Quote from: Seanchai;360015I'm not standing in front of a grenade, surrounded by people I want to save. Were I and knowing that people can survive such attempts, I might consider doing so.

But how many times have you fallen on a grenade or witnessed someone do it? None? So what would you be basing your idea that it's instantly fatal on?

Seanchai

Let's think about it this way. The idea is to stop the grenade from killing your friends. This implies that if you don't fall on the grenade, your friends will die. Think about it for a second.

At any rate, you take a grenade blast in the gut and there are stormtroopers advancing on your position. You're as good as dead anyway.

It seems like the discussion is getting bogged down specifically in the example of the grenade.  

In general, there are all kinds of things that characters do in action movies, in comics, and in Star Wars - that are really stupid and indeed fatal in real life.  Like leaping onto a driving car or a plane that's taking off, or rushing a bunch of guys with guns barehanded.  These would be stupid things to do in real life, but they work within the fictional world of the genre.  

In an RPG, we have three main ways of judging what such moves would be in character - with most people probably going with a moderate between these extremes.  

1) Do what seems realistic, regardless of the genre or rules.  

2) Just go with what seems appropriate for what you think of as the genre, regardless of what the rules say.

3) Do what the rules say is best, regardless of the genre.  

There are always tradeoffs between these.  If you follow the genre, then you may lose out on believability.  If you don't follow the rules, then you may try things you think are in-genre and/or realistic, but they don't work and you look stupid.  

I think the key is to be consistent about what you are doing.  For example, if you have been playing with grenades by the rules that are markedly less deadly than real-world grenades, then it should make sense that PCs are less leery of them than real-world grenades.

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;360019Let's think about it this way. The idea is to stop the grenade from killing your friends. This implies that if you don't fall on the grenade, your friends will die. Think about it for a second.

Characters have varying amounts of hit points, and it is entirely sensible to assume that the members of an adventuring group have a rough estimate of each other's hit points (again, in qualitative terms, not quantitative).

It is entirely possible that the one guy who lands on the grenade has more hit points than the rest of the group, such that he can live through it with no problem while all of them would most certainly die.

John Kim has the right of it.

It all depends on the level of verisimilitude and consistency. Is it a reasonable expectation on the part of the Player of getting away with this kind of act  considering what has gone on in the campaign.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Seanchai;360016What the character has a conception of is a grenade that apparently does 4d6+1. A starting non-combatant has 18+Con modifier in Hit Points. In other words, there's a good chance that it wouldn't even take down a starting character who was standing right next to it.

I think this point is key. I don't mean to criticize Jeff's call, but if we accept that rules make the physics of the world (and I think that's what going to happen, want it or not), the we have to accept that in SW D20 universe grenades are not as lethal as in our world, and chances of surviving a point - blank detonation are higher. And that's it. I don't find reasonable to ask a player to make decisions for his PC based on RL knowledge if the rules are so different from RL workings as it happens with D20.

Quote from: jhkim;360020In an RPG, we have three main ways of judging what such moves would be in character - with most people probably going with a moderate between these extremes.  

1) Do what seems realistic, regardless of the genre or rules.  

2) Just go with what seems appropriate for what you think of as the genre, regardless of what the rules say.

3) Do what the rules say is best, regardless of the genre.  

There are always tradeoffs between these.  If you follow the genre, then you may lose out on believability.  If you don't follow the rules, then you may try things you think are in-genre and/or realistic, but they don't work and you look stupid.  

I think the key is to be consistent about what you are doing.  For example, if you have been playing with grenades by the rules that are markedly less deadly than real-world grenades, then it should make sense that PCs are less leery of them than real-world grenades.

I find this analysis quite spot on. After all, grenades don't look that lethal in SW D20. Another classic example would be falling damage in D&D, when you have a high level PC.

Quote from: Imperator;360025I find this analysis quite spot on. After all, grenades don't look that lethal in SW D20. Another classic example would be falling damage in D&D, when you have a high level PC.

Well the big thing here is that it could have been a heroic act. In games I have run, regardless of genre, heroic acts (and it's sometimes fatal consequences) - thank God - trumps whatever expectation players have of the rules or my past rulings.

But that's just the way we roll.

Regards,
David R

So it's taken how many pages to partially answer the OP? I.e., one way that systems "'get in the way' of roleplaying" is if what the mechanics say about the physics of the world differs significantly from the conceptions that the players bring to the table.

Another way: if the mechanics excessively formalize social interactions. (E.g., persuasion rolls that work without any regard to the plausibility of the arguments made.)

Another way: if the mechanics create "meta-physics" based on story-needs or game-considerations.

I'll leave y'all to argue for another hundred posts what that means.

