Warp9

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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?

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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. "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)

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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. 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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement I just want to keep things set in favor of the "what has been paid for" part. I don't believe that I actually said that I play GURPS (although I do). Since you mention it, I play a whole bunch of different systems. But the fact that I play a system doesn't mean that I think that it is superior to Hero. Basically, I still think that having a GM who (like myself), has no real experience with a weapon like a rapier, start second guessing the mechanics is not all that likely to improve the realism of the situation. And will instead possibly cause more problems than it corrects. And actually, after looking at the rules it seems that we can get the proper answer without relying on the GM after all. Looking at the Fantasy Hero 5th ed Book (page 366), it seems that there are some specific rules about breaking down doors. It says that a slashing weapon such, as a sword or dagger, can do, at most, half damage to a door. Therefore, even without using specific judgement calls, you would find that the rapier can't hack through a heavy metal bound wooden door.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement As a Player, I'd rather know what my character can or can't do ahead of time. And I'd like to know that my character will follow the same rules as the character of the GM's best friend. And, as a GM, I notice that often we end up talking about rulings which the Players don't like, in the middle of the game, rather than waiting till the end. And some people have no problem becoming very vocal if they feel that the GM is violating common sense.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement IMO it would become slick and muddy even in a forest environment, it would be a good idea to cover that aspect. However, I don't have a big problem with this type of ruling. IMO -1" running is not quite as extreme as making targets totally immune to my character's weapons.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement What specific part of my post indicated to you that I thought the GURPS mechanic was a good thing? It would be nice if you could quote the specific line(s).

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement My argument had nothing to do with the "thing sword." That was only a joke, but I see that some people have no sense of humor. Anyway, I thought it was clear, but if you didn't get it, my answer to your assertion that I "know that a thin sword can't hack through a heavy iron bound door," is: no, I don't know any such thing----not as an absolute fact. I think that it is very very unlikely, that such an event could happen, but that is not the same things as being absolutely sure. We live in a strange universe, and I've been shown to be wrong before, even about things which I was pretty sure of. My life has thaught me to say "I know that I don't know." And "Never say never." And, even if I do rule that a rapier can't get through a heavy iron bound door, where do I stop? What do I rule when it comes to a thick wooden door which is NOT iron bound? How about a simple wooden door of medium thickness? What about a thin wooden door? What about different types of armor? Exactly how sure do I have to be before I start making my rulings on these matters?

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement I don't see how you can draw those conclusions from reading my post. I said that, in other games, you have a special effect, such as "Weather Control," and then the GM makes judgements about what can be accomplished with that power based on his own judgement, whereas Hero actually spells out what Weather Control can do. Now based on what I've said in this thread which approach do you think I like better? Other Games: Work with Special Effect such as Weather Control, let GM decide exactly what that Power can or can't do/ Hero: Spell out in specific mechanical terms (RKA, Flight, etc) what Weather Control can do rather than just leaving it up to the GM. Now I ask you again, which of those 2 methods do you think I like better?

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement Part of that answer can be seen in one of my previous posts on this subject: To say a bit more, IMO there is no middle ground in terms of what we are talking about.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement But IMO Vondy's quote is still relevant for a couple of reasons. First, when contrasted with your perspective, it does show that there is a problem with just assuming that a given call, which is based upon GM judgement, should be considered part of the Hero rule set. Yes, a GM is allowed to say that a rapier can't hack through a door, but there is nothing in the rules themselves to say that you'll get that particular ruling. And in fact there is good reason the wonder if a GM who knows nothing about rapiers should be trying to make rulings about rapiers at all. But there is another reason I brought up Vondy's quote. There is an issue of what the role of the players is when common sense is involved. Lets say that I'm a GM and Vondy is a Player. Is it is place to jump in and make his own common sense judgements, if I, as GM, do not seem to be doing so? In my experience, some Players (note: I'm not saying that I know Vondy's position in this matter) do seem to think that they have the right to jump in if the GM is not "following the rules dictated by horse sense." And I see this situation as something of a problem. IMO that is a pretty big implied assumption. If you look at the full text of Vondy's quote (I didn't actually provide all of it before), you'll see that he also calls into question the GM's judgement with the "Nor much horse sense" line. And if Vondy doesn't think such a GM has good judgement--I ask again, why should that GM be overriding the rules?

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement I'm sorry for not responding, but I felt that the matter you raised had already been addressed, and I was tired of going back over what I feel amounts to quibbling over my use of the term "mechanics." And, as I've said, I felt that this issue has been dealt with. . . . I don't think that anybody is arguing that GM judgement calls are not supported by the Hero game. Or that a GM can't totally throw any/all rules out the window if he wants to do so. What I am arguing for is trying to move in a direction where we need less GM judgement calls. Anyway, in terms of that comment by Vondy, that is what kicked off this whole discussion, so it seems kind of relevant. And it is interesting to note that it didn't seem that anyone had problems with his use of the term "mechanics" in that case. In terms of the dialog, both Treb and Ghost Angel were actually reacting to *MY* use of the term "mechanics." I meant it in the sense it was used by Vondy, a sense which did not include GM judgement. And given the context, I don't see how it would make sense if it was read any other way. However, to be clear. . . . What I'm talking about is the process of rolling the rapier's damage, subtracting the door's defense, and applying what is left over to the door, with no specific GM judgement calls involved. I don't really care what we call that process (we can call it "mechanics," or "the game system," or we can call it "hobbody-gobbody-goo" for all I care), but it would be nice if we can stop nit-picking at terminology and deal with my basic point. I thought that response above pretty much covered the issue you raised too. If you feel that I've been unfair, and that I am not dealing with the points you've raised, please let me know. BTW I will add one thing in response to your particular statement. . . . OK, the book says that "by SFX some weapons cannot do some things," and that the special effects should be taken into account. So how do I, as GM, know specifically what things which weapons can or can't do? That is supposed to be a GM judgement call right? But what if I personally know almost nothing about those weapons? What do I base my judgement on then? All the book does is leave things up to the GM's judgement. That does not in anyway mean that you will get a specific ruling about the rapier vs the heavy door.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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) 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. 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!"

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), even in my own game.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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. 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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement Think about it. Yep, it is even more obvious than the "rapier vs door" thing. But that is the point.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement Darth Vader: ". . . And bring peace to my new Empire!" Obi-Wan: "Your new Empire?" Your Hero system? Planning a little coup are we? Exactly! But that is Stage 4, and, if you've been paying attention, it was Stage 1 that just got completed.

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?

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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.