot to go after a hit location which was not covered by the armor. If you hit a place with no defenses, then having reduced penetration is not an issue.

 

You could build some types of armor with the limitation that it did not protect as well against some types of attacks.