Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

[CTaylor]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

A good GM will have a world that fits together well enough and is seamless enough so that players can expect that anything reasonable they attempt will work. Between GM fiat, Hero System rules, and special effects, you should be able to handle anything that comes up.

[Starlight]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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

 

While the above is very true it might be possible to construct a game world where common sense discussions are not relevant. I'm thinking of something akin to the Matrix (the film) where the game world is a computer simulation and the characters are played within it. In such a world it's perfectly acceptable to have a rapier do damage to that iron bound door strictly according to the damage rolled versus the defence of the door without any concession to real world physics - because that is the way the simulated world is coded. Another alternative that can yield the same result might be a game world like Toontown (Who Framed Roger Rabbit) - set in an environment where normal everyday logic doesn't apply.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. I game with friends. The game is the excuse to get together with them on a weekly basis.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

So waht is a good time to ignore the rules then.

 

 

On the fly, not many. Usually that two sets of subrules don't seem to be working together in the manner not intended.

 

_Changing_ rules is a different story. A permanent change in rules can be done for all kinds of reasons serving different purposes, and as long as everyone knows its been done and is at least moderately onboard, that's fine. Ignoring a rule is one-off event though, and the justifications for doing it are very limited as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

To me anything that maximises the fun is good reason to ignore the rules. Anything that takes away from that fun can be safely ignored.

 

 

If I actually thought most cases of ignoring rules really did that for the majority of participants, I'd probably agree that's a good principal.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

And you would be wrong. I am perfectly capable of thinking things out for myself' date=' and have in fact already done so. And intended or not, telling someone that they either aren't capable of having an honest opinion, or that they didn't bother coming up with one is insulting. And serves as further conformation of my previously stated opinion that I doubt I would enjoy gaming with you.[/quote']

 

I don't know that I ever argued with the latter, but that's as it is. I'm not going to stop thinking a certain percentage of this hobby does things out of habit rather than thought. That statement doesn't mean I apply it to any given poster, and if people want to assume it does, there's not a lot I see I can do about that.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

And it should do so on both sides. You see the people disagreeing with you as being uncivil. And at least some of them see you as being uncivil.

 

 

I don't see most of you as being uncivil at all. I reacted to one specific post that was directly dismissive of me in specific rather than of one of my attitudes. If that distinction doesn't seem important to you, it doesn't, but its the classic definition of the difference between taking things to personalities to me.

 

For instance, you continue to refer to people "ignoring the rules". As I've stated, I never ignore the rules. I don't always slavishly follow them, but I never ignore them. They are always taken into account when I make a decision.

 

If the terminology annoys you, I genuinely apologize for that. Most of the time I attempt to avoid semantically loaded terms when I see another one that describes what's going on accurately, but what would that be here? "Bypassing the rules?" "Disregarding the rules?" Would either of those suit you better?

 

 

Another example would be your insistance that if I would only think things through that I would agree with you about how much control a Ref should have over their campaign.

 

I haven't insisted that. I'm willing to bet some people who make this argument haven't, and I strongly suspect that's the majority of people, but I'd never think to say so about any individual poster who makes such a statement, because the simple fact is that I don't know anyone here well enough to know.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I really don't get what you're saying here. That the world should be controlled and created by committee isn't what you're trying to say. I don't think. Could you clarify for me. What aspects beyond their character's influence should the players control?

 

 

How those characters interact with the world is at least as much an issue for them as the characters themselves, and that's exactly the sort of thing that is classically GM-only in terms of his dominance over rules issues.

 

Obviously this isn't tidy; rules say something about the world general too, so there's cases that are going to be problematic. But to act like this is an issue where only the GM has a stake, and somehow his is intrinsically greater, doesn't describe the situation to me at all, and that that's assumed is an artifact of the way GMs were treated early on in the hobby.

 

I have to agree I have no interest in running a game I don't run and if I ever get to play I'd want to interact with the world as my character, nothing more

 

I am I misunderstanding you somewhere?

 

Only in degree, I suspect. Let me give you a couple of examples.

