Warp9

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement As I understand it, the purpose behind the limitation "reduced penetration" is simulates an attack which does a decent amount of damage to unarmored targets, but which is ineffective against higher defense targets. The damage is haved against the defense so they are basically applied twice and are thus twice as effective. Joe's rapier has reduced penetration because a light rapier like blade is fairly effective against soft targets (such as unarmored humans), and ineffective against high defense targets (such as heavy iron bound doors). But again there are a number of ways (in Hero) to build this same concept, each of which would simulate what we are talking about with the "rapier vs door" contest without the need for a GM judgement calls.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement I obviously have an opinion on this issue. In fact, I have a number of opinions about all sorts of things. However, I can be wrong (I know, I know, you're going to say that is not possible for me to be wrong, and that I'm perfect, but that is only a common misconception ) I discuss these things because I may be wrong, and I may actually learn something.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement But isn't that how things are done in Hero? I'm assuming that you are aware that there are a number of limitations which make shotguns function the way that they do. Are you suggesting that rather than apply limitations such as "reduced penetration" to that sort of weapon? And that we should intead just leave the qualities of the shotgun to the GM's common sense? That seems to contradict the way that things are done in the book. And to take this a bit further, lets say that Joe and Tom are building rapier like weapons for their characters. Tom builds his rapier-like weapon with "real weapon." Joe builds his rapier-like weapon with "real weapon" and "reduced penetration." Obviously Joe spends less points than Tom. If the GM rules that Tom's weapon is ineffective against higher def targets, then Tom's weapon basically has the same sort of limitation as Joe's weapon, he just doesn't get points for it. So where does that leave us? Do we shrug our shoulders and let it ride as is? That doesn't sound very fair to Tom. Do we say that weapons such as shotguns (which, by their special effect, would have reduced penetration anyway) simply can't take reduced penetration because it would be redundant to take a limitation which is already assumed to exist for that weapon?

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement In Hero this is called "Real Weapon" and it then falls on the GM (and Players) to decide what such a Limitation does and does not allow. So, obviously the rules allow for a differentiation between a Battle Axe and a Rapier, and yet still fall back on the GM to fairly and correctly interpret the situation at hand. Why not use something like the "reduced penetration" limitation? This method limits the weapon's damage against things like a massive door, or an iron golem, but unlike the method you describe, this method allows us to clearly see what the effect will be without having to fall back to the GM. This method allows us to build a magical rapier, which might not take the "real weapon" limitation, but which still should not be hacking through massive doors. This method actually gives a point reduction on the rapier, as compared to other weapons which do not have this reduced penetration limitation. (I can even take both "reduced penetration" and "real weapon" and save more points) And there are still other methods that could be used besides RP, we could design much of the damage of the weapon with the limitation "only vs soft targets." Also we might make a limited burnout roll for the rapier, so it would break against a target like the heavy door. That limitation might look something like this: Burnout (break) on 11-, but only when used against hard targets such as heavy doors or iron golems. Again, if this is going to happen to my weapon anyway, I might is well have it clearly spelled out, and save some points while I'm at it.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement I'm sort of guessing that a normal short sword would probably not be a great weapon to use against that sort of target. Of course I did say "magic short sword." One of the problems is that, at least many of us, do not have extensive experience with using weapons, such as short swords, on a variety of targets. And I'm assuming that none of us has much experience with magic weapons. There is not really a strong basis for many common sense decisions here. It seems like somewhat of a gray area to me. And if the GM has a tendency to throw the letter of the rules out the window in other similiar cases (such as the rapier vs the door), you really don't know what result you are going to get. Why is that a bad thing? First of all, my character might have a fair idea of what is weapons are capable of doing. Also, if it is a point based thing (a weapon you paid points for), I think that you should get what you pay for. And if the GM is basing the results on his personal judgement of what he thinks "makes sense" then you may not be getting what you pay for. I agree. The differences between weapons should be handled by the system where possible (in the actual builds of the items).

