Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

[teh bunneh]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Speaking as a mod: Folks, let's please keep this thread from erupting into flames. Personal digs aren't necessary. Thanks.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Warp' date=' I'm still waiting for you to answer this question which I posted earlier; so I'll ask it again: [i']Why do you feel that those GMs who feel the rules can be bent when necessary bend them capriciously or without reason? Can you see no middle ground between slavishly adhering to all aspects of the rules even when incorrect or incomplete and simply discarding the printed rules on a whim?[/i]

 

I've posted twice about SFX trumping specific mechanics that are in the rules (so SFX trumping write up is RAW) and seen no response either.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I've posted twice about SFX trumping specific mechanics that are in the rules (so SFX trumping write up is RAW) and seen no response either.

Warp9 is IMO arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I was curious and Searched for all posts by Warp9. Out of 40 pages worth of posts, I sampled perhaps 1% of the available posts. He has a characteristic style, and that's all I'm going to say. I'm done with this thread.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Warp9 is IMO arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

 

Which is why this is only my fourth post of the thread.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I've posted twice about SFX trumping specific mechanics that are in the rules (so SFX trumping write up is RAW) and seen no response either.

 

I'm sorry for not responding, but I felt that the matter you raised had already been addressed, and I was tired of going back over what I feel amounts to quibbling over my use of the term "mechanics."

 

 

And, as I've said, I felt that this issue has been dealt with. . . .

 

I think (and I'm guessing) they (Ghost Angel and Trebuchet) are suggesting that using the SFX to make the judgment call is a mechanic in and of itself supported by the rules.

I don't think that anybody is arguing that GM judgement calls are not supported by the Hero game. Or that a GM can't totally throw any/all rules out the window if he wants to do so.

 

What I am arguing for is trying to move in a direction where we need less GM judgement calls.

 

Anyway, in terms of that comment by Vondy, that is what kicked off this whole discussion, so it seems kind of relevant. And it is interesting to note that it didn't seem that anyone had problems with his use of the term "mechanics" in that case.

 

In terms of the dialog, both Treb and Ghost Angel were actually reacting to *MY* use of the term "mechanics." I meant it in the sense it was used by Vondy, a sense which did not include GM judgement. And given the context, I don't see how it would make sense if it was read any other way.

 

However, to be clear. . . .

 

What I'm talking about is the process of rolling the rapier's damage, subtracting the door's defense, and applying what is left over to the door, with no specific GM judgement calls involved. I don't really care what we call that process (we can call it "mechanics," or "the game system," or we can call it "hobbody-gobbody-goo" for all I care), but it would be nice if we can stop nit-picking at terminology and deal with my basic point.

 

I thought that response above pretty much covered the issue you raised too.

If you feel that I've been unfair, and that I am not dealing with the points you've raised, please let me know.

 

 

 

 

BTW I will add one thing in response to your particular statement. . . .

 

But the printed rule to the letter includes real weapon, which says by SFX some weapons cannot do some things, and there is the page (see previous post) that also says some special effects give you certain advantage and drawback that are not bought.

 

So that is perfectly printed mechanics- you just have to use all of them, including the printed mechanics and rules on Special effect.

 

OK, the book says that "by SFX some weapons cannot do some things," and that the special effects should be taken into account.

 

So how do I, as GM, know specifically what things which weapons can or can't do?

 

That is supposed to be a GM judgement call right?

 

But what if I personally know almost nothing about those weapons? What do I base my judgement on then?

 

All the book does is leave things up to the GM's judgement. That does not in anyway mean that you will get a specific ruling about the rapier vs the heavy door.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I'm not debating Vondy; I'm debating you.

But IMO Vondy's quote is still relevant for a couple of reasons.

 

First, when contrasted with your perspective, it does show that there is a problem with just assuming that a given call, which is based upon GM judgement, should be considered part of the Hero rule set. Yes, a GM is allowed to say that a rapier can't hack through a door, but there is nothing in the rules themselves to say that you'll get that particular ruling. And in fact there is good reason the wonder if a GM who knows nothing about rapiers should be trying to make rulings about rapiers at all.

 

But there is another reason I brought up Vondy's quote. There is an issue of what the role of the players is when common sense is involved. Lets say that I'm a GM and Vondy is a Player. Is it is place to jump in and make his own common sense judgements, if I, as GM, do not seem to be doing so?

 

In my experience, some Players (note: I'm not saying that I know Vondy's position in this matter) do seem to think that they have the right to jump in if the GM is not "following the rules dictated by horse sense." And I see this situation as something of a problem.