 

In the upcoming FH campaign I'm running, when I was deciding on the campaign, I went though a rather complicated selection process based heavily on player input. In the end, I didn't end up with the campaign I'd have most liked to run, because it wasn't the campaign they'd most like to play. That doesn't mean its one I won't find interesting to run (things that flat out weren't interesting to me, because I didn't put things I just wasn't flat out willing to run up on the table. But in the end, the players had at least as much input as I did on it. This included pretty extensive discussions of tone, character power, and so on.

 

Now, I'm not going to say most groups need to go into the detail and complexity of the selection process I used; that's an artifact of specific traits of my gaming group (though I think there are a lot of potentially conflicted assumptions that go on in a lot of gaming groups that would be better served by more discussion, but that's not a direct issue of GM power but communication; the issues are somewhat orthogonal to each other).

 

Another example is that I did an initial set of houserules for the campaign. I also told people that once they looked them over, if four of the six of them didn't like a rule and told me to change it, I'd change it. They understand what the campaign is about and its intended tone. They understand what I like as much or more than the inverse. They understand that a game I don't like likely won't go well or last long. So if something really is enough of an issue that 2/3rds the group wants it changed enough to vote for it, why should I be the immovable post in the process just because I run the game?

 

Is where I'm coming from here any clearer?

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

How do you feel that the mechanics are currently flawed?

 

 

Well, on its simplest grounds, damage to creatures/objects/barriers and so on is always a pretty high order abstraction, because in reality it turns on a lot of things involving what "damage" means, and the structure and material of the objects. Damaging a living thing is not the same as damaging a machine is not the same thing as damaging a non-functional object, and what translates into damage turns on issues such as the hardness, sharpness, power behind and other issues on the offensive end, and the hardness, brittleness, structural consistency and other issue of the target.

 

In the end, that means that the damage system for the most part tries to deal with the biggest, coarsest parts of the process, and hope that some of the rest of it gets paved over in the randomness inherent in damage dice. If the system is properly designed, this will work with most of the common cases, as it does in Hero. But there are _always_ going to be corner cases, and I don't think in practice that a human-administered system can eliminate all the corner cases (except my making the process so abstract as to make resolution almost meaningless or so general to be really unsatisfying for many people).

 

Hero has to deal with another issue, which is that geometric progressive damage really never works right with an accumulated damage model. It just can't, because its mixing an additive with a progressive function; a 3 DC attack twice does more damage than a 4 DC attack (defense threshold issues confuse this, but don't really eliminate the problem) even though the 4 DC attack is theoretically twice as powerful.

 

The first part of this problem, as I say, can't be handled at all, and fixing the latter would require a radical reworking of the system to deal with it (and isn't unique to Hero; the problem was even more start with the old DC Heroes/Blood of Heroes system).

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Hero has to deal with another issue' date=' which is that geometric progressive damage really never works right with an accumulated damage model. It just can't, because its mixing an additive with a progressive function; a 3 DC attack twice does more damage than a 4 DC attack (defense threshold issues confuse this, but don't really eliminate the problem) even though the 4 DC attack is theoretically twice as powerful.[/quote']There is no basis for assuming that each additional DC is twice as powerful as the previous DC. The only place in the system which illustrates strictly geometric progression is Lifting strength.

 

Even if the damage system is *theoretically* based on energy, twice as much energy does not automatically equate to twice as much damage to the target.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

There is no basis for assuming that each additional DC is twice as powerful as the previous DC. The only place in the system which illustrates strictly geometric progression is Lifting strength.

 

 

The damage system has been based on that form day one, and while not explict, is pretty obvious all over the weapons damage tables; otherwise the relationship between handguns and rifles make no sense.

 

 

Even if the damage system is *theoretically* based on energy, twice as much energy does not automatically equate to twice as much damage to the target.

 

Its as close to a single metric as you're going to get, and if the metric fails, its on the opposite side; two half energy attacks are _less_ likely to do damage to something in reality (all other things being equal) than one of twice the energy (this doesn't mean that twice the energy does twice the damage in all cases, but threshold issues are even more pronounced in reality in some ways than they are in the game).

