Quote from: Omega;1012923Um... Id think that "You see a machinegun up ahead somewhat like the last one you dealt with, only this one is bigger." would clue the players that maybe they should be cautious until they know what it does.

I think dodging  machine gun fire is so silly that my suspension of disbelief would go out the window, screaming with laughter. .
But I've been shot at and shot.
Which may be why there are no firearms in my core rules.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1012926I think dodging  machine gun fire is so silly that my suspension of disbelief would go out the window, screaming with laughter. .
But I've been shot at and shot.
Which may be why there are no firearms in my core rules.

Why? You can see the thing turning your way. The idea is to get out of the line of fire somehow.

Also, the machine gun example is from Mutants and Masterminds, a supers game. If anyone thinks Superman shouldn't be dodging bullets, they need to read more comics.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1012926I think dodging  machine gun fire is so silly...

[video=youtube;c9z8xbpa1OY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9z8xbpa1OY[/youtube]

[video=youtube;2qY0DA7DG9s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qY0DA7DG9s[/youtube]

[video=youtube;9tkMYoOLAhk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkMYoOLAhk[/youtube]


Throw out your idea of realism and sue Mythbusters because it can happen, especially when the target is nimble and the shooter aims like a stormtrooper. It's also more likely to dodge the closer you stand, as the case of Mythbusters show you kinda need distance to have the advantage of using ranged weapons.

bonus video:

The two guys here are russian soldiers, I assume GRU
[video=youtube;HQTeeNX7VME]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQTeeNX7VME[/youtube]
(edit: altho this is more disarming than dodging)

Recently the Rohingya were also reported to scramble for safety after dodging mortar and gunfire as they fled, of course there were a lot of casualties but your chances are better if the shooter doesn't know where you are, where you will come into range / direction from. The mythbuster case isn't a natural situation because the target was already standing right ahead instead of something like between ruined buildings and with a chance to jump dive behind a wreck.

In any case, sci-fi or fantasy gaming is not realism, you can have inhuman reaction time, magic, or force fields. I don't see a reason to fully remove firearms, considering that most systems don't even make them as deadly as they are in reality.

PS: yes the first video was meant as a joke

The quote about the machine guns in M&M is from one of the blog articles I suggested Rgrove read to see where he was going wrong.

Quote from: Omega;1012869Just about no one has said that you must adhere to the rules slavishly. In fact I and many others have again and again and again pointed out that tweaking things is pretty much the norm. AGAIN. The difference is that we give reason for these tweaks. The Orc in Chain is worse AC than it should have not "Because!" but rather has some explanation. Its poorly made chain, its a clumsy orc, its cursed chain or even "Its not chain at all. Its some sort of string netting shirt painted silver???" etc.

I felt that your point could use some more bold and bigger letters;).
As pretty much except Nexus said, even "those NPCs have a free, NPC-only feat, called SucksAtFighting that reduces their AC by however much the GM wants" would have been better. Because at least it's an attempt at a joke, and it at least hints at an in-universe explanation:).

(BTW, rgrove, I agree. Fighting skill definitely impacts how often you get hit, and D&D doesn't reflect that, as a general rule. Your change merely addressed that, which is normally something I'd congratulate you about:D!
Your failure, and failure it was, was in implying it was due to GM fiat, and not an in-universe reason. A Referee has got to communicate with the players).

Now that I mention that, I remembered another game (apart from Dungeon World) that would be pretty much perfect for your style. I should have mentioned it earlier;).
Amusingly enough, I also like it, because it works. (The difference is that to me, the way it works is a roundabout justification of setting reality. To you, it would be how you do stuff anyway. But I digress).
The game is called Feng Shui 2, and no, I'm not joking. (It's basically a hidden "universal game engine", too, since if you restrict what junctures you visit, you can do pretty much all genres). But basically, everything the GM does, after deciding how tough a particular opponent is, is giving him numbers, and maybe a single "special ability". You want an enemy to be tougher? Give him better numbers.
Armour and weapons basically don't matter much. (Admittedly, it has no rules for armour, but if it had, they would be something like "+1 Toughness when having a light armour, +2 for mail and other non-rigid armour, +3 for rigid armour. A very good armour might also grant a Special Ability to ignore the wounds from one attack, then the armour is damaged, and needs to be repaired to use the ability again).
And yet, it works like a charm.

Come to think of it, it's rather similar to Wushu:D!

Quote from: Omega;1012925I disagree here on a point. Far as we've seen so far Grove's settings have consistency. In fact that is one of the problems. They seem to have too much consistency. A specific, or semi-specific, plot that will play out.

It is parts of the rules that do not have consistency because those may be altered or thrown out for dramatic effect.

And lets be honest here. Most of us do this too. The difference is we give a mechanical or descriptive reason WHY. Which is the step Grove apparently thinks isnt needed. Which to me is weird because its something Id expect to be part of Groves particular style.

Its is, when such a thing occurs.. which is not all the time. I mean a rational explanation for something, of course. But when confronted on it by some ass hat player I would have thought the notion of modifying the rules to better present a suitable challenge reason enough. I totally misinterpreted what I thought i would receive the tough, take no prisoners, "Its my fucking game", GMs here. But again, I learned something.