 

Besides, I think it was pretty clear Vondy's quoted statement had an unstated implication: That one overrides the rules only when one knows why one should. If you don't know how a rapier or any other device works, leave it alone.

 

I think it's pretty obvious Vondy meant that not altering the printed rules when one knows better is what is wrong; since no one would expect any GM to change a rule for a subject about which he knows nothing.

IMO that is a pretty big implied assumption.

 

If you look at the full text of Vondy's quote (I didn't actually provide all of it before), you'll see that he also calls into question the GM's judgement with the "Nor much horse sense" line. And if Vondy doesn't think such a GM has good judgement--I ask again, why should that GM be overriding the rules?

 

 

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.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Warp' date=' I'm still waiting for you to answer this question which I posted earlier; so I'll ask it again: [i']Why do you feel that those GMs who feel the rules can be bent when necessary bend them capriciously or without reason? Can you see no middle ground between slavishly adhering to all aspects of the rules even when incorrect or incomplete and simply discarding the printed rules on a whim?[/i]

 

Part of that answer can be seen in one of my previous posts on this subject:

 

I have to admit that a number of my views about gaming are probably rooted in my experiences I had when I started gaming as a teenager. My first group had more of a competitive atmosphere than you'd probably expect in many rpg groups.

 

My experiences later on in life have been a bit different, and it seems that the groups I've had experience with later have been more cooperative in nature.

 

All that being said, I am not really a "people person" and I like having things set out in a more objective fashion if possible. I guess I trust rules more than I trust people.

 

To say a bit more, IMO there is no middle ground in terms of what we are talking about.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I think it's pretty obvious you should be (and probably are already) playing GURPS. At this point, it appears you're only interested in taking shots at Hero. You're not interested in improving Hero; you just want to bash it and annoy its fans.

 

I suspected it before, and now I'm sure: You're a troll.

 

 

I don't see how you can draw those conclusions from reading my post.

 

I said that, in other games, you have a special effect, such as "Weather Control," and then the GM makes judgements about what can be accomplished with that power based on his own judgement, whereas Hero actually spells out what Weather Control can do.

 

Now based on what I've said in this thread which approach do you think I like better?

 

Other Games

: Work with Special Effect such as Weather Control, let GM decide exactly what that Power can or can't do/

 

Hero

: Spell out in specific mechanical terms (RKA, Flight, etc) what Weather Control can do rather than just leaving it up to the GM.

 

Now I ask you again, which of those 2 methods do you think I like better?

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I had a quote... response ... all that....

 

Forget it.

 

1) "thing sword" - eh, typo. "Thin Sword" ... if you weren't trolling you might have corrected me and moved on. But you're trolling so obviously your argument started to hinge on a typo.

My argument had nothing to do with the "thing sword." That was only a joke, but I see that some people have no sense of humor.

 

 

 

Anyway, I thought it was clear, but if you didn't get it, my answer to your assertion that I "know that a thin sword can't hack through a heavy iron bound door," is: no, I don't know any such thing----not as an absolute fact.

 

I think that it is very very unlikely, that such an event could happen, but that is not the same things as being absolutely sure. We live in a strange universe, and I've been shown to be wrong before, even about things which I was pretty sure of.

 

My life has thaught me to say "I know that I don't know." And "Never say never."

 

 

 

And, even if I do rule that a rapier can't get through a heavy iron bound door, where do I stop?

 

What do I rule when it comes to a thick wooden door which is NOT iron bound?

 

How about a simple wooden door of medium thickness?

 

What about a thin wooden door?

 

What about different types of armor?

 

Exactly how sure do I have to be before I start making my rulings on these matters?

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I was curious and Searched for all posts by Warp9. Out of 40 pages worth of posts' date=' I sampled perhaps 1% of the available posts. He has a characteristic style, and that's all I'm going to say. [/quote']

1% is always a good number for an accurate sampling!

 

And you're right---I do have style!

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

 

 

Other Games

: Work with Special Effect such as Weather Control, let GM decide exactly what that Power can or can't do/

 

Hero

: Spell out in specific mechanical terms (RKA, Flight, etc) what Weather Control can do rather than just leaving it up to the GM.

Now I ask you again, which of those 2 methods do you think I like better?

 

 

Obviously HERO so I'm confused why you brought up the GURPs mechanic as a good thing or so it seemed in your post. Personally I stat out everything reasonable that I can but "real" whatever is a great way to add the reality check to anything you missed. I use it extensively with most "real " devices. As I've said before the toolkit can really give you all the detail you want . SFX is inherent in the system though and should be considered. Most of the people I know simply wouldn't play with a GM they didn't think could handle that.