 

In either case, treating two half energy attacks as doing _more_ damage (barring hit locational effects) is almost always senseless; the cases where it makes sense only occur in special circumstances.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

The damage system has been based on that form day one, and while not explict, is pretty obvious all over the weapons damage tables; otherwise the relationship between handguns and rifles make no sense.

 

Its as close to a single metric as you're going to get, and if the metric fails, its on the opposite side; two half energy attacks are _less_ likely to do damage to something in reality (all other things being equal) than one of twice the energy (this doesn't mean that twice the energy does twice the damage in all cases, but threshold issues are even more pronounced in reality in some ways than they are in the game).

 

In either case, treating two half energy attacks as doing _more_ damage (barring hit locational effects) is almost always senseless; the cases where it makes sense only occur in special circumstances.

That argument fails to hold up unless you make the a priori assumption that energy = damage; which it clearly does not even in real life.

 

The only correct answer to the question "How much more damage is 4 Damage Classes compared to 3 DCs?" is "One more Damage Class." In Hero Damage Class is the only relevant scale for damage; and it has little if any relationship to real world scales. You're correct that small arms (pistols and rifles) were obviously the basis for weapon damage, but that's only because the original designers needed some basis to start from and firearms were an obvious and easily obtained starting point.

 

Consider that an M1A2 Abrams main gun has 22 megajoules of muzzle energy, or approximately 6875 times more energy than a .308 Winchester rifle's 3600 joules. Is the hole left by an Abrams 6800 times larger? Would it penetrate through 3800 men if they were all lined up in a row? Consider also that each Damage class does an average of 1 BODY to a target. If each DC is twice as much damage, that makes a character with 15 BODY 32X harder to kill than one with 10 BODY; and that's not including the BODY below zero required to cause death (If that's included, the numbers become outright ridiculous). Damage Classes might well scale with energy, but energy in and of itself is not the sole determinant for damage done to the target.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

 

Because the situation seems exactly the opposite to me. In GURPS 3rd edition for example, Telekinesis is Telekinesis.

 

In GURPS 3rd ed, I can use that power in any way that TK could logically be used. If I can lift enough weight to lift myself, I can use the TK to fly. It doesn't matter if I never paid points for flight. The concept of "Telekinesis" is what is important.

 

And, in GURPS, I can use TK for attacking a target from the insides (crushing the target's blood vessels or that sort of thing) and thus getting around normal defenses. What is important is that I have Telekinesis, and it is logical that TK could be used in that manner. There is never an issue of whether or not that I paid points for some type of NND.

 

However, Hero is a bit different. If I want to start using my TK regularly in a manner which I have not paid points for, I'm out of luck. And it doesn't matter if it would really make sense that I could use the power in that way.

 

 

 

Here's where it seems you think effect based is good which seems opposite of everything else

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

That argument fails to hold up unless you make the a priori assumption that energy = damage; which it clearly does not even in real life.

 

As I said, its as close to the metric as you're going to get; it fails less than any other single metric.

 

 

The only correct answer to the question "How much more damage is 4 Damage Classes compared to 3 DCs?" is "One more Damage Class." In Hero Damage Class is the only relevant scale for damage; and it has little if any relationship to real world scales. You're correct that small arms (pistols and rifles) were obviously the basis for weapon damage, but that's only because the original designers needed some basis to start from and firearms were an obvious and easily obtained starting point.

 

 

Actually, the original designers _did_ use the 2x Energy=+1 DC assumption, if you're going to bring that up, because they said so on several occasions.

 

 

Consider that an M1A2 Abrams main gun has 22 megajoules of muzzle energy, or approximately 6875 times more energy than a .308 Winchester rifle's 3600 joules. Is the hole left by an Abrams 6800 times larger? Would it penetrate

 

 

The size of the hole per se, is not an indication of the damage it does.

 

 

through 3800 men if they were all lined up in a row? Consider also that each Damage class does an average of 1 BODY to a target. If each DC is twice as much damage, that makes a character with 15 BODY 32X harder to kill than one with 10 BODY; and that's not including the BODY below zero required to

 

 

That's just making my point, actually.

 

 

cause death (If that's included, the numbers become outright ridiculous). Damage Classes might well scale with energy, but energy in and of itself is not the sole determinant for damage done to the target.

