Quote from: Ian Absentia;360109Then why have Wound Points?  

Why have any kind of points? Why have stats? Why have pre-defined characters? It's a pointless question.

Seanchai

Quote from: Edsan;360105So the player not only attempted to metagame a faux "heroic sacrifice", he didn't even got the rules straight?

I don't have the "d20 Star Wars Revised Core Rules," but I can't imagine it's RAW in them. It's certainly not in the first set. Perhaps someone could find and quote the rules for us.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;360119In the old d6 version, players roll 2D6 each round with the target number being the number of rounds since they fell. That's not too bad. Although it will give you time to save someone...

You can't get anything right, Seanchai.

What you say is only applied to Mortally Wounded characters in the d6 Star Wars game.

Quote from: Seanchai;360119In the d20 versions, you make an easy Save. If you don't immediately fail, you have hours to receive aid. And you can be brought back to life.

If you would bother to know the rules you keep trying to quote, dead is when a character's Wound Points drop to -10 or the Con drops to 0.

Quote from: Seanchai;360119Around some tables, making up punitive crap isn't a GM's usual job.

Seanchai

So we are back to your usual claim that all GMs are evil, right? Show us again on this doll where the naughty GM touched you?

Quote from: Seanchai;360124I don't have the "d20 Star Wars Revised Core Rules," but I can't imagine it's RAW in them. It's certainly not in the first set. Perhaps someone could find and quote the rules for us.

Seanchai

So you freely admit that you have been talking out of your ass.

Thank you, admitting that you have a credibility problem is the first step in getting help.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Seanchai;360121That's the part you don't seem to be getting.

I'm getting it just fine.  You're defining the situation specifically so that it supports an absurd assertion: Hand grenades can not kill player characters.  Which may be your preferred method of portraying Star Wars in a game, but it seems decidedly weird to others.

Quote from: Seanchai;360123Why have any kind of points? Why have stats? Why have pre-defined characters? It's a pointless question.

Vitality Points tell you how much you can get done. Stats set the parameters within which you can do things.  For you, though, with your insistence that Star Wars provides "script immunity" for its characters, Wound Points get in the way by suggesting that a character is not immune to death.  So get rid of them, but keep the others.

Really, man, having painted yourself into a corner defending one little issue of "could" versus "would", you're taking this to an incredible extreme.  Just to win an argument?

!i!

Quote from: jeff37923;360058Thank you for demonstrating that this was indeed, a case where the rules got in the way of role-playing and common sense.

Would you get your head out of your ass?

Unless you're playing a game - and by "game," I mean "using a game system" - that very specifically cleaves to reality as much as possible, using reality as a reference point is nonsensical.

The rules are the physics of the world the characters inhabit. If the rules are written in such a way as to allow a character to land on a grenade and live through it, then that sort of crazy shit should happen. If you don't like it as a DM, well, you can either modify the rules (and not screw the player, either, because they were working with one set of assumptions that you ripped out from under them - if they forget later, that's their own fault), or you can go with a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" approach, and keep in mind the unrealistic things the rules allow when running monsters and NPCs.

I don't see why this is a big deal and "gets in the way of common sense." Yeah, it totally does, from a realism standpoint, but so what? FTL doesn't make any goddamn sense either, and you probably let them do that without batting an eye. And what the hell is up with those swords made of lasers that stop after 3 feet? That sure as hell doesn't make any sense.

There's all sorts of crazy weird shit going on, and it doesn't bother you. Why does this? Trying to apply real-world physics and notions of common sense to a game that is almost totally divorced from the real world doesn't make a lick of sense.

If the rules are the entire basis of the game world's physics, on what basis does the GM make rulings?

Generally, on the basis of what is consistent with the GM's concept of the game world. Which may or may not include "realism".

Which brings us back to points made earlier: that GMs and players need to communicate clearly about the concepts of the game world. If the distance between player and GM, or player and player, on these concepts is too great - well then they go and play in different groups.

This communication can happen out-of-game through rules discussions, or it can happen in-game through events.

For example, in a "gritty" game world, if PC hand grenades instantly kill every NPC they hit, it is reasonable for players to expect and understand that NPC hand grenades will be equally lethal to PCs.

In an 80s action movie game world, NPC hand grenades make you fall over saying "ow", PC hand grenades are small thermonuclear explosions collapsing entire buildings.

Clear communication is important. Roleplaying games are games where all we do is talk and roll dice. Unclear communication like cheating on the dice rolls or even, God forbid, going diceless - it just makes a mess of things.

None of which detracts from the right of the GM to put on their Viking Hat and say, "no, don't be stupid."