 

It seems you're wanting an impossible standard for the GM here and feel you need protection because no one can live up to it.

 

I rarely go outside the rules but when I do its for good reason IMO. I never take down the players outside the rules or cheat them but sometimes you really don't need to stat something or worry about the specific effect you just need to keep the story going.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

 

And, even if I do rule that a rapier can't get through a heavy iron bound door, where do I stop?

 

What do I rule when it comes to a thick wooden door which is NOT iron bound?

 

How about a simple wooden door of medium thickness?

 

What about a thin wooden door?

 

What about different types of armor?

 

Exactly how sure do I have to be before I start making my rulings on these matters?

 

 

It depends on your and your groups comfort level with me I'd stat less than you. Obviously after it came up if you don't like winging it add the details to your house rules. We all are fencers or kendo practitioners so we have a pretty good idea so don't worry about it much. Our group goes for dramatic reality anyway so its a group consensus thing in many ways.. There has never after our initial college period decades ago where there has been an adversarial GM type situation.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Let me give you an example using your Weather point on how a GM arbitrates SFX.

 

A Weather Witch starts to call down the rain to slow and hamper the pursuers of her small group of adventurers. It has some specific defined Mechanics: It obscures vision, causes things to get wet, and causes minuses to tracking rolls.

 

Now the GM looks at all this water coming down on the little used dirt road, it's not the hard packed dirt of main roads, and it's not the normal environment that the witch uses this spell in - she uses it in forests and open ground a lot where there are many plants to hold the top soil together... so run off has never been an issue. But this is new, dirt road, with a sudden heavy downpour (whose main effect was to obscure tracks, as per the players original designs).

 

The GM decides all this means the road is becoming slick, and muddy. And decides anyone trying to run on the road after a minute or so has to make a DEX Roll or run slower (-1" he calls).

 

There's no effect built into this because the player and GM never really anticipated this situation, and it was outside the idea of the original intent (with a minus to Perception as an added bonus of a heavy downpour). So, the GM could just go with mechanics and it'd make things little more difficult, OR he could go with the above and try and make the story a little more interesting.

 

anyways, you really and honestly seem utterly unclear on the concept of Special Effects having an effect on the game. I definitely suggest you find another system.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I thought that response above pretty much covered the issue you raised too.

If you feel that I've been unfair, and that I am not dealing with the points you've raised, please let me know.

 

Different definitions I guess. To me mechanics are what is written in the system. It says, in the rulebook that SFX let you have minor advantages and limitations without having to pay for them... down to the idea of a heat based character keeping everyone warm without buying LS: Heat, usable by other, area effect. That is a pretty wide variance.

As that is written into the rules, as part of the rules, then it is part of the mechanics of the system. Ignoring that part of the written rules during an argument is arguing with only part of the equation.

So the "rapier doesn't cut through the door" is part of the system, as written and thus, I have no real problem with it. It is all part of SFX. As to where the definition comes up, talk to the players about such things before play begins.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

OK, the book says that "by SFX some weapons cannot do some things," and that the special effects should be taken into account.

 

So how do I, as GM, know specifically what things which weapons can or can't do?

 

Wing it.

It's what GMs have done since time immemorial.

 

Everything doesn't need to be set in stone. If you make a ruling, and it sticks in the craw of the players, after the game talk about it.

 

The rules are there to facilitate enjoyment of a game with your group of people (friends, pick up gamers whatever). No amount of rules structure can keep a bad/screwed up GM or player from causing players - that is part of the social contract in the group, and not part of the game itself, that is a metagame concern.

[CTaylor]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Exactly, you decide based on your game, your understanding of the world, and the concept of the weapon in question.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I said that' date=' in other games, you have a special effect, such as "Weather Control," and then the GM makes judgements about what can be accomplished with that power based on his own judgement, whereas Hero actually spells out what Weather Control can do.[/quote']

 

It spells it out to a greater extent, but not with absolute rigidity. IMO this is a great strength of Hero System -- it depends less on what the GM can be sold as a "logical part of a power", and more on what has been paid for. It's one of the reasons I fell in love with Hero System as soon as I understood it.

 

Now based on what I've said in this thread which approach do you think I like better?

Other Games

: Work with Special Effect such as Weather Control, let GM decide exactly what that Power can or can't do/

 

Hero

: Spell out in specific mechanical terms (RKA, Flight, etc) what Weather Control can do rather than just leaving it up to the GM.

Now I ask you again, which of those 2 methods do you think I like better?