Quote from: ggroy;359477It's always amusing to watch hardcore munchkin powergamers trying to play rpg games which do not facilitate their preferred play style of creating overpowered characters that kill every NPC/monster in sight and taking all their stuff.  

This definitely happens in my games.
Combat is very dangerous and has to be treated as such, and much of the exp is gotten from elegant use of abilities,  so munchkin combat monsters seem to die and fail at a pretty high rate.

But it is so hard for them to understand this, if their whole history and background is opposite to the current modality.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;360036So it's taken how many pages to partially answer the OP? I.e., one way that systems "'get in the way' of roleplaying" is if what the mechanics say about the physics of the world differs significantly from the conceptions that the players bring to the table.

Another way: if the mechanics excessively formalize social interactions. (E.g., persuasion rolls that work without any regard to the plausibility of the arguments made.)

Good point, that. I find the "get in the way" rhetoric of rules-lite fans eye-rolling when it comes to the larger issue of task resolution; I personally find lack of well thought out rules light game to be more of an obstacle to play than anything I run into in a well designed, robust game.

But personality mechanics are a note I would sympathize on. PC "sovereignty" and control are issues I consider very carefully. Some rules can aid the players in making interesting or believable decisions, but I think a carrot approach is much better than a stick approach here, and rue games that try to tell me what my character does.

Quote from: Seanchai;360016What the character has a conception of is a grenade that apparently does 4d6+1. A starting non-combatant has 18+Con modifier in Hit Points. In other words, there's a good chance that it wouldn't even take down a starting character who was standing right next to it.

Seanchai

You have a Gross Conceptional Error going on here. d20 Star Wars uses a Vitality Point/Wound Point system where the Vitality Points are equivalent to Hit Points in that they represent dodging, near misses, and being winded while the Wound Points represent the actual physical damage a body can take. Wound Points are equal to the character's constitution and most NPCs do not have any Vitality Points.

Throwing yourself on a grenade is an act in which damage cannot be missed or dodged since you are using your body to absorb the damage, so that 4d6+1 goes directly to Wound Points.

I was using the d20 Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook because this incident happened 7 years ago and I do not know where the fuck you came up with the 18+Con modifier bullshit.

Quote from: jeff37923;360046Throwing yourself on a grenade is an act in which damage cannot be missed or dodged since you are using your body to absorb the damage, so that 4d6+1 goes directly to Wound Points.

While I am aware of the concept at work behind the VP/WP system in d20 SW, I was unaware of this. Is this (attacks that can't be dodged go directly to WP) in the book?

Quote from: jeff37923;360046Throwing yourself on a grenade is an act in which damage cannot be missed or dodged since you are using your body to absorb the damage, so that 4d6+1 goes directly to Wound Points.

Then I take back my previous statement, as it seems highly probable to die from a grenade explosion at point blank.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;360052While I am aware of the concept at work behind the VP/WP system in d20 SW, I was unaware of this. Is this (attacks that can't be dodged go directly to WP) in the book?

Yes. It is also why I asked the Player if he was sure he wanted to do that (jump on the grenade to block the blast).

Quote from: jeff37923;360055Yes. It is also why I asked the Player if he was sure he wanted to do that (jump on the grenade to block the blast).

Hmm. Not sure that really changes things... if his WP were higher than the max damage of the grenade, then he still - by the book - lives through it.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen...if the mechanics excessively formalize social interactions. (E.g., persuasion rolls that work without any regard to the plausibility of the arguments made.)

Mechanics for social encounters make just as much sense as they do for combat encounters. You don't make Bob swing an axe around to demonstrate how his character uses his weapon; there is no reason to make Tom make a persuasive argument to demonstrate how his character does so.

Obviously, there are differences - Bob doesn't need to clarify his intention or his goals, whereas Tom needs to make a decision regarding what he wants to persuade his target to believe - but to require one to resort to non-dice, player-based resolution mechanics and the other to use dice-driven, character-based resolution mechanics seems silly and unfair.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;360056Hmm. Not sure that really changes things... if his WP were higher than the max damage of the grenade, then he still - by the book - lives through it.

Thank you for demonstrating that this was indeed, a case where the rules got in the way of role-playing and common sense.

If the character was a superhero in a superhero game and had a superpower that would have protected him from the point blank explosion damage, I would understand your position. If the character was wearing some heavy duty armor (like powered armor) or was a force user with a creative use of his force powers to deflect the point blank explosion damage, I would also understand your position. You seem to be advocating that no matter how suicidal a Player's action with his character may be, that it should not result in the consequence of character death. I just don't get that.

As a GM, how was I supposed to adjucate this? Is it the GMs responsibility to ensure that Players do not make decisions that result in character suicide?