Quote from: DavetheLost;1009656... The difference with the orc is that it was not "I made a mistake", nor was it "I wanted this orc to be a weak orc". It was "I arbitraily changed the orc from what it 'should' have been because I felt like it."  Players tend not to like arbitrary GMs.

Well, according to what Grove wrote about what he thought he was doing, it was "I wanted this orc to be a weak orc". The difference seems to be that Grove felt it was reasonable to change practically any stat to show that, even ones that other players feel are material values that should remain consistent (in particular, the AC given to everything wearing chainmail - also the damage done by everyone using a broadsword).

I didn't get why that was a big deal because I don't know D&D that well and figured the net effect would be a +2 to hit which might be reasonable for lamer-than-usual orcs, but apparently it's a stat people don't expect to change without a reason like defective equipment. That I can relate to, especially if I translate it into a system I am familiar with, such as TFT, where a GM can very easily make sucky orcs by giving them lower strength or dexterity, and/or by just having them make clumsy tactical slips more often. But if a TFT GM had a foe described as wearing perfectly good chainmail that only reduced 1 point of damage per hit rather than 3, the orcs being doofuses would not account for that kind of change, and if they were +2 to hit, that would also be weird and make me think the GM didn't know the rules well or at best was redesigning them without telling us about them, because practically no published foes give a + to hit in TFT unless they're facing the wrong way or lying on the ground.

The + to-hit might make sense as part of a brilliant GM redesigning TFT, but the reduced protection probably never would make much sense (unless it were part of a mechanic for aiming at gaps in armor or something). However even the brilliant GM should let the players know he's messing with stats and game mechanics so they aren't surprised, and can hopefully play the game they think they're playing.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009666Doesnt the fact that I reduced his AC make it sort of obvious I was making him an easier opponent? "I wanted this to be a weak orc." and "I arbitrarily changed the orc" is sort of the same thing... well actually its the exact same thing. Must I discuss the reasoning behind my encounter design with every player?

Clearly it was not clear to that player. He seems to have been surprised to learn what the foe's AC was, and also surprised to learn the orc was in chainmail. He might not have realized the orcs were supposed to be weak at all. And somehow you still haven't got that apparently some players of some versions of D&D expect AC never to vary by wearer, so it seems to them like an inappropriate/nonsense way for you to make it a weak orc. To them it seems to be like you made them weak by having their armor turn into cloth when they wear it, and saying it's because they aren't very skilled - i.e. it makes no sense to them for you to change that stat.

Look, after sleeping on it: the situation you're describing isn't an issue in every game. Take this one:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1977[/ATTACH]

Player: I attack; my melee+roll winds up with a 5
GM: You hit! You scythe through his chainmail with your mighty blow, and he falls dead!
Player: Wait, he's wearing chainmail? Shouldn't I miss, then? I'm wearing chainmail, and his attack of 5 missed me.
GM: That's because you tagged your "Wearing chainmail armor" aspect to boost your defense by +2, so he was short by 2.
Player: Why didn't he do that? His life was one the line!
GM: I'm out of fate points. I only get, what, four a scene? I used them to make the ogre tougher. You guys... You were here, you saw me do that.
Player: Oh, right. So it doesn't matter that we're wearing the same armor?
GM: Nope! It only "matters" in a rules-sense if we decide it matters; we express that by using free invokes and tagging or creating as an Aspect and then using our fate point economy to invoke it!
Player: My eyeballs are bleeding!
GM: MINE TOO!

This system is a better fit for you; you can be transparent about changing anything, anywhen, for no reason or any reason. I mean, it makes ME want to swallow my own body like the legendary Ouroboros, but I don't judge how someone else enjoys their elfgames.

Quote from: Azraele;1009676This system is a better fit for you;

I wouldn't go that far, but I do think 4e D&D "AC is determined by role and level" fits Grove's style much better than "AC X is a specific class of armour" games.

Quote from: Skarg;1009674Clearly it was not clear to that player. He seems to have been surprised to learn what the foe's AC was, and also surprised to learn the orc was in chainmail. He might not have realized the orcs were supposed to be weak at all. And somehow you still haven't got that apparently some players of some versions of D&D expect AC never to vary by wearer, so it seems to them like an inappropriate/nonsense way for you to make it a weak orc. To them it seems to be like you made them weak by having their armor turn into cloth when they wear it, and saying it's because they aren't very skilled - i.e. it makes no sense to them for you to change that stat.

