Quote from: Elliot Wilen;360314I'm not sure if it is or isn't, having never played it. But if you can say this, then you should understand what I mean when I say that a system can get in the way of roleplaying.

What? No, I really can't.

Just because the system does a poor job of replicating the things of kinds that happen in the films doesn't mean that SW d20 "gets in the way of roleplaying." It provides for an experience that differs from the experience one would initially expect from a system that supposedly represents the films, but once you understand that there's a difference, I don't see how the system gets in the way.

QuoteI'm not talking about literary themes. I'm talking about character motivations in the context of the imagined setting, which is what I equate with roleplaying. As I just wrote, you can do this to an extent with rigid rule sets--but only when the rules support it, and not very flexibly. RPGs add flexibility through the agency of a GM.

Having solid rules doesn't prevent a thing like "bravery" or "self-sacrifice" from showing up. It just means that, sometimes, the situations you expect them to show up don't allow them to be expressed, and that they can show up in situations you wouldn't think they would, if the same things were happening in the real world.

QuoteIf you try to reduce the role of human judgment, informed by the responsibility to be faithful to the genre and setting, then you either have to make the rules very, very detailed and complex, or you make the game abstract and rigid with less verisimilitude and potentially less support for character motivations that make sense in the context of the imagined setting.

IMO, detailed != complex. You can have a lot of very simple, elegant rules covering a lot of ground, that don't interact sufficiently to create a ridiculously complex system. Isolated subsystems that interact at a very basic level can allow a game system to have rules for all kinds of things without bogging things down.

Quote from: Soylent Green;360254Should the GM take into account the player's attitude (good or bad) when making a ruling?

I prefer to be even-handed. But then again, in my experience, players who are approaching the game with a bad attitude sooner or later end up doing shit that players who are taking a much more positive attitude to things would never consider doing. And when that happens, the guys with the sucky attitude usually come off worse.

What this all comes down to is a GMing issue.

Systems will get in the way.

Players will argue.

The proper response is for the GM to say, "shut the fuck up and roll the dice." This was what Jeff did wrong, he did not have the player roll any dice. He should have said, "explosives do double damage on contact, roll the damage against yourself, twice."

If he lives, he lives, but probably not.

Shut the fuck up and roll the dice.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;360335He should have said, "explosives do double damage on contact, roll the damage against yourself, twice."

Good way to lose players.

I don't understand the whole "the DM should always be a hardass" mentality. Does anyone care to explain it? Because it seems very adversarial and childish to me.

QuoteShut the fuck up and roll the dice.

While I like the principle that any action can and should be resolved with dice, this really feels like the DM equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;360335This was what Jeff did wrong, he did not have the player roll any dice. He should have said, "explosives do double damage on contact, roll the damage against yourself, twice."

Y'know I think this is the best solution and probably something I could see myself doing. What I don't really like about jeff's ruling was that he had already decided that the character was going to die. I understand this and I have done it myself a couple of times, but what I like about this particluar solution this for particular situation is that, it just seems so Star Wars-ish.

If the player rolls great, his character survives and it becomes one of those moments that players love to talk about. If he rolls average or worse, his character is toast and he can't really blame anyone but the dice.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: GnomeWorks;360339Good way to lose players.

You feel that a GM using common sense but always allowing a player a roll to get lucky is a bad thing?

It's not lost me a player yet.

QuoteI don't understand the whole "the DM should always be a hardass" mentality. Does anyone care to explain it? Because it seems very adversarial and childish to me.

That an explosive does more damage when it is lying on a flat surface and you deliberately smother the explosion with your body than if it just happens to land near you is not being a hardarse, it's common sense.

Explosions do more damage when they are confined and their energy only has one place to go. This is the basic principle of the firearm, after all.

QuoteWhile I like the principle that any action can and should be resolved with dice, this really feels like the DM equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you."

No. It's simply the GM saying the game must go on. Just as systems can get in the way of roleplaying, sometimes player whinging and arguing can, too.

Ever played a game of chess or scrabble where there was some player who took fucking ages to decide what to do? Remember how boring and annoying that was? What we enjoy about games is that things happen. Nobody goes to a tennis match to watch the players just bounce the ball in front of them, or wait to pick up balls from the ball boys. They go to see the ball get whacked back and forth, the players run around frantically trying to hit the ball until finally someone misses. Things happen, and that's fun.

We enjoy games because things happen. When a player is arguing and whinging, nothing is happening. The GM as referee must keep the game moving for the sake of the fun of everyone at the table. The other players didn't show up to hear one idiot whine and argue. Players show up to play. That's why we call them "players."

Thus, sometimes the GM must say, "shut the fuck up and roll the dice." It keeps things moving.

