Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

[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']

 

And you would be wrong. I am perfectly capable of thinking things out for myself, 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.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

And in and of itself, that's fine. But I'll simply note that its _very_ common, even on this board, to badmouth people who are concerned about rules. I don't really think I'm overstating to say this is far more common than its opposite.

 

As I said, I also think its tied up in what is, to me, an overly protective view of GM prerogative.

 

Edit: "Concerned about rules" isn't probably a fair way for me to put that; there are people in this thread on the other side who are still are concerned about rules. More accurately "Convinced that rules should only be ignored in very limited situations." As an example, there have been people in this thread who indicated that a good reason for ignoring a rule was because it interfered with the story. If you present that that's not, per se, a good reason to ignore the rule, the response tends to be pretty aggressive (even if you qualify that you're mostly just talking about ad-hoc rules adjustment to make a story work rather than something more systematic to make the game the kind of game you like).

 

Given that, I don't think a little push-back occasionally is uncalled for. It just ought to stay civil.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[Vondy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Are we all blue in the face, yet?

[Doomed Prophet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

And I consider that to _be_ excessive reverence. There may be some practical necessities for a GM to have more power than the players' date=' but to nowhere near the degree its commonly assumed. And I say that as someone who GMs far more than he plays, and always has.[/quote']

 

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?

 

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?

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Are we all blue in the face' date=' yet?[/quote']

 

Eh, I just jumped in. I'm good for a while yet.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Even though the GM can step in and deal with the issue of the rapier vs the heavy door' date=' 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.[/quote']In my personal case, I'd say you do start to get to some issues of diminishing returns; in particular, the matter at hand turns on how the mechanics of damaging objects or barriers is done, and I don't think that works very well for conventional weapons in almost any game. While theoretically you could set up rules for the specifics of the problem you're looking at, I'd have to question whether the system overhead justifies the process, honestly.

How do you feel that the mechanics are currently flawed?

 

Do you think that the mechanics handle how something like an iron golem takes damage? How about a Zombie?

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I'm going to take a second shot at this issue. . . .

 

The mechanics do cover the rapier and the metal bound wooden door. And simply using a weapon' date=' in a straight forward manner, against a target with X Defense and Y BODY, is not IMO a "special" situation or at least is should not be.[/quote']

Really? What's the DEF of the metal reinforcement compared to that of the wood? (The Hero system really doesn't handle non-homogenous items at all.) How thick is either? How much more time will it require if the reinforcement is steel instead of bronze or iron?

The fact that this issue gets raised is a bit confusing to me because I thought we were discussing some other problem. Specifically the problem that a rapier can hack through heavy objects when it should not be able to do so.

 

The fact that a rapier can hack through the door would also be an issue with a high def heavy door of some other type of material, even if it was a homogenous material.

 

If not saying that we can't discuss the "non-homogenous" issue, just that IMO it represents a digression from what we were discussing.

 

But if we are going to look at this issue here is my take on it:

 

In terms of non-homogenous items I disagree with your statement that "the Hero system really doesn't handle non-homogenous items at all." I would say that it clearly does: the stats for an iron bound wooden door are right there in the Fantasy Hero book. And that is not the only example. There are a large number of objects which are non-homogenous. A TV set has glass plastic and metal parts. Plate mail armor is often composed of both plate and chain. A human arm has skin and muscle and bone.

 

The mechanics already cover all these things, you may not like how they are covered, but they are covered. Now we could easily add some detail to the iron bound wooded door. We could handle it as a partly armored person would be handled. You have base defense for the wood, and a def bonus for the metal parts with an activation roll---you could even have mechanics for called shots to hit the wooden parts of the door, just like there are mechanics for called shots to a human target.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Sounds to me like the rules lawyer might need to improve his interpersonal skills. Rules lawyers are seldom popular with anyone. The relationship between players and between players and GMs shouldn't be an adversarial one. That's not something that can be regulated with rules.

 

While I won't deny that preferences almost certainly exist in any human interaction, I'd prefer to see it as something positive that goes along with the social aspects of roleplaying. I roleplay with my friends; people who I like to spend time with regardless of what we're doing.

You are no doubt correct that rules lawyer might need to improve his interpersonal skills.

