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?

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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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'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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement I'm going to take a second shot at this issue. . . . 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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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?

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement To me, a part of it is that a human GM might subconsciously favor some players. I believe that often a player who is charismatic and persuasive is likely to get better treatment than a "rules lawyer," who the GM may not like that much, and who he may feel is already trying to take advantage of the rules anyway.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement Au contraire. No non-fictional sword should be used to hack through building material; and a rapier would be among the poorest choices to attempt it with. That's right. Nor is a 1d6 RKA pistol a good choice to shoot a tank with. The diffrence is that the "pistol vs tank" works out fine with the current mechanics. All you have to do is roll the damage and subtract the defences, and the bullet will bounce right off. 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? Just how accurate do you want things to be?

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement There is a larger question about whether or not the rules can cover ALL possible situations and items. But even if you do not agree with that concept, the example with the rapier vs the door is not an example of using an exotic weapon in some bizzare manner. The mechanics do cover the rapier and the metal bound wooden door. And simply using a weapon, 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. And making it so that a weapon bounces harmlessly off an object is EASY in Hero, just make sure the stats are correct.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement It is not really a question of whether or not you "can" do it. It is more a question of how things should be. There are many options for middle ground. Clearly many games get by just fine with a much smaller rule set than Hero. Being "rules lite" doesn't mean that they have "no rules," it just means that they have less rules. I agree with the above. But it misses the point. We really don't need a "truly realistic model" just one that is in the ball park. The Physics piont is good, in that is shows the world does follow patterns which can be modeled. And while to deal some physical processes may require an advanced degree, others can be handled by a first semester Physics student. IMO the goal is to get a "pesudo-Physics" which models things well enough for a game. That is what I'd describe the goal of game mechanics as being. First, that depends on how diverse you want to get. As I've mentioned, it is clear that many game already intenionally limit the PCs from doing somethings (such as bumping their stats up for free by simply going to the gym, or constantly using an item that they did not pay point for). Second, depending on what limitations you are willing to live with, it may very well be possible to come up with a rule set that does enough and is still feasible. Again, there are a number of factors which will probably violate some people's 'willing suspension of disbelief' no matter what, a game is not going to be 100% realistic. And adding a GM's judgement calls will probably not make it 100% realistic.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement We already do limit in-game possibilities to some extent. In many games, a character can't pick up and use an item he hasn't paid points for. A character doesn't increase his stats simply by going to the gym (without experience anyway). My teleporting character can teleport the mass of a whole person, but he can't teleport just that person's head. Hmm. "Encyclopedia Brittanica core ruleset." Very interesting concept. I've never seen a set of rules that was too complex for me. I've seen bad rules. But never rules that were too complex.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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. 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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement Thanks for showing me that thread. I'll think things over a bit, and probably post a reply there.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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?

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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?

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement Stewie rocks!

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement It depends on how accurate you like things to be. I do agree that it might be worth it.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement 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. 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. 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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement The problem is that the basic damage system assumes that you are hitting the armor. My plate armor has the same defense whether I'm being hit by a very skilled opponet with an ice pick, or a beserk orc with a broadsword. And clearly some defenses don't really have weakspots anyway (where are the weakspots on an iron bound door?). And where are the weakspots in an iron golem? And how easy is it to find chinks in a shield spell? But there are a number ways to simulate finding the weak spots. Find weakness would be one method. Also for many types of armor, one might use a called shot to go after a hit location which was not covered by the armor. If you hit a place with no defenses, then having reduced penetration is not an issue. You could build some types of armor with the limitation that it did not protect as well against some types of attacks.

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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement Unless I've misread the rules for reduced penetration, it does not guarantee anything of the sort. Against an unarmored human type target, both weapons will function identically. It is only targets with defenses which apply to the attack which will case problems for the reduced penetration weapon. A 2d6 RP killing attack will be applied to the defenses as if it were 2 X 1d6 K attacks. However, with no resistant defenses, 2 X 1d6 K is the same thing as 2d6 Killing damage. Also both weapons will be totally ineffective against a target such as the heavy iron bound oak door. But how common is this really? 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.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement It comes down to a difference in perspective over how things should be built. Probably Joe felt that the stats of the blade should be reflected in the system mechanics (in this case the mechanics for reduced penetration), whereas Tom felt that "special effects" would be enough to describe how his character's blade functioned in the game. Tom felt that, rather than pile on limitations, those sorts of things should be left up to the common sense of the GM. If Tom were building a shot gun, or the claw attack of a mundane creature, he probably wouldn't use reduced penetration there either. He would probably feel that GM judgement calls are all that is necessary in those cases as well.