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement But at least having the rules spelled out in advance gives everybody a chance to see what they are. And they are not being written during a situation where the people in the game have a stake in the out come. I agree that following the letter of the damage rules can lead to some silly results, but at least we know where we stand. If we follow the letter of the rules, I know what my magic short sword will do when I swing it at that brick wall. But if we are going on the GM's judgement that is a different matter, I have no idea what he'd say about magical short swords and brick walls.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement It sounds to me as if all he's saying is that if you send points for something it plays by the rules as written. And if those rules say that a rapier can bring down a big door, then so be it. Obviously the "real world weapon" limitation involves some GM Judgement calls, I don't think that anybody would argue otherwise.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement If we can all agree that a rapier, which was paid for with points, and which was built without the "real weapon" limitation, would be able to chop down doors, then I'd be happy.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement Exactly. There seems to be an idea that there are GMs with good judgement vs GMs with bad judgement. My experience is that nobody is perfect. If I know what the rules are, then I don't get any surprises.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement If the GM is basing things on his own judgement, and I disagree with him there is not much I can do. But if he is following the rules then it is at least possible that the rules can be used as a defense. Here is a quote from over at RPG.net (from a thread called "Who is playing rules-lite and why?") http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=189176&page=2

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement Yes, that is a BIG part of it. It seems pretty unfair to give major advantages to something which didn't cost any more points. However, it's also an issue about where one would stop. It may be obvious that a rapier wouldn't cut down the door, and an axe would, but there are plenty of other weapons in the world. If my rapier can't cut down the door, then I'm going to be upset if Pete's character is allowed to destroy a similar object with his weapon which is only slightly heavier. It just seems as if this situation opens up a whole big can of worms.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement But there is nothing in the rules which tell us what impact that "effects based definition" should have. I'm not going to argue that many people would believe a rapier should hack through a metal bound oak door. But what about a highly magical rapier, or what about a slightly heavier weapon? What does "horse sense" tell us then? You say that the GM is breaking the rules if he allows a rapier to hack through a iron bound oak door, but is he breaking the rules if he allows a magical short sword to hack through such a door? We know what the letter of the law says---but the intent of the law requires some quessing.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement One can always ask "why." I'm just curious why you really need a more "rules heavy" system.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement I find the above statement confusing in light of the statement below. (A) The above conclusion sounds like a ruling to me. ( I don't see how the system helped you come to the above conclusion. Even if you'd been running a rules lite game, you still know that a rapier can't hack through a vault door. © It seems to me as if you don't need a great deal of "system meat" to base your rulings on.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement But that brings us back to the question of why you can't get by with a rules lite system.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement I like your example above because it shows how some of these concepts can become more complex (with martial arts, skill levels and other factors such as find weakness). I agree that it may be possible to reach some agreement about what a rapier is and what it does in the hands of Joe Average. But what about what a rapier can do in the hands of a martial arts master with some mystical ability to find weakness? And what about such a character who exists in a world which, rather than being based upon our reality, is based on heroic fiction where increadible events can and do happen? I think that there is a great deal of room for honest disagreement about what such a character could do with the weapon. And matters can get even worse when some of the players actually have a stake in the outcome---having your character involved in the events can cloud objectivity. Also, if you are unhappy with the damage that a rapier can do against a vault door, are you also unhappy with the damage that a rapier can do against an iron golem? And what about other types of blades, are you going to let my character hack down a vault door with a short sword? What about a long sword? It seems to me that, if the system is so far off when it comes to rapiers against heavy targets, some of the same problems are likely to exist with a wider range of weapons and a wider range of targets.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement It is possible that we are talking past each other. For me, a part of the matter comes back to the following statment which you made above: The GM isn't contradicting the mechanics when he says a mundane rapier can't hack through a three inch thick iron bound metal door irrespective of the body damage it can do because the special effect is a part of the rules-side definition of the object. It may make some gamers uncomfortable, but effects based definition is a part of the system. Its a rule. OK, 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?

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement Of course that is only one motivation a GM might have for "breaking the rules." Some GMs will try to railroad the PCs, and breaking the rules is often a good way to do that. This situation often comes up if the rules allow the PCs to do something which doesn't fit with the GM's plans.