Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Darth Vader: ". . . And bring peace to my new Empire!"

Obi-Wan: "Your new Empire?"

 

Then kindly write your own rules system and stop trying to fcuk up my Hero system.

Your Hero system?

 

Planning a little coup are we?

 

 

 

 

Publish Warp9: The RPG and become the next Steve Jackson or Steve Long.

 

Exactly!

 

But that is Stage 4, and, if you've been paying attention, it was Stage 1 that just got completed.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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

Think about it.

Yep, it is even more obvious than the "rapier vs door" thing.

 

But that is the point.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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?

I'm not sure that the rapier would work as well as you think against armor. I can believe that it could target places of weakness in the armor (assuming that such weakness exist). But I'd guess that, if it actually hits armor, it will not do all that much.

 

If I'm right, it makes things much easier. (so maybe we should just assume that I'm correct and use RP)

 

 

 

However, I admit that I'm no expert in these matters---so I may be wrong.

 

In that case, there are other ways we could model things.

 

Assuming that a rapier would work well against armor, a rapier could have some of its damage taken so that it did not work against non-living, resistant objects (such as doors or chests).

 

Maybe it has 4 DCs VS humans (armored or otherwise), but only counts as 1 DC against objects like doors.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I'm not sure that the rapier would work as well as you think against armor. I can believe that it could target places of weakness in the armor (assuming that such weakness exist). But I'd guess that, if it actually hits armor, it will not do all that much.

 

If I'm right, it makes things much easier. (so maybe we should just assume that I'm correct and use RP)

 

 

 

However, I admit that I'm no expert in these matters---so I may be wrong.

 

In that case, there are other ways we could model things.

 

Assuming that a rapier would work well against armor, a rapier could have some of its damage taken so that it did not work against non-living, resistant objects (such as doors or chests).

 

Maybe it has 4 DCs VS humans (armored or otherwise), but only counts as 1 DC against objects like doors.

 

My brother is a chef. When he cuts with some of his (bloody sharp) knives he wears two gloves.

 

One is kevlar.

One is chainmail.

 

If armor were just armor he would only need one material. Armor is, obviously, not just armor.

 

Different materials have different properties against different things, and different types of effects - like if he were to slash across a finger, or press down hard, or stab, or any number of things he might do in a kitchen involving blades of various shapes.

 

 

By your logic a rapier (which has an edge that can slash, or a point that can pierce) acts effectively the same against a metal plate, chain links, a leather vest and a thick oaken door.

 

Soft Leather, from personal experience, is pretty good at deflecting a slashing blow, or at least absorbing a good portion of the hit. But someone stabbing directly into it gets through pretty easily, maybe losing a little momentum on the way in (say, 1-2 rPD).

 

I still find your model both flawed, and exceedingly complex for modeling the idea of building a point piece of metal.

 

Hero is an SFX based system. It seems to me you are either unclear on the concept, or unsatisfied with it - in which case you may want to find a different system to play with.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

and both cases aren't problems with the rules systems' date=' but with the players and their GM. No book can force a GM to use the rules, only the players can via their expectation or unwillingness to continue to play. The only way that rules can truly be always enforced is via MMOs where the rules and gameplay are all handled by the computer and only the programmers can alter the rules which causes them to apply equally to all players.[/quote']

 

Or someone could hack the game to create a new class for themselves like a Night Efl Mohawk.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

With all the discussion about Rapiers, Wooden Doors, Real Weapon, and Reduced Penetration, I decided to do a bit of reading.

 

On page 480 of 5ER, under Real Weapon, it says...

 

Similarly, some weapons just can't damage some things (or only damage with difficulty) -- for example, it's not normally possible to hack through a brick wall with a knife.

 

...

 

Furthermore, GMs should limit the nature and type of objects they can damage, if appropriate.

 

So the Real Weapon Limitation does restrict what kinds of weapons can damage what types of objects. Unfortunately, 5ER doesn't have a Rapier listed in it's Hand-To-Hand weaons. IMO a significant oversight.

 

Since it specifically mentions knives and brick walls (not far from rapiers and oaken doors), I think this precludes using Reduced Penetration on the Double-Dipping grounds.

 

In regards to the use of Reduced Penetration for weapons that also have Real Weapon (like Shotguns firing small shot), I would propose that it's part of the build to have the BODY damge "spread out". If I were GM (and using Hit Locations), I would possibly make two seperate hit location rolls (one for each "half" of any Reduced Penetration attack).

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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

 

See. i think this is what is frustrating people. You seem to be asking for more rules and yet also seem happy to promote an existing rule for the problem at hand. Why are you asking for more rules or whether the current system is flawed?

 

The Hero system allows a GM to build the environment just the way he wants. If he wants to dictate special effects of environmental things down to the level of detail you appear to want then the tools are there to do that.