Plus, while players get upset if the GM's decisions are random and unpredictable, they are quite content with the random and unpredictable decisions of the dice. Rolling the dice gives the players the illusion of control. They like that.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;360341You feel that a GM using common sense but always allowing a player a roll to get lucky is a bad thing?

It's not lost me a player yet.

It's all about the context.

Laying down the law, as it were, when the rules are relatively clear as to what's going on feels a lot more like screwing the player than keeping the game moving.

The player had an expectation, not a question. That expectation wasn't based on fantasy or willful ignorance, it had a solid grounding in the rules. You're basically saying, "Your understanding doesn't jive with mine, but I'm the DM, so what I say goes."

QuoteThat an explosive does more damage when it is lying on a flat surface and you deliberately smother the explosion with your body than if it just happens to land near you is not being a hardarse, it's common sense.

Common sense in reality, sure. Once again, there are distinctions between reality and the reality the game system represents; what is common sense here is not necessarily common sense elsewhere.

QuoteExplosions do more damage when they are confined and their energy only has one place to go. This is the basic principle of the firearm, after all.

The problem is not necessarily the ruling itself; it's the ramifications.

Let's say we go with your solution. If a clever player finds a way to exploit this against their enemies, say by shaping explosives or finding another exploit, would you allow it and hold by your earlier ruling?

QuoteNo. It's simply the GM saying the game must go on. Just as systems can get in the way of roleplaying, sometimes player whinging and arguing can, too.

I fail to recall any instance of the player "whining and arguing" in the anecdote we're arguing about.

QuoteEver played a game of chess or scrabble where there was some player who took fucking ages to decide what to do? Remember how boring and annoying that was? What we enjoy about games is that things happen. ... Things happen, and that's fun.

I think we have a fundamental disconnect, here. I am fine with pauses for thought, I am fine with someone taking awhile to make a decision (unless a good reason is given for a time limit of some kind).

So long as someone is actively thinking and engaged in the game, I'm fine with waiting. If they are not doing something because they're distracted... well, that's something else. But if they're obviously contemplating the situation at hand? Take as long as you need.

QuoteWe enjoy games because things happen. When a player is arguing and whinging, nothing is happening. The GM as referee must keep the game moving for the sake of the fun of everyone at the table. The other players didn't show up to hear one idiot whine and argue. Players show up to play. That's why we call them "players."

Again with the "whine and argue" thing. I really am against this whole adversarial stance you have towards players.

If players have an issue with a rule, I generally tell them to deal with it, because that's how the game is writ.

If players have an issue with a ruling, I am fine with a short conversation about it, so long as they have reasonable justification for their position. I play with reasonable people. I'm sorry if you don't.

QuoteThus, sometimes the GM must say, "shut the fuck up and roll the dice." It keeps things moving.

Is movement somehow superior to standing still?

Again, I'm fine with people taking their time. I'm fine with short, concise discussions about rulings.

If you want to demand constant action, go watch an action movie, or something.

QuotePlus, while players get upset if the GM's decisions are random and unpredictable, they are quite content with the random and unpredictable decisions of the dice. Rolling the dice gives the players the illusion of control. They like that.

The GM's decisions shouldn't be random and unpredictable. If you want to game in a coherent world, then the decisions made by the arbitrator of that setting must make decisions that are consistent with prior rulings and the base rule set being used. Inconsistency is to be avoided at all costs.

And I'm saying this not as a player, but as a GM, as well. Inconsistency in my own rulings irritates the hell out of me and breaks my own suspension of disbelief. How am I supposed to present a setting if the very physics of the setting lacks consistency?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;360348The problem is not necessarily the ruling itself; it's the ramifications.

Let's say we go with your solution. If a clever player finds a way to exploit this against their enemies, say by shaping explosives or finding another exploit, would you allow it and hold by your earlier ruling?

I don't know about Kyle, but if my players discovered a cunning way to trick their enemies into leaping onto live grenades I'd let them enjoy the full benefit of their plan...

QuoteI think we have a fundamental disconnect, here. I am fine with pauses for thought, I am fine with someone taking awhile to make a decision (unless a good reason is given for a time limit of some kind).

So long as someone is actively thinking and engaged in the game, I'm fine with waiting. If they are not doing something because they're distracted... well, that's something else. But if they're obviously contemplating the situation at hand? Take as long as you need.

Really? You've never gotten quietly irritated in a game of Arkham Horror (or Settlers of Catan or Monopoly or whatever) by That Guy? You must know That Guy - they're the one who takes at least twice as long as everyone else to take their turn. It sucks to be in a game with That Guy. The game will have a nice pace and decent momentum as play progresses around the table until it gets to That Guy, at which point all the momentum will be sucked out of proceedings because That Guy has to agonise over every little thing.

...Wait, don't tell me you are That Guy?