 

I can't really say, to be honest. From what I have (possibly incorrectly) read from your posts, you seem to want a system that does the latter, yet you said you play GURPS, which is the former.

 

Anyway' date=' I thought it was clear, but if you didn't get it, my answer to your assertion that I "know that a thin sword can't hack through a heavy iron bound door," is: no, I don't know any such thing----not as an [b']absolute[/b] fact.

 

I think that it is very very unlikely, that such an event could happen, but that is not the same things as being absolutely sure. We live in a strange universe, and I've been shown to be wrong before, even about things which I was pretty sure of.

 

My life has thaught me to say "I know that I don't know." And "Never say never."

 

You don't have to know it as an absolute fact, just a a reasonably certain one. If you want to take that needing of an absolute fact to the extreme (though I think you are already getting close), then almost nothing is known to an absolute level of certainty.

 

But you can say "almost never".

 

 

And, even if I do rule that a rapier can't get through a heavy iron bound door, where do I stop?

 

What do I rule when it comes to a thick wooden door which is NOT iron bound?

 

How about a simple wooden door of medium thickness?

 

What about a thin wooden door?

 

What about different types of armor?

 

Exactly how sure do I have to be before I start making my rulings on these matters?

 

Just reasonably certain. If you feel uncertain, you could always pause the game momentarily to discuss it with the rest of the group. But given that it's a thin, flimsy bit of metal who's only real damage (IMO) is caused by thrusting (when was the last time you saw Zorro kill someone by slashing?), how effective does common sense say it will be if used to poke a piece of wood? Even if the wood in question is thin enough for it to poke through (like a hollow-core door), all you've done is make a peephole.

 

Different definitions I guess. To me mechanics are what is written in the system. It says' date=' in the rulebook that SFX let you have minor advantages and limitations without having to pay for them... down to the idea of a heat based character keeping everyone warm without buying LS: Heat, usable by other, area effect. That is a pretty wide variance.[/quote']

 

I agree, though I have seen some try to take it too far. LS: Safe In Intense Cold for those huddled around the fire guy is okay, but 75% rDR on ED, Only Vs Cold-Based Attacks for those around you is not okay.

 

As that is written into the rules, as part of the rules, then it is part of the mechanics of the system. Ignoring that part of the written rules during an argument is arguing with only part of the equation.

So the "rapier doesn't cut through the door" is part of the system, as written and thus, I have no real problem with it. It is all part of SFX. As to where the definition comes up, talk to the players about such things before play begins.

 

Making sure that everybody in the group is on the same page before a situation comes up is always a good idea IMO.

 

Exactly' date=' you decide based on your game, your understanding of the world, and the concept of the weapon in question.[/quote']

 

Or you do a 5 minute Google/Wikipedia research.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Obviously HERO so I'm confused why you brought up the GURPs mechanic as a good thing or so it seemed in your post.

What specific part of my post indicated to you that I thought the GURPS mechanic was a good thing?

 

It would be nice if you could quote the specific line(s).

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Let me give you an example using your Weather point on how a GM arbitrates SFX.

 

A Weather Witch starts to call down the rain to slow and hamper the pursuers of her small group of adventurers. It has some specific defined Mechanics: It obscures vision, causes things to get wet, and causes minuses to tracking rolls.

 

Now the GM looks at all this water coming down on the little used dirt road, it's not the hard packed dirt of main roads, and it's not the normal environment that the witch uses this spell in - she uses it in forests and open ground a lot where there are many plants to hold the top soil together... so run off has never been an issue. But this is new, dirt road, with a sudden heavy downpour (whose main effect was to obscure tracks, as per the players original designs).

 

The GM decides all this means the road is becoming slick, and muddy. And decides anyone trying to run on the road after a minute or so has to make a DEX Roll or run slower (-1" he calls).

 

There's no effect built into this because the player and GM never really anticipated this situation, and it was outside the idea of the original intent (with a minus to Perception as an added bonus of a heavy downpour). So, the GM could just go with mechanics and it'd make things little more difficult, OR he could go with the above and try and make the story a little more interesting.

 

anyways, you really and honestly seem utterly unclear on the concept of Special Effects having an effect on the game. I definitely suggest you find another system.

 

IMO it would become slick and muddy even in a forest environment, it would be a good idea to cover that aspect.

 

However, I don't have a big problem with this type of ruling.

 

IMO -1" running is not quite as extreme as making targets totally immune to my character's weapons.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Wing it.

It's what GMs have done since time immemorial.

 

Everything doesn't need to be set in stone. If you make a ruling, and it sticks in the craw of the players, after the game talk about it.