That said, Jeff should have consulted the rules to discover the exact damage done - there's generally extra explosive damage for "contact" range in most rpgs - and then had the player roll the grenade damage against himself. Then the player can not complain. Always let the dice decide, that's what we have them for.

Gnomeworks, that's all fine unless the group tries to do something that's based on expectations arising from genre, realism, etc., but which isn't clearly supported by the rules. A classic example is the one where somebody tries to threaten a character with a handgun or crossbow. "One false move and you're dead." It's an appealing scenario because it's often used to set up additional exposition/development without having every interaction turn into a combat. This is often desirable since it reproduces a real-seeming atmosphere of adventure. The problem is that in D&D, for example, it's not a credible threat. So what do you do?

1. Make a ruling of some sort that restores the threat. It may or may not be justified by a reading of the rules (such as a "helpless foe" rule), or it may be a houserule, or a one-time ruling. E.g. in AD&D you could rule automatic loss of initiative, automatic hit, a roll on the assassination table if a hit occurs, etc. (The first two are pretty weak; the third is really the teeth of the type of solution I'm suggesting.)

In a game like Star Wars D20, instead of the assassination table, you could just rule that a hit will go straight to Wounds and/or be an auto-crit, etc.

2. Follow the rules as written, with a minimum of adjudication. Instead, do a little interpretation of what the rules imply. So e.g., in AD&D, the interpretation is that many characters are heroes, especially once they've gotten a level or two under their belts, and they're simply never going to be "frozen" by some dufus with a crossbow. They're fast/agile enough to act quickly and dodge or block the arrow, for the loss of only a few hit points. If you want to threaten someone so you can force them to be led to a prison cell or whatever, you need to have something better, like a prepared spell. Or just hit them with something that renders them helpless, like a net, a trap, or sleep spell or similar.

3. Follow the rules as written but play-act through dramatic moments. E.g. the players "understand" that they should be captured by being cornered by a few crossbowmen, so they go along...and conversely they transmit to the GM their intention to threaten someone into submission, so the GM goes along and has the NPC submit.

I find #3 to be deeply unsatisfying and, on-topic, it "gets in the way" of role-playing. #2 can work, but when carried to extremes it undermines the fundamentals of role-playing. That is, role-playing requires an imagined world; if it's reduced to a set of abstractions without any regard for the consistency and believability of the world, then it's just manipulation of tokens, like a board game.

In the now canonical example of a character smothering a grenade with his body, you've got to ask how to reconcile that with other elements of the setting. Does it mean that high-level characters have an exoskeleton?

Furthermore as people have noted, human values like "bravery" or "self-sacrifice" are undermined when the mechanics tell an entirely different story of calculated expenditure of resources without risk.

Quote from: jeff37923;360103Agreed. Except I used the rules as written here.

No.

If I did not use the rules as written here as you seem to think, then please tell me how I didn't.
Thank you.

Except that I didn't just make up a ruling on this. It was done in accordance with the RAW for d20 Star Wars Revised Core Rules.

I'm basing this on what you said on post 18, where you gave the grenade scenario as an example of the rules "getting in the way" because the player's assumptions about how they'd be used caused him to smother a grenade with his body and expect to live "no problem."

The way you described it, your call ("You're dead") came as a surprise to the player.

You then described your reasons for making the call:

• Providing a consistant universe that has consequences for actions taken in play
• Emulating the Star Wars franchise to the game group
• Encouraging suspension of disbelief and immersion

These, by the way, are all goals I expect from my GM -- and I'd expect rules calls that support those over some more artificial standard (RAW, for example). I'm basically with you on your rules call, and I think you did the job the GM's expected to do.

So the way you introduced the story, it looks like you're using to illustrate an example where the rules caused a problem and required a GM's call to over-ride them for the purpose of consistency, emulation, and immersion.

If you meant to present a different scenario then it's just a miscommunication, but then I'm unclear on what you were trying to illustrate: if you just applied the rules in the unambiguously obvious way then why would they be an example of something not working?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;360165I'm basing this on what you said on post 18, where you gave the grenade scenario as an example of the rules "getting in the way" because the player's assumptions about how they'd be used caused him to smother a grenade with his body and expect to live "no problem."

The way you described it, your call ("You're dead") came as a surprise to the player.

You then described your reasons for making the call:

• Providing a consistant universe that has consequences for actions taken in play
• Emulating the Star Wars franchise to the game group
• Encouraging suspension of disbelief and immersion

These, by the way, are all goals I expect from my GM -- and I'd expect rules calls that support those over some more artificial standard (RAW, for example). I'm basically with you on your rules call, and I think you did the job the GM's expected to do.