 

If he would rather spend his time on putting scenarios together then he can do that too.

 

The message you are getting here is that many of us appreciate what is possible but refuse to entertain trying to replicate to that level of detail. You are welcome to do so and appear to have a good enough grasp of the rules to do it as well.

 

You cannot expect another GM to do that simply because you do not trust them to exercise their judgement in a fair manner. You cannot expect Hero to publish such detail because it would probably not sell enough to make it worth spending even the time necessary to put it together, never mind the typesetting and printing costs.

 

Since it specifically mentions knives and brick walls (not far from rapiers and oaken doors)' date=' I think this precludes using Reduced Penetration on the Double-Dipping grounds.[/quote']

 

I would say not - the impacts of the reduced penetration would be far more extensive than the context driven damage aspects of the real weapon. I'd allow it if someone wanted to so hamper their weapon, though I would be asking them why they thought that reduced penetration was necessary when they already had real weapon.

 

My problems with such [online 'roleplaying' 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' date=' rather than having fairly limited AI routines.[/quote']

 

The problem is that you want a human referee because they can react in ways that computer driven games cannot because they are able to use judgement and are not limited by a limited set of rules and contexts that have been programmed into them.

 

The irony is that you seem to be asking your GMs to move towards the RPG style where their response would be limited by what is in the rulebook.

 

THAT is where the frustration with the conversation seems (to me) to be coming from....

 

 

Doc

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Your Hero system?

 

Planning a little coup are we?

Nope. I'm one of Steve Long's Imperial Stormtroopers. It's "my Hero system" like the United States is "my country." I just don't appreciate hostile forces messing with either one.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Nope. I'm one of Steve Long's Imperial Stormtroopers. It's "my Hero system" like the United States is "my country." I just don't appreciate hostile forces messing with either one.

 

You dont often see a trebuchet deployed defensively!

 

I think in some places I'm definitely the enemy here!!!

 

 

Doc

[Alibear]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

That makes Warp an Ewok.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Hero is an SFX based system. It seems to me you are either unclear on the concept' date=' or unsatisfied with it - in which case you may want to find a different system to play with.[/quote']

Actually, there is something that I'm starting to realize from our discussion. It seems as if you don't like my personal views about how a rapier should function anymore than what is currently in the book.

 

That is not too shocking because I have no personal experience using a rapier much less trying use such a weapon to attack people or objects.

 

What is surprising is that you think that Players in my game should trust my personal judgement, as GM, to give totally realistic answers.

 

Lets say that I'm GM. And let us assume that I throw out the mechanics as currently written, and enforce my theories about how the weapon should function. I'm talking about inserting my own judgement on the matter, based on the fact that the rapier is a "real weapon," and using my vision of how the special effect of that weapon should work in the game.

 

Yes, if you went with my views (that a rapier is a light blade which would not be too good at penetrating defenses), you might avoid the problem with the heavy door. Although it is not like you'd be trying to hack down thick doors with such a weapon all the time anyway. But, with my logic about how the weapon should work, you will end up with very limited effectiveness against most types of armor. And that is something which is actually probably going to come up much more often in the game.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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?

 

Maybe you personally aren't familiar with a rapier (or gun, or whatever); but others of us are not always ignorant of these kinds of things and many others. Overriding rules on the basis of superior knowledge is hardly damning of the system as a whole; it just means in some select cases a GM may elect to do what he thinks will make his game or story better.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

That is not too shocking because I have no personal experience using a rapier much less trying use such a weapon to attack people or objects.

If you have no idea of how a rapier should work, then you'd have no basis for changing it in your game anyway. You can use the printed rules and proceed on your merry way without guilt.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

See. i think this is what is frustrating people. You seem to be asking for more rules and yet also seem happy to promote an existing rule for the problem at hand. Why are you asking for more rules or whether the current system is flawed?

I think that nothing is going to be perfect in terms of "realism."

 

A system is going to be flawed, and so will a human GM's judgement.

 

 

The problem is that you want a human referee because they can react in ways that computer driven games cannot because they are able to use judgement and are not limited by a limited set of rules and contexts that have been programmed into them.

 

The irony is that you seem to be asking your GMs to move towards the RPG style where their response would be limited by what is in the rulebook.

 

THAT is where the frustration with the conversation seems (to me) to be coming from....

With an advanced enough AI, it should be fine with no humans at all. But that level of AI requires some doing.

 

However, whether or not a given creature will attack is a different issue than what happens when it attacks.

 

The psychological state and reactions are a different matter than the question of what happens when you fire your .44 magnum at a brick wall.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

If you have no idea of how a rapier should work' date=' then you'd have no basis for changing it in your game anyway. You can use the printed rules and proceed on your merry way without guilt.[/quote']

 

But that is not what Vondy says:

 

OK' date=' let us assume that some other GM allows a rapier to break down a three inch thick iron bound oak door. Is he breaking the Hero rules by doing so?[/quote']

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.