 

As a Player, I'd rather know what my character can or can't do ahead of time. And I'd like to know that my character will follow the same rules as the character of the GM's best friend.

 

 

And, as a GM, I notice that often we end up talking about rulings which the Players don't like, in the middle of the game, rather than waiting till the end. And some people have no problem becoming very vocal if they feel that the GM is violating common sense.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

It spells it out to a greater extent, but not with absolute rigidity. IMO this is a great strength of Hero System -- it depends less on what the GM can be sold as a "logical part of a power", and more on what has been paid for. It's one of the reasons I fell in love with Hero System as soon as I understood it.

I just want to keep things set in favor of the "what has been paid for" part.

 

 

I can't really say, to be honest. From what I have (possibly incorrectly) read from your posts, you seem to want a system that does the latter, yet you said you play GURPS, which is the former.

I don't believe that I actually said that I play GURPS (although I do).

 

Since you mention it, I play a whole bunch of different systems. But the fact that I play a system doesn't mean that I think that it is superior to Hero.

 

 

You don't have to know it as an absolute fact, just a a reasonably certain one. If you want to take that needing of an absolute fact to the extreme (though I think you are already getting close), then almost nothing is known to an absolute level of certainty.

 

But you can say "almost never".

 

 

 

 

Just reasonably certain. If you feel uncertain, you could always pause the game momentarily to discuss it with the rest of the group. But given that it's a thin, flimsy bit of metal who's only real damage (IMO) is caused by thrusting (when was the last time you saw Zorro kill someone by slashing?), how effective does common sense say it will be if used to poke a piece of wood? Even if the wood in question is thin enough for it to poke through (like a hollow-core door), all you've done is make a peephole.

 

Basically, I still think that having a GM who (like myself), has no real experience with a weapon like a rapier, start second guessing the mechanics is not all that likely to improve the realism of the situation. And will instead possibly cause more problems than it corrects.

 

And actually, after looking at the rules it seems that we can get the proper answer without relying on the GM after all.

 

Looking at the Fantasy Hero 5th ed Book (page 366), it seems that there are some specific rules about breaking down doors. It says that a slashing weapon such, as a sword or dagger, can do, at most, half damage to a door. Therefore, even without using specific judgement calls, you would find that the rapier can't hack through a heavy metal bound wooden door.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

As a Player, I'd rather know what my character can or can't do ahead of time. And I'd like to know that my character will follow the same rules as the character of the GM's best friend.

 

 

And, as a GM, I notice that often we end up talking about rulings which the Players don't like, in the middle of the game, rather than waiting till the end. And some people have no problem becoming very vocal if they feel that the GM is violating common sense.

 

And both those issues are not game system or game rules related, they are in the social contract between players and GM. That is exactly the kind of thing that I talk with my players about outside of game, generally before the game.

 

But I have a hard and fast rule - if I make a ruling during play, it sticks for the duration of the session, and no arguing allowed. After the session we'll talk, and I'll explain my reasoning, and am willing to discuss it with them, and change my ruling if needs be.

If you don't want to bog down the game with discussion in game, tell them, as a GM that you will only discuss such things after a session. If the discussions starts, then go on with the roleplay/combat and tell them to talk to you afterwards. If they wont' well.... if you are gaming with people that don't even have that much basic respect for you as a GM, then I think finding a system to codify things is the least of your problems.

 

I don't think it is possible to have a game codified enough to stop common sense/rules discussions.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

So much argument about minor points to shed light on the bigger points.

 

From my reading Warp9 _needs_ a crunchy system like Hero. Treb and others _like_ a crunchy system like Hero.

 

Warp9 asked about trusting GMs vs Trusting systems. He does not seem to want to accept a middle path where you trust the GM to choose and run a system to enhance the enjoyment of everyone. If I was not enjoying gaming in a certain group I would never game with them again - if they were friends I'd watch films, play football or board and video games, if they were not friends from elsewhere I might never see them again. Full stop.

 

I would rather trust a GM than a system. Despite their flaws the GMs I play with are friends trying to ensure that we all have a good time. A book of rules will never have that ability for me, never be able to bring a story to life or provide the flexibility that I expect from my GM.

 

So when it comes to it, I'd rather trust my GM without rules than trust my rules without a GM. I'm in this for the frindship and company.

 

My perspective and I suppose all that I have left to say about this.

 

 

Doc

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

He does not seem to want to accept a middle path where you trust the GM to choose and run a system to enhance the enjoyment of everyone.

Not only does he not accept it, he doesn't even seem to think such a position is valid. That's why we're making so little headway in this discussion.