 

No, but it was the original basis for the rough assumptions, and since those numbers haven't changed, whether Steve considers that the primary basis, its still all over the system, since those benchmarks haven't changed appreciably with 5th Editions.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

The size of the hole per se' date=' is not an indication of the damage it does.[/quote']And that makes my point quite nicely, thank you. If it's not about the size of the hole or how tough the material hit is, what is it? Define "damage" in a way that doesn't use hole sizes, thickness and/or toughness of the material damaged, or how far the pieces are splattered.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

And that makes my point quite nicely' date=' thank you. If it's not about the size of the hole or how tough the material hit is, what is it? Define "damage" in a way that doesn't use hole sizes, thickness and/or toughness of the material damaged, or how far the pieces are splattered.[/quote']

 

When it comes to targets without reference to structure, life, or other features, the energy dumped into the system that it is not capable of absorbing or repelling is about the only generic descriptor of "damage" you can do. Otherwise you either say that a needle through the heart does less "damage" than blowing off a hand, or that a ten ton stone that has been riddled with cracks is less "damaged" than if it had a tiny hole bored through it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Damage, even in real life, is an abstract little system that's impossible to pigeonhole.

 

Even if the original designers had one intent in mind it's obvious that it is a malleable intent that can be molded to what you need in a game anyways.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

When it comes to targets without reference to structure' date=' life, or other features, the energy dumped into the system that it is not capable of absorbing or repelling is about the only generic descriptor of "damage" you can do. Otherwise you either say that a needle through the heart does less "damage" than blowing off a hand, or that a ten ton stone that has been riddled with cracks is less "damaged" than if it had a tiny hole bored through it.[/quote']Then how can you flatly state that each DC is double the damage when you can't even agree on clear definition of damage? It doesn't matter what the original basis was; that's even less useful than claiming 1930's Superman comic strips are the "basis" for Champions. It's a starting point; no more.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

How those characters interact with the world is at least as much an issue for them as the characters themselves, and that's exactly the sort of thing that is classically GM-only in terms of his dominance over rules issues.

 

 

 

Only in degree, I suspect. Let me give you a couple of examples.

 

 

 

Is where I'm coming from here any clearer?

 

 

Much clearer thank you and not nearly as extreme as I thought. Player input to setting creation and into their characters place in the world is a very good thing. I still think to make a truly exception campaign the GM needs a vision and not that is his not a committee thing but it seems you're saying far less than that. It also helps when you have a group pretty much on the same wavelength. Both the GM and the players need to be happy with the setting.

 

I personally thinks the GM deserves kudos and respect for all the work he does the players don't.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Damage, even in real life, is an abstract little system that's impossible to pigeonhole.

 

Even if the original designers had one intent in mind it's obvious that it is a malleable intent that can be molded to what you need in a game anyways.

Exactly my point. That's why I get so amazed (or perhaps crazed ) every time someone states categorically that "each successive Damage Class is twice as much damage" as the proceeding. The concept of damage is too nebulous even in real life to be categorized neatly; how much more insubstantial is one in a role-playing game designed to simulate adventure films, comic books, and heroic fiction?

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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.

As I've mentioned, a part of my perspective comes from a more competitive history of role-playing rather than a cooperative one.

 

Which is not to say that that style is for everyone, nor is always even my own preference, but it is still a factor in how I view things.

 

 

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

That depends partly on whether or not the GM is willing to just go with the rules in situations where he feels they conflict with common sense, and partly on how many situations the rules actually cover.

 

Hero is generally pretty detailed, and I'm usually happy with it.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

There is no basis for assuming that each additional DC is twice as powerful as the previous DC. The only place in the system which illustrates strictly geometric progression is Lifting strength.

 

Actually, there is much more than that to indicate exponential progression. Other examples include firearm damage progression, the body of various objects as they relate to mass, range modifiers, OCV modifiers for size, and quite a few more.

 

 

 

But what should really end this discussion goes all the way back to 1981. . . .

 

As posted by Tech.

 

Here's the original first reference for everyone:

 

Champions 1st edition, copyright 1981. (not 1e Edition), page 49

 

"The standard rule is that each extra die of damage or 5 pts. of STR is twice as powerful as the die before it. This geometric scale should be considered when attempting to add damage or STR together."