Quote from: Warthur;360349I don't know about Kyle, but if my players discovered a cunning way to trick their enemies into leaping onto live grenades I'd let them enjoy the full benefit of their plan...

So you're telling me that you would interpret your ruling as only applying to situations where a live individual was on top of it, and not exploiting that ruling to devise other situations wherein someone was in contact with and/or near enough to an explosive device to warrant double damage?

That seems absurd. But then again, perhaps that's not what you meant.

QuoteReally? You've never gotten quietly irritated in a game of Arkham Horror (or Settlers of Catan or Monopoly or whatever) by That Guy? You must know That Guy - they're the one who takes at least twice as long as everyone else to take their turn. It sucks to be in a game with That Guy. The game will have a nice pace and decent momentum as play progresses around the table until it gets to That Guy, at which point all the momentum will be sucked out of proceedings because That Guy has to agonise over every little thing.

...Wait, don't tell me you are That Guy?

Oh, I know That Guy. That'd be my uncle. I also haven't gamed with him - card game, TTRPG, or anything - in... I want to say like 10 years? Maybe a little less than that.

Yes, he was frustrating to no end.

But in my current gaming group, we really don't have anyone like this. We all tend to keep an eye on what's going on, we all usually have a pretty good idea of what we want to accomplish, and the game generally keeps moving. There are exceptions, of course, but those are usually isolated incidents, and usually warranted by the situation at hand.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;360335What this all comes down to is a GMing issue.

Systems will get in the way.

Players will argue.

The proper response is for the GM to say, "shut the fuck up and roll the dice." This was what Jeff did wrong, he did not have the player roll any dice. He should have said, "explosives do double damage on contact, roll the damage against yourself, twice."

If he lives, he lives, but probably not.

Shut the fuck up and roll the dice.

Of all the criticism about my grenade decision, this has been the most constructive.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;360348It's all about the context.

Laying down the law, as it were, when the rules are relatively clear as to what's going on feels a lot more like screwing the player than keeping the game moving.

The player had an expectation, not a question. That expectation wasn't based on fantasy or willful ignorance, it had a solid grounding in the rules. You're basically saying, "Your understanding doesn't jive with mine, but I'm the DM, so what I say goes."



Common sense in reality, sure. Once again, there are distinctions between reality and the reality the game system represents; what is common sense here is not necessarily common sense elsewhere.



The problem is not necessarily the ruling itself; it's the ramifications.

So long as someone is actively thinking and engaged in the game, I'm fine with waiting. If they are not doing something because they're distracted... well, that's something else. But if they're obviously contemplating the situation at hand? Take as long as you need.

Again with the "whine and argue" thing. I really am against this whole adversarial stance you have towards players.
If players have an issue with a rule, I generally tell them to deal with it, because that's how the game is writ.

If players have an issue with a ruling, I am fine with a short conversation about it, so long as they have reasonable justification for their position. I play with reasonable people. I'm sorry if you don't.

The GM's decisions shouldn't be random and unpredictable. If you want to game in a coherent world, then the decisions made by the arbitrator of that setting must make decisions that are consistent with prior rulings and the base rule set being used. Inconsistency is to be avoided at all costs.

And I'm saying this not as a player, but as a GM, as well. Inconsistency in my own rulings irritates the hell out of me and breaks my own suspension of disbelief. How am I supposed to present a setting if the very physics of the setting lacks consistency?

See, here is one of the things that I do not understand because everything you are advocating would damage the game's immersion and suspension of disbelief. I also don't get how you leapt from this to deciding that by trying to preserve immersion and suspension of disbelief in a game means that the GM has an adversarial relationship with the Players.

Quote from: jeff37923;360354See, here is one of the things that I do not understand because everything you are advocating would damage the game's immersion and suspension of disbelief. I also don't get how you leapt from this to deciding that by trying to preserve immersion and suspension of disbelief in a game means that the GM has an adversarial relationship with the Players.

Could you be a bit more specific as to why you think this?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;360339Good way to lose players.

I don't understand the whole "the DM should always be a hardass" mentality. Does anyone care to explain it? Because it seems very adversarial and childish to me.

This is your theory, right?  I mean, this is one of those "...but it could happen!" arguments that are rife on the Internet when people aren't really playing the game.  Like the issue in a thread I started a bit ago where a certain someone was theorising that some players might get upset without a balanced character creation system.

As Kyle already stated, his stance as a GM hasn't lost him any players yet (at least not any players he cares to recall).  And the fact of the matter is that something about your GM style, or mine, or anyone else's might chase off a potential player.  Or, it might not.  Or maybe they'll not play at all and simply argue theoretical scenarios on the Internet.

Kyle, I'll give you the cap to this thread -- systems get in the way of roleplaying, and the GM is the arbiter to grease the connection between