Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

[Alibear]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

You and my 5 week old son have sapped my will to bother arguing. Good day to you, Sir.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

You and my 5 week old son have sapped my will to bother arguing. Good day to you' date=' Sir.[/quote']

In the words of Mr. Burns: "Excellent!"

 

Please tell your son "stage 1 is complete," and that everything is going according to the plan!

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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.

I hate to point this out, but you've just trumped the argument you've been making throughout this entire thread. You've been going on and on and on about how we should be using only the written rules instead of common sense and GM input to decide how things interact, and then you point out the rules as written are wrong and should be changed. Do you think that's the only instance where the rules are or will be wrong? What about if the rules are (necessarily) incomplete?

 

Now you're arguing that the game system should tell you exactly what will happen if a rapier attacks an oak door or a battleaxe hits an oak table. But what if it's a rapier hitting a maple door? Or birch, or balsa? What if it's not a rapier, but a main gauche or a longsword? What if the postulated battleaxe is hitting a walnut table, or granite, or bales of hay? Do you expect precise rules to show the effect of every conceivable (or inconceivable) attack in the multiverse on any conceivable (or inconceivable) material? Good luck lugging that thing around.

 

The simple fact is GM input and a bit of logic will get you through 99.9% of gaming situations; and it's a far more sensible and balanced way to approach it that making the rules so detailed they become totally unplayable. The correct way to approach this issue is a balance between the two extremes of GM fiat and absurdly detailed rules; which Hero has already achieved.

[Vann the Red]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Wow. Quite the discussion. In short, discuss the rules with the GM if you feel they've been misapplied, but in the end if you trust the rules system more than your GM, you have the wrong GM.

 

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

 

VtR

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

door.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

Part of the problem is the immense work in prep here to get everything perfect. Ok rapiers have reduced penetration for most things but they actually punch through the links on chain mail armor rather well especially the cheaper type where the links are just bent not wielded or clipped. Now we have to special design chain to reflect this poorer resistance to thin thrusting attacks.. Chain also sucks vs. impact as opposed to cutting . Now I went through all this myself redesigning the armor weapons etc. but its really lots of work. On the other hand it might be worth it.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

In the words of Mr. Burns: "Excellent!"

 

Please tell your son "stage 1 is complete," and that everything is going according to the plan!

 

Aside to Alibear: Your son isn't named "Stewie", is he?

[teh bunneh]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

(I can even take both "reduced penetration" and "real weapon" and save more points)

 

And the elephant in the room raises its trunk.

 

If you're playing in a highly competitive game where all the players are trying to one-up each other by squeezing every conceivable advantage out of every one of their points, then this might be a reasonable point. But if anyone tried that c**p in my game, I would show them the door.

 

You seem to be saying, "Rapier Man and Battleaxe Guy paid the same points, but Battleaxe Guy gets more benefit out of his points 'cause he can chop wood with his weapon!" In my game, I'd tell you to suck it up or find another game. But you're not in my game, so if you and your group are having fun, you don't need to justify your style to us.

 

Game on, brother.

[Alibear]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Aside to Alibear: Your son isn't named "Stewie"' date=' is he? [/quote']

 

No #1 is called Fin and #2 is called Shay.

 

I'm afraid I don't get the Stewie reference. I presume it was a witty one?

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I'm afraid I don't get the Stewie reference. I presume it was a witty one?

 

I hope so. Stewie Griffin is the diapered, diabolic offspring of the family in the Family Guy cartoon.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I hate to point this out, but you've just trumped the argument you've been making throughout this entire thread. You've been going on and on and on about how we should be using only the written rules instead of common sense and GM input to decide how things interact, and then you point out the rules as written are wrong and should be changed.

I don't have any problem with changing the rules. In fact, if you look at my first response to the problem with the rapier vs the iron bound door, I suggested that such an event was a good indication that the system should be changed.

 

Changing the rules is fine. My stance is that these rules (or rules changes) should be clearly spelled out.

 

Do you think that's the only instance where the rules are or will be wrong? What about if the rules are (necessarily) incomplete?

To me, the fact that people are saying that the game mechanics are very wrong in the case of the rapier vs the iron bound door indicates that there is likely some larger problem which needs to be addressed.

 

If the damage given for the iron bound door is so far off, can the damage for rapiers vs other kinds of wooded doors be that accurate? Is the damage for rapiers vs other types of heavy solid all that accurate? I doubt it.

 

The problem is easiest to fix if we assume that there is an issue with the damage given for the rapier: we can simply modify it to have reduced penetration, and the problem may be fixed.