 

However part of what you are saying is dependent on a given view of how rpgs should work---there are other options (although they would obviously not be to everybody's taste). I understand that for most people rpgs are considered non-adversarial, and yet it is possible to have a game of a more competitive nature.

 

An example of such a game follows. . . .

 

In the back of the Amber Diceless RPG book there is an example scenerio where the King of Amber dies and the young princes and princesses (the PCs) all compete with each other to take control of Amber.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Specifically the problem that a rapier can hack through heavy objects when it should not be able to do so.

I believe I already stated that. You want the rules to explicitly state that; I use GM discretion because no set of rules will ever be completely able to cover all circumstances. Those two positions are not reconcilable; so further discussion is pointless.

 

If you are normally this argumentative with your GMs, I begin to see why you'd like to reduce the power of the GM in a game. You wouldn't last 15 minutes in one of my games before I'd throw you out (Not that you'd get in one in the first place, since our campaign is by invitation only.). Being a GM is work enough without some rules-lawyering yahoo challenging every decision.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

If you want to remove the human GM aspect then you really should be playing an online 'roleplaying' game not a social contact game.

There is some truth to what you are suggesting.

 

And I think that if the online 'roleplaying' games were set up better, I would be doing exactly that.

 

My problems with such games stem from limitations which are intentionally written into the systems of these words. I want a game were I can pretty much break any object or tunnel under any wall. I'd also prefer something which is more turn based as opposed to a real time game. And I'd like something where there is an actual human controlling all the NPCs, rather than having fairly limited AI routines.

 

Note: I actually don't know everything that is currently out there, so maybe I'd be surprised by some of what people have created.

 

 

 

I like Hero as it gives me the GM guidelines how to do things but I rarely strictly follow the rules in game. I use Hero to give me a feeling for GMing not as a straightjacket.

 

I know the rules and like the rules but am not constrained by them. They are there to help me get things in perspective not to hold me back.

 

I wonder if that's very clear? Re-reading my post I would have to say that it isn't but what are you gonna do?

I'm not sure why you'd feel limited by the rules. As a GM you have an unlimited number of points and can build anything you want to build.

 

Hey, if I was playing in your game, and you let my character have a 1000 point Cosmic Power Pool, I wont feel at all limited, even as a PC.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

The fact that this issue gets raised is a bit confusing to me because I thought we were discussing some other problem. Specifically the problem that a rapier can hack through heavy objects when it should not be able to do so.

 

See, when I look up Rapier in 5ER and Fantasy Hero it's built with Real Weapon - which immediately tells me it CAN NOT hack through a big heavy door, because logically that weapon can't do that.

 

So - where's your disconnect? Build looks fine to me. Realistic even.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

See, when I look up Rapier in 5ER and Fantasy Hero it's built with Real Weapon - which immediately tells me it CAN NOT hack through a big heavy door, because logically that weapon can't do that.

 

So - where's your disconnect? Build looks fine to me. Realistic even.

That's just too simple...

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I believe I already stated that. You want the rules to explicitly state that; I use GM discretion because no set of rules will ever be completely able to cover all circumstances.

Obviously there is the question of how complex you'd want your rules to get, and how accurate you want your system to be.

 

In any case, I'm not sure that a human GM will ever be able to completely able to cover all circumstances either.

 

Humans are not perfect either.

 

The difference is that the system, however imperfect, is less likely to play favorites than the human.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Obviously there is the question of how complex you'd want your rules to get, and how accurate you want your system to be.

 

In any case, I'm not sure that a human GM will ever be able to completely able to cover all circumstances either.

 

Humans are not perfect either.

 

The difference is that the system, however imperfect, is less likely to play favorites than the human.

True. The difference is that I accept that fact and it doesn't bother me in the least. Rules written by imperfect humans will be no better than those humans; but will be treated as gospel by people who worship the printed word.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

See, when I look up Rapier in 5ER and Fantasy Hero it's built with Real Weapon - which immediately tells me it CAN NOT hack through a big heavy door, because logically that weapon can't do that.

 

So - where's your disconnect? Build looks fine to me. Realistic even.

How many shots does a six shooter have with out reloading? I mean realistically. Does "real weapon" cover that too?

 

How heavy is real plate mail? Real plate mail armor has quite a bit of mass, correct? Does "real armor" cover that factor too? Or do we still need to add on the "mass" limitation?