 

 

..wow, did that binding creak when I opened Champions to read it!

 

"It says each extra die of damage is twice as powerful as the die before it." And it says that "geometric scale should be considered when attempting to add damage."

 

If damage was not intended to be geometric, you would not need to consider geometric scale when adding damage.

 

(Now I admit that DCs don't always play out as exponential in the system, but they were intended to be that way)

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

And, in GURPS, I can use TK for attacking a target from the insides (crushing the target's blood vessels or that sort of thing) and thus getting around normal defenses. What is important is that I have Telekinesis, and it is logical that TK could be used in that manner. There is never an issue of whether or not that I paid points for some type of NND.

 

However, Hero is a bit different. If I want to start using my TK regularly in a manner which I have not paid points for, I'm out of luck. And it doesn't matter if it would really make sense that I could use the power in that way.

 

Here's where it seems you think effect based is good which seems opposite of everything else

But I never actually say that GURPS is better. There is nothing there which actually involves a personal preference on my part.

 

Yes, in Hero, if I want to start using my TK regularly in a manner which I have not paid points for, I'm out of luck.

 

But what makes you think that I believe this result is a bad thing?

[Vondy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Damage, even in real life, is an abstract little system that's impossible to pigeonhole.

 

Even if the original designers had one intent in mind it's obvious that it is a malleable intent that can be molded to what you need in a game anyways.

 

Just to add on, I used to keep track of the FBI ballistics lab wound factor and ammunition reports when I was a detective. Using firearms as an example, wound factors are broken down into several categories - its not a simple, abstracted body/stun equation. There is permanent tissue damage, temporary tissue damage (from stretching and bruising), blood loss, and damage to critical systems (shot placement).

 

Of these, shot placement and blood loss are the most critical, lethal factors. Bullet size is an acillary factor - in terms of wounding - in that a larger bullet tends to have a better chance of damaging something important (critical systems or arteries) in that, in creating a bigger hole, they have a somewhat better chance of damaging nerve centers, tendons, arteries, and the like. A big hole in a muscle, however, is less important than a small hole in something important.

 

In terms of rifles, the advantage is penetration of armored targets and hydrostatic shock to the system more than the size of the shell - though as they get bigger they have better odds on doing something nasty to doing something important. Still, a rifle bullet in the leg is less to worry about than a pistol bullet in the head, or aorta, or lung.

 

Hero damage is heavily abstracted, and its not exponential. There are parts of the system that are exponential, but the principle is inconsistently applied - and damage isn't one of the things it can be accurately, or consistently applied to. Nor does it play out from published materials that it was intended to be applied to damage. And in terms of weapon damage in hero - its a very slapdash and impressionistic assignation of values rather than a scientific one.

 

It works, but its not forumlaic.

[CTaylor]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

It works, but its not forumlaic.

 

Which is good, because it would be a stupendously complicated system to model combat with perfect accuracy. Combat is meant to be part of the drama, not the centerpiece of the game, so it doesn't have to be perfectly and meticulously accurate, it just has to be plausible and flexible.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

To be dead honest' date=' I'd argue that part of that is probably a simple case of your expectations from having developed in the hobby as it is. I don't mean offense, but I think a lot of this is expectations and inertia rather than what people really want.[/quote']

 

I haven't insisted that. I'm willing to bet some people who make this argument haven't, and I strongly suspect that's the majority of people, but I'd never think to say so about any individual poster who makes such a statement, because the simple fact is that I don't know anyone here well enough to know.

 

To make sure I remembered correctly I quoted the specific post above. You'll note it doesn't say "I strongly suspect that that is due to most people having expectation that have developed in the hobby as it is". You specifically used "you" in a post that was a response to one of mine, with no language indicating that it was meant in a general fashion, and context indicating that it was meant in a specific fashion. If your intent was not to claim that I personally did not have a well thought out opinion on the subject, you certainly worded it poorly. What I see is you making a specific statement about a specific poster, and then later claiming that you would never do that when confronted about it.

 

But somehow it is other people that are being rude to you...