 

 

 

Now you're arguing that the game system should tell you exactly what will happen if a rapier attacks an oak door or a battleaxe hits an oak table. But what if it's a rapier hitting a maple door? Or birch, or balsa? What if it's not a rapier, but a main gauche or a longsword? What if the postulated battleaxe is hitting a walnut table, or granite, or bales of hay? Do you expect precise rules to show the effect of every conceivable (or inconceivable) attack in the multiverse on any conceivable (or inconceivable) material? Good luck lugging that thing around.

It is important to understand that there is a difference between demanding stats for everything, and demanding a formula which will work if you have the proper stats.

 

I don't actually expect to have stats on hand for every weapon and material in the universe. However, I do expect that, if I have the relevant stats (like the stats for a rapier and an iron bound door, or the stats for the longsword and the walnut table), then the game system should give fairly accurate results when I plug those stats in, and run the numbers.

 

What does "fairly accurate" mean in this case? That definition is based on how accurate you feel the game needs to be.

 

The current rules do make it fairly hard to hack through an iron bound oak door with a rapier; I can actually live with that, therefore this matter is not all that huge of an issue for me.

 

But at the same time, I do agree that things could be better, and I do like detail, so I have no problem with trying the fix the system to make it more accurate.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Part of the problem is the immense work in prep here to get everything perfect. Ok rapiers have reduced penetration for most things but they actually punch through the links on chain mail armor rather well especially the cheaper type where the links are just bent not wielded or clipped. Now we have to special design chain to reflect this poorer resistance to thin thrusting attacks.. Chain also sucks vs. impact as opposed to cutting . Now I went through all this myself redesigning the armor weapons etc. but its really lots of work. On the other hand it might be worth it.

It depends on how accurate you like things to be.

 

I do agree that it might be worth it.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I hope so. Stewie Griffin is the diapered' date=' diabolic offspring of the family in the Family Guy cartoon.

 

Stewie rocks!

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

To me' date=' the fact that people are saying that the game mechanics are [b']very[/b] wrong in the case of the rapier vs the iron bound door indicates that there is likely some larger problem which needs to be addressed.

 

See, I don't think any of us are saying that - you're interpreting that based on the idea that you already know the answer and I don't believe you have comprehended a single word that has been written.

 

In a game where a Rapier is defined as a normal Rapier, the Real Weapon Limitation will tell you that the weapon cannot chop down an iron bound heavy door. This is taking the Mechanics and SFX to a Common Sense Solution.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

To me' date=' the fact that people are saying that the game mechanics are [b']very[/b] wrong in the case of the rapier vs the iron bound door indicates that there is likely some larger problem which needs to be addressed.

I don't see anyone saying the rules are wrong at all for rapier vs. oak door except you. The rest of us are all assuming that sfx is as important as build in defining an effect as is stated explicitly in the rules. It's not stretching or bending the rules to use common sense with regard to the rapier vs oak door issue here; it's using the rules exactly as written.

 

Builds are, in point of fact, nothing more than shorthand ways to represent any object or character within the game system. They cannot be, and were never intended to be, whole and self-contained. What you're trying to do is not only impractical, it's counter to how the system is designed to work.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

(I can even take both "reduced penetration" and "real weapon" and save more points)

And the elephant in the room raises its trunk.

 

If you're playing in a highly competitive game where all the players are trying to one-up each other by squeezing every conceivable advantage out of every one of their points, then this might be a reasonable point. But if anyone tried that c**p in my game, I would show them the door.

 

You seem to be saying, "Rapier Man and Battleaxe Guy paid the same points, but Battleaxe Guy gets more benefit out of his points 'cause he can chop wood with his weapon!" In my game, I'd tell you to suck it up or find another game.

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

 

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

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

To me' date=' the fact that people are saying that the game [b']mechanics[/b] are very wrong in the case of the rapier vs the iron bound door indicates that there is likely some larger problem which needs to be addressed.

I don't see anyone saying the rules are wrong at all for rapier vs. oak door except you.

 

How is the following statement not a conclusion that the Hero game mechanics, by themselves, are not good enough to handle the situation?

 

Example: a rapier can hack through an iron bound oak door in a minute or so if only mechanics are taken into account. On a gut-check real world level' date=' once you've broken your rapier on the door you can take the broken blade still attached to the pommel and chip away at the door for hours before you manage to break through. Depending on physical conditioning it could take all day.[/quote']

 

Again, how is that not a statement about the game mechanics?