No. Go back and read what Grove detailed. Its not a "'weak orc" its not 'poor armour". It is. "Because I wanted to be easier to hit so despite me saying chainmail it acts like leather today and tomorrow it might act like platemail. Because thats what I want."

This is the problem Grove cant seem to grasp and keeps trying to justify with his usual "Look see, you are all really doing the same thing Im doing so what I did was perfectly fine!" routine. Which is why half the forum keeps kicking him even when he has a good point in there somewhere or his style is valid. But its NOT how others are describing their playstyles. And we have to go through this just about every thread of his.

Then we have this little problem that he wants people here to say "Yes Yes you are right and did nothing wrong." and then pretty much ignores anyone who defends something he said and spends 10+ pages wondering why people are telling him NO and then he'll leave the thread in ANOTHER huff. And the people who defended or agreed with something he said are left realizing that its kinda pointless to try. Some of the more vitrolic responses are from those who are by now well past the patience limit.

Which is a damn shame because personally I like alot of Groves posts.

In this very thread hes been told by a surprisingly high number of posters. "Changing stuff is Ok." which he ignores. And when explained to that "Changing stuff with no in-game consistency or reason is not Ok." then either ignores that too. Or tries to claim that everyone is changing stuff on a whim with no in game consistency.

I think the problem is how he expressed his reasoning in changing the orc's AC to the player. The player was expecting an in game rationale for the AC differing from expectations set up by the description. What he got instead was "it's different because I made it different, and I'll do it again tomorrow if I feel like it".

The whole problem would probably have been avoided by saying "the orc is wearing crappy chainmail". Regular chainmail AC14, crappy chainmail AC11.  OK, it still boils down to "I made the orc easier to hit, because I wanted the or to be easier to hit," but it may be presented in a way that is more palatable to the player.

Quote from: S'mon;1009681I wouldn't go that far, but I do think 4e D&D "AC is determined by role and level" fits Grove's style much better than "AC X is a specific class of armour" games.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread. 4e D&D Gamma World is like that. The name of the armour or weapon is irrelevant. Its the weight class its in that matters. I assume that is the same in 4e itself?

Quote from: Omega;1009690I mentioned this earlier in the thread. 4e D&D Gamma World is like that. The name of the armour or weapon is irrelevant. Its the weight class its in that matters. I assume that is the same in 4e itself?

Yes, 4e D&D Gamma World is a reskinning of 4e D&D.

Quote from: S'mon;1009691Yes, 4e D&D Gamma World is a reskinning of 4e D&D.

I knew that. Alot of people say it does 4e right. But having allmost no exposure to 4e D&D I have no idea what they kept and what they jettisoned, streamlined, or overhauled. But in GW the whole ambiguity factor carries over into the monsters and encounters too.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009666Doesnt the fact that I reduced his AC make it sort of obvious I was making him an easier opponent?  

* snippity doo dah *

Dude, you have missed the point so far that the light from the point won't reach you for 10,000 years.

Look.  YOUR DESCRIPTION is the ONLY information players have about the world.

You just told a player that your description is irrelevant to reality.  "It doesn't matter how I describe it," end quote.

THEREFORE, you have just told the player that there is no such thing as reliable information to base a decision on.

IN the words of Miyamoto Musashi, "You must study this until you know it well."

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009653Guys its actually been a constructive thread for the most part, with a minimum of personal attacks, and around here that is a win. I actually do see your points in that a simple logical explanation for my modification of the rule would have avoided the confrontation. As it was I was a little hacked that this rules lawyer was getting his dander up over a very minor change that was put in place for his benefit no less. Points taken though, could have been handled better, definitely.

At the risk of extending this thread, which has run its useful course, I will add this however. What I reacted to with the player, and here in this thread, is the idea that the stats are somehow sacred. That Chainmail is AC14 by GOD unless there is a logical, in game, reason for it to be otherwise.

Somebody, somewhere, once upon a time, sat down with a spiral notebook and decided on what number to assign the armor types in the game they were developing. They decided, based on their perception and understanding of armor and the probability of achieving a damaging hit and how they wanted the armor to be represented in the game  on 14.  Great!

But Im playing MY game, and in performing the same mental process I came up with something different in this instance.  Perhaps its the number of hit points a gryphon has, or how long the poison lasts from a frog bite. Maybe its how strong the paralysis effect is from a ghoul, or even if it has that effect at all.

I respect that, rgrover:). It is your game, by all means, make it yours!
Just tell that to the players in advance. Because, you know, "those orcs have like AC14, a point more, a point less - we'd better avoid a fight/we can take them on" is a perfectly reasonable IC logic in most games, even if expressed in OOC terms. (IC, it would be "it takes time to kill a guy in chain, during which the rest can gang up on you", but that's the same cause and the same effect).