You'll note that Vondy is telling me that I can't just follow the printed mechanics to the letter (and thus allow the rapier to break down the door), even in my own game.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

But that is not what Vondy says:

 

 

You'll note that Vondy is telling me that I can't just follow the printed mechanics to the letter (and thus allow the rapier to break down the door), even in my own game.

 

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.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

You'll note that Vondy is telling me that I can't just follow the printed mechanics to the letter (and thus allow the rapier to break down the door)' date=' [b']even in my own game[/b].

 

You're not even remotely reading things correctly.

 

First - the Rapier as written in the book works just fine for me. I have picked up a rapier - I am no proficient in it by any stretch of the imagination. But I've seen one, held one, and can look up information on them.

 

Second - SFX are a part of the system. They aren't a "Mechanics" like RKA is a "Mechanic" but they are an unremoveable aspect of the system.

 

Even if you're off, wrong, or otherwise unsure of the exact specifics... you know that a thing sword is not going to take down a thick oaken door reinforced with iron bars.

 

This is, to me, a simple fact of common sense.

 

 

Your complete inability to grasp what I'm saying is truly stunning.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Even if you're off, wrong, or otherwise unsure of the exact specifics... you know that a thing sword is not going to take down a thick oaken door reinforced with iron bars.

Who are you to tell me what I "know" about a "thing sword" ?

 

If a "thing sword" is like the orange rocky superhero, I imagine that such a weapon would blast through that door very easily.

 

 

But, in any case, I have very little to go on for the rapier, I tend to agree that it is likely that it would probably not take down the door. But I've been wrong in the past, even in situations where I felt fairly sure that I was correct, so I think it is best to be careful.

 

Actually, this point makes me think of a quote:

 

Socrates (as quoted in Lives of Eminent Philosophers)

I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance

 

Respect your own ignorance, baby!

 

I respect mine!

 

Simply put, it seems to me that it should be possible for a GM to simply go with the normal process of rolling weapon damage, and subtracting defense, if he feels that he is unsure of a given situation.

 

And I'd add that it might be possible to do things a bit differently for other reasons as well. Let us assume that for some reason the GM thought that a rapier was the most AWESOMEST weapon EVAR. And then consider that Hero was not made to exactly simulate the real world anyway. In that situation, GM might be more inclined to give the rapier a large degree of leeway in terms of how he considered the "special effect" of that weapon, or even in the way that such a "real weapon" works in his version of "reality."

 

The bottom line is that the rules allow the GM to take special effect and real weapon into account. But there is nothing in the rules that tells the GM specifically how he must actually use those factors in a given situation.

 

To actually assume that ALL GMs will agree about how these factors should work in ALL situations, seems like an error to me.

 

 

This is, to me, a simple fact of common sense.

Yeah, but people also once thought that it was a "fact" that the sun went around the Earth.

 

I'm not saying that you are wrong in this case. However, all the certainty in the world, and a buck, might get you a cup of cofee, if you look in the right place.

 

In terms of what is possible and what is not, "Never say never!"

[Alibear]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

SFX is the central mechanic in Hero. If you cannae grok that there really is no hope for you, Warp.

 

But I think you can grok that but you just like arguing for the sake of it.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

SFX is the central mechanic in Hero. If you cannae grok that there really is no hope for you, Warp.

You mean how, in Hero, you have a SFX like "Weather Control" and then the GM just sort of uses his common sense and judgement to figure out how that SFX would apply in each situation?

 

 

 

Whereas in other (non-Hero) games are not SFX based.

 

In those games, rather than relying on SFX, "Weather Control" would be spelled out more in mechanical terms as to specifically what it could do (in terms of powers like Flight, RKA, Telekinsis) rather than relying on GM intuition?

 

 

 

Is that what you are suggesting?

 

 

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.

 

 

 

An RPG like DC Heroes is also similar to GURPS in that way. You buy powers such as "Weather Control," or "Force Manipulation," and from there the GM figures out what that power can be used to do in a given situation.

 

In Hero, telling the GM, "my characer has Weather Control" is not good enough. You have to define that power.

 

I would say that Hero is "effect based" in terms of the fact that you figure out what specific effects you'd get out of Weather Control, and then you buy those effects in Mechanical Terms.

 

Hero does allow you to get away with minor things based upon your "Weather Control" concept. But that is not anywhere near what other games do in terms of basing things on a power concept.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

But that is not what Vondy says:

 

You'll note that Vondy is telling me that I can't just follow the printed mechanics to the letter (and thus allow the rapier to break down the door), even in my own game.

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

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Warp, I'm still waiting for you to answer this question which I posted earlier; so I'll ask it again: 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?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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.

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.

[ghost-angel]

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.

 

2) Go Away.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Dnftt