[schir1964]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Again' date=' how is that not a statement about the game mechanics?[/quote']

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.

 

Vondy may not agree with this (I don't know) so his comment probably has no bearing on Ghost Angel's and Trebuchet's responses based on the above.

 

However, you need to address Ghost Angel's and Trebuchet's responses with this in mind if you wish to have any meaningful dialog on the subject.

 

Just A Possible Clarification

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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.

 

Vondy may not agree with this (I don't know) so his comment probably has no bearing on Ghost Angel's and Trebuchet's responses based on the above.

 

However, you need to address Ghost Angel's and Trebuchet's responses with this in mind if you wish to have any meaningful dialog on the subject.

 

Just A Possible Clarification

 

- Christopher Mullins

Thanks for the insight.

 

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.

 

And my basic point is this: we should be able modify the stats so that we can roll the rapier's damage, subtract the door's defense, and apply what is left over to the door, and end up with acceptable results.

[schir1964]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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.

 

And my basic point is this: we should be able modify the stats so that we can roll the rapier's damage, subtract the door's defense, and apply what is left over to the door, and end up with acceptable results.

As I've posted in other threads, I think the rules for how objects are handled in general need to be overhauled.

 

I even posted a thread where I gave a possible alternative system for handling objects ([thread=51286]Alternative: Death, Destruction, and Function[/thread]).

 

I don't know if that would be of any use to you, and I certainly don't expect the 6th Edition to make such a drastic change, but it seems like it is a step in the direction you want to go.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

How is the following statement not a conclusion that the Hero game mechanics, by themselves, are not good enough to handle the situation?

 

Originally Posted by Vondy

Example: a rapier can hack through an iron bound oak door in a minute or so if only mechanics are taken into account. On a gut-check real world level, once you've broken your rapier on the door you can take the broken blade still attached to the pommel and chip away at the door for hours before you manage to break through. Depending on physical conditioning it could take all day.

 

Again, how is that not a statement about the game mechanics?

Because Vondy was making the point that the system does not and never has depended exclusively on the written mechanical rules; SFX are and always have been part of the equation. This apparently went right past you.

 

I give up. You're either invincibly ignorant or trolling at this point. Either way, I'm not wasting any more time explaining something this fundamental to you.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Maybe I can bridge a gap, maybe not.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Doc

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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.

 

And my basic point is this: we should be able modify the stats so that we can roll the rapier's damage' date=' subtract the door's defense, and apply what is left over to the door, and end up with acceptable results.[/quote']

 

SFX are not Mechanics.

 

SFX are, as Treb said so nicely, an irrevocable aspect of the rules with which we balance Mechanics with Gameplay.

 

I'm with treb though: You're either invincibly ignorant or trolling at this point. Either way, I'm not wasting any more time explaining something this fundamental to you

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Parting shot I suppose...

 

Think of Mechanics and SFX as Yin/Yang.

 

You CAN use one or the other - but you can get the best results by mixing the two.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

As I've posted in other threads, I think the rules for how objects are handled in general need to be overhauled.

 

I even posted a thread where I gave a possible alternative system for handling objects ([thread=51286]Alternative: Death, Destruction, and Function[/thread]).

 

I don't know if that would be of any use to you, and I certainly don't expect the 6th Edition to make such a drastic change, but it seems like it is a step in the direction you want to go.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Thanks for showing me that thread.

 

I'll think things over a bit, and probably post a reply there.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

You're either invincibly ignorant or trolling at this point.

 

Hmm. An interesting choice: I'm "invincibly ignorant," or a "Troll."

 

I'll get back to you on that.

 

BTW, some people might find such comments "insulting." Lucky for you we don't have any rules about that kind stuff on these boards.

 

 

Because Vondy was making the point that the system does not and never has depended exclusively on the written mechanical rules; SFX are and always have been part of the equation. This apparently went right past you.

 

It seems like there is something of a strawman here. Specifically the idea that: "Warp9 says that the Hero system depends exclusively on the written mechanical rules." That is simply not true. I personally would like to limit the power of the GM, but that has nothing to do with the Hero system (now or in the past).

 

I've never said that the Hero game does not involve GM discression.

 

Whether or not I like it, the Hero system allows for the GM to run his game the way he wishes. He can make it so that a rapier doesn't do any damage to an iron bound wooden door. Or he can make it so that a rapier automatically destroys anything it hits.

 

 

But that has nothing to do with the arguments that I've been making. And these are:

 

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