Ive played literally thousands of hours as GM and actually sticking my big GM Dong in the rules to 'get my story' is fairly rare. Yes, Im heavy on descriptive narrative. Yes, I push certain plot angles and Yes, I bend the rules now and then in the interest of what I believe to be a better, more fun, experience for my players and I. I do not crouch behind my GM screen and tell a story and pretend to be playing an RPG, despite what seems to be the common belief here.

It IS your game, it's also the game of every player, but you as GM can paint the world in whatever colors and patterns you want, and thus you only have to be careful of which paintbrush you use. Better reasoning for causes is all it takes. You may not even have realized the issue yourself as a longterm GM.

Remember Bob Ross: "We don't make mistakes, just happy little accidents" & "This is your world. You're the creator. Find freedom on this canvas."

Just make sure the world you paint creates happy little players while also making you happy.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012955. I do not crouch behind my GM screen and tell a story and pretend to be playing an RPG, despite what seems to be the common belief here.

We have only what you tell us to judge by. You tell us of NPCs fumbling their evasion rolls while PCs achieve critical success, but escaping anyway because you are not ready for the "big reveal" of capture to screw up your plot. You tell us that "Doesnt matter how I describe it."

Then you come to us telling tales of woe that another game session didn't work out and what do we think?

Well, tell you up front and honestly what we think based on what you tell us. The same as do for every other poster.

Quote from: Brand55;1012942Also, the machine gun example is from Mutants and Masterminds, a supers game. If anyone thinks Superman shouldn't be dodging bullets, they need to read more comics.

Superman doesn't dodge bullets. Bullets bounce off his chest. The gun though...

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012830And yours makes you look like a simpleton, despite all your high brow claims. You seriously want to take a look around at any number of supposedly similar suits of armor and claim they all have the exact same arbitrary value of protection? Really? I mean, Really.

"High brow"! Perfect!  

Yup, it's totally "high brow" to play a game by its rules. Oh my...


I really enjoy these threads. I'd never ever want to game with rgrove, but these threads do generate some interesting discussions and informative replies from other people.

Interesting, my reaction is the opposite, I would like to play a game under Grove especially because nothing in the threads is the same as experiencing events personally during a campaign.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012830You seriously want to take a look around at any number of supposedly similar suits of armor and claim they all have the exact same arbitrary value of protection? Really? I mean, Really. If you assigned three in a row a value of 3 and I gave the first one a 2.8, the middle one 3.1 and the last one 3.34...

Both would be effectively a 3. Doesn't fucking matter if that 3 is 2.8 or 3.4. The scale is 9 or 10 whole number (integer) steps to cover all the different types of armour and divide them into "classes" of protection. So, yes, I will look at a number of similar suits of armour and assign them all the same arbitray value of protection. It is a very coarse grained scale.

If no protective gear is AC10 and the heaviest available protective gear is AC20 and only whole number steps are available, there is going to be a lot of lumping. You have ten steps to assignall possible combinations of protective gear to.  Want 2.8, 3.1, and 3.4 to matter? Play a different game. One in which the steps between armour classes are smaller.

There is no difference between AC2.5  and AC3.4 in D&D type games, they, and everything in between them are all AC3.  That is just the way the game mechanics work. there is no mechanism for fractional AC increments.

Quote from: joriandrake;1012949

[video=youtube;c9z8xbpa1OY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9z8xbpa1OY[/youtube]

[video=youtube;2qY0DA7DG9s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qY0DA7DG9s[/youtube]

[video=youtube;9tkMYoOLAhk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkMYoOLAhk[/youtube]


Throw out your idea of realism and sue Mythbusters because it can happen, especially when the target is nimble and the shooter aims like a stormtrooper. It's also more likely to dodge the closer you stand, as the case of Mythbusters show you kinda need distance to have the advantage of using ranged weapons.

bonus video:

The two guys here are russian soldiers, I assume GRU
[video=youtube;HQTeeNX7VME]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQTeeNX7VME[/youtube]
(edit: altho this is more disarming than dodging)

Recently the Rohingya were also reported to scramble for safety after dodging mortar and gunfire as they fled, of course there were a lot of casualties but your chances are better if the shooter doesn't know where you are, where you will come into range / direction from. The mythbuster case isn't a natural situation because the target was already standing right ahead instead of something like between ruined buildings and with a chance to jump dive behind a wreck.

In any case, sci-fi or fantasy gaming is not realism, you can have inhuman reaction time, magic, or force fields. I don't see a reason to fully remove firearms, considering that most systems don't even make them as deadly as they are in reality.

PS: yes the first video was meant as a joke

Barring the character having superhuman powers I envision 'dodging' bullets more of dodging the shooter's aim rather than literally sidestepped the projectile.

Quote from: Nexus;1013009Barring the character having superhuman powers I envision 'dodging' bullets more of dodging the shooter's aim rather than literally sidestepped the projectile.

It's the same basically, just as dodging arrows is also more or less dodging the archer's aim (although due to slower ammo it has a higher chance)