So the way you introduced the story, it looks like you're using to illustrate an example where the rules caused a problem and required a GM's call to over-ride them for the purpose of consistency, emulation, and immersion.

If you meant to present a different scenario then it's just a miscommunication, but then I'm unclear on what you were trying to illustrate: if you just applied the rules in the unambiguously obvious way then why would they be an example of something not working?

Cheers,
-E.

I grok where you are coming from. The rules got in the way of role-playing because the Player assumed that his character would survive the grenade explosion. If he was unsure, or didn't think his character could have survived the grenade damage, then I sincerely doubt he would have had his character make the attempt.

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.)

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.

This makes sense to me, to summarize and modify to my views. Systems "'get in the way' of roleplaying" if:

(1) what the mechanics say about the physics of the world differs significantly from the conceptions that the players, or GM, bring to the table.

(2) the mechanics excessively simplify social interactions. (e.g., persuasion rolls that work without any regard to the plausibility of the arguments made.).

(3) the mechanics create "meta-physics" based on story-needs or game-considerations.

(4) the mechanics are complex to implement, excessively pulling players and GM out of the game to consult the rules or make them up, especially in situations that are fast flowing (e.g. combat).

All of these will be a matter of taste and I can, and have, seen them from the simplest system to the more complex.  

Excessively rules light systems can lead to player / GM disconnect on (1), and (4) can arise if you are forced to make up too much stuff as you go along.  Rules light systems can also break down along the lines of (1) when outside the sweet zone, where what GM and players expect are easy actions are impossible or vice versa.  

Trying to get fancy with dice pools (exploding rolls, excessive opposed rolls, dice shifting, etc.) can lead to the road of unintended statistical consequences; a break along the lines of (1).

Complex and/or highly "balanced" systems in my expereince will run afoul of (3) and (4) when they go wrong.

(2) is an interesting case, and may be a subset of (1).  It seems to ignore "social reality" in that there are some things some people just won't do.


And since the grenades in the room....I'm not an instant death kinda GM without a clear warning in such situations.  Especially if there is a disconect between rules and my adjudication, I'll make it very, very clear to the player.  Let them know that if they do that they'll die, that there are other less clearly suicidal options (I may not be explicit about what they are), but if they want to go ahead that's a heroic way to go out and your next character gets a bonus something.  I'm not afraid to overrule the RAW or negotiate with the player a chance to live but needing immediate med-bot attention.

Quote from: jeff37923;359635I had a Player in a d20 Star Wars game tell me that his character was going to jump on a thrown grenade once to save the rest of the Party. I thought, "Damn! That is awesome, I'm going to give him some special stuff for his next character as a reward!"

Then the Player said, "Yeah, I have enough hit points that I'll be able to take the maximum blast damage with no problem". He had a hissy-fit when I told him his character had died. The Player would never had attempted that unless he did the math and determined that his PC would survive.

So from what I understand from reading your other posts, the players were at the end of a corridor, trying to bypass a locked door when the grenade was thrown around the corner by stormtroopers into their very narrow area.

Is this accurate?

Quote from: Ian Absentia;360135You're defining the situation specifically so that it supports an absurd assertion...

How am I defining the situation? By pointing out the rules that cover it? By pointing out that folks in the real world do indeed survive jumping on grenades?

Seanchai

Quote from: GnomeWorks;360158FTL doesn't make any goddamn sense either, and you probably let them do that without batting an eye. And what the hell is up with those swords made of lasers that stop after 3 feet? That sure as hell doesn't make any sense.

Interesting points. Why do grenades have to be "realistic," but other weapons and starships don't? Answer: As I said upthread, the GM didn't like the direction the game was taking and decided to deal with it by coming up with some bullshit excuse. If the player complied with his wishes, he got bonuses for his new character. If he didn't, the character was just dead.

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;360164Gnomeworks, that's all fine unless the group tries to do something that's based on expectations arising from genre, realism, etc., but which isn't clearly supported by the rules.

That's true.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;360164In the now canonical example of a character smothering a grenade with his body, you've got to ask how to reconcile that with other elements of the setting. Does it mean that high-level characters have an exoskeleton?

I think it's rather the reverse: the elements of the rest of the setting determines how deadly the grenade is. A grenade, for example, isn't an odd man out, the one deadly weapon in an arsenal that only poses moderate challenges.

You could say, for example, that GMs have to roleplay the setting. Does an automatically fatal grenade fall in line with a setting that isn't exactly deadly? Nope? Then it's poor "roleplaying" on the GM's part.

Seanchai