 

 

And, getting back to the rapier----what if I've never handled a rapier, or even seen a Zoro movie? What if I've got no idea what a rapier can do, or not do? What does "real weapon" limitation tell me in that case?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

How many shots does a six shooter have with out reloading? I mean realistically. Does "real weapon" cover that too?

 

How heavy is real plate mail? Real plate mail armor has quite a bit of mass, correct? Does "real armor" cover that factor too? Or do we still need to add on the "mass" limitation?

 

 

And, getting back to the rapier----what if I've never handled a rapier, or even seen a Zoro movie? What if I've got no idea what a rapier can do, or not do? What does "real weapon" limitation tell me in that case?

It tells me you need a different hobby.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

It tells me you need a different hobby.

 

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

True. The difference is that I accept that fact and it doesn't bother me in the least. Rules written by imperfect humans will be no better than those humans; but will be treated as gospel by people who worship the printed word.

However, if I, as GM, write out rules in advance, then you know what you are getting.

 

And you know that those rules will be applied to everybody equally, including my best friend, and including people who annoy me.

 

If I'm making it up as I go along, you don't know that.

 

Especially if one moment I'm doing something based on realism (as in, it would be un-realistic that a rapier could hack through a door). The next moment my judgement call is based on dramatic licence over realism (like allowing somebody to get away with something unrealistic because it fits the heroic genre), and the next moment my ruling is based on game balance rather than realism or drama.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I shall endeavor to write the Rule:

 

And Rapiers Can't Cut Through Big Thick Doors

(This is a -0 Limitation that automatically applies if your rapier takes Real Weapon)

 

in every campaign I run, even if (especially if!) rapiers don't exist in that campaign world!

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

How many shots does a six shooter have with out reloading? I mean realistically. Does "real weapon" cover that too?

 

How heavy is real plate mail? Real plate mail armor has quite a bit of mass, correct? Does "real armor" cover that factor too? Or do we still need to add on the "mass" limitation?

 

 

And, getting back to the rapier----what if I've never handled a rapier, or even seen a Zoro movie? What if I've got no idea what a rapier can do, or not do? What does "real weapon" limitation tell me in that case?

It tells me you need a different hobby.

LOL

 

What part?

 

It must have been the Zoro thing right?

 

But in any case, it was not so much a request for personal advice as it was a question about the status of various weapons.

 

A question which I notice that nobody has addressed.

 

Added on edit: I do see now that there has been an attempt to address the the question in the post above.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I shall endeavor to write the Rule:

 

And Rapiers Can't Cut Through Big Thick Doors

(This is a -0 Limitation that automatically applies if your rapier takes Real Weapon)

 

in every campaign I run, even if (especially if!) rapiers don't exist in that campaign world!

Oops, you posted faster than I did--ignore my last post.

 

I'm glad you've tried to write out the rule.

 

Anyway, does that include iron bound doors of medium thickness too?

 

How about iron bound wooden chests?

 

Wouldn't it be simpler to just go with RP on the rapier?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

However' date=' if I, as GM, write out rules in advance, then you know what you are getting.[/quote']Then kindly write your own rules system and stop trying to fcuk up my Hero system. You'll never be happy with Hero anyway, so why do you insist on trying to "fix" it? Publish Warp9: The RPG and become the next Steve Jackson or Steve Long.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

How many shots does a six shooter have with out reloading?

Think about it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Oops, you posted faster than I did--ignore my last post.

 

I'm glad you've tried to write out the rule.

 

Anyway, does that include iron bound doors of medium thickness too?

 

How about iron bound wooden chests?

 

Wouldn't it be simpler to just go with RP on the rapier?

 

nope. becaus then I need to come up with a custom rule on armor when a weapon, such as a rapier, can easily puncture through them with their fine point.

 

Like say, a soft leather that's defined as 1-2 points of rDEF.

 

Reduced Penetration fails as a perfect model as well, obviously.

 

Got any other bright ideas? Because I'm back where I started now. Except that you're now complicating even MORE builds.

 

 

Essentially it boils down to Special Effects Interaction - which cannot be modeled as you are trying. The book has a section on dealing with this. 5ER pp96-97 go over how to handle Special Effects, and the idea of give-and-take where you may gain a benefit based on SFX in one place, but end up at a detriment in another.