However, can I suggest that yes, you're NOT. WELL. SERVED. by sticking to D&D? And it's causing problems with your group, obviously?

Would you be interested in a game where your logic from above would be uncontestable, instead?


Yes, I recommend taking Dungeon World (and removing the Discern Realities Move, because most people coming from traditional RPGs find it either useless, or actively harmful to their fun).
Why?

Well, here's how a fight in Dungeon World is supposed to go.
The 16 HP Dragon (that the party ran from).

Same for the orcs in chainmail. How tough those orcs are depends on how the players describe what they're doing, when the GM asks for rolls, and for what kind of rolls.
For example, the players might describe trying to fight ogres in chainmail, with spears, by approaching and hitting through the chain with a mace.
The GM can allow them to just roll Hack and Slash move. That would make them easy orcs.
Or he might ask for a Dexterity saving roll, in order to avoid their spears' long reach. If the players do, they can roll hack and slash, presumably (or they can jump back and avoid any rolling - that's what the orcs were trying to do, after all.
That would make those some rather hard orcs.
Best part of it? You don't have to decide in advance. You call for rolls depending on what the players describe;)!

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009666Doesnt the fact that I reduced his AC make it sort of obvious I was making him an easier opponent? "I wanted this to be a weak orc." and "I arbitrarily changed the orc" is sort of the same thing... well actually its the exact same thing.

No, it's not the same thing.

Quote from: Azraele;1009676Look, after sleeping on it: the situation you're describing isn't an issue in every game. Take this one:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1977[/ATTACH]

(snipped)
This system is a better fit for you; you can be transparent about changing anything, anywhen, for no reason or any reason. I mean, it makes ME want to swallow my own body like the legendary Ouroboros, but I don't judge how someone else enjoys their elfgames.

I agree with you that he'd be better off taking a new game.
I disagree with the suggestion for Fate Core, though;).

Quote from: Omega;1009690I mentioned this earlier in the thread. 4e D&D Gamma World is like that. The name of the armour or weapon is irrelevant. Its the weight class its in that matters. I assume that is the same in 4e itself?

No, IIRC, the type of armour makes the AC of the PCs change, but the opponents have an armour class that depends on their role in the encounter: Brute, Soldier, Extras or whatever. Then the GM can describe them as orcs in chain for Eberron or Forgotten Realms, or as orcs in leather for Dark Sun, and their stats don't change one bit:D!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009697* snippity doo dah *

Dude, you have missed the point so far that the light from the point won't reach you for 10,000 years.

Look.  YOUR DESCRIPTION is the ONLY information players have about the world.

You just told a player that your description is irrelevant to reality.  "It doesn't matter how I describe it," end quote.

THEREFORE, you have just told the player that there is no such thing as reliable information to base a decision on.

I want to put you, 4e D&D and Fate in a room and see which one spontaneously combusts first. :cool:

Quote from: AsenRG;1009699No, IIRC, the type of armour makes the AC of the PCs change, but the opponents have an armour class that depends on their role in the encounter: Brute, Soldier, Extras or whatever. Then the GM can describe them as orcs in chain for Eberron or Forgotten Realms, or as orcs in leather for Dark Sun, and their stats don't change one bit:D!

I was more asking about the PCs in 4e. The monsters in the GW version arent using the same rules as the PCs for equipment either. In fact they barely seem to be following any equipment rules at all.

Quote from: Omega;1009704I was more asking about the PCs in 4e. The monsters in the GW version arent using the same rules as the PCs for equipment either. In fact they barely seem to be following any equipment rules at all.

4e PC AC is calculated as 10 + armour bonus + 1/2 level + any other mods.

The 4e DMG does actually suggest doing this for a special category of simplified quasi-PC-class NPCs, but this was never followed up; published NPCs are all Brute/Soldier/Skirmisher etc with 12/14/16+Level ACs.

4e is weird - last session my group were wary of taking on 5 hobgoblins with 3 PCs. But if there had been 20 hobgoblins they'd have thought "Minions!" and dived right in. It's definitely not high on the versimilitude and doesn't encourage outside-the-box thinking; thinking is for in-combat, not whether/how to engage.

Quote from: Omega;1009703I want to put you, 4e D&D and Fate in a room and see which one spontaneously combusts first. :cool:

Both those games define survivability in terms other than AC, so "not applicable."

In 4E as I understand it, Grover would say "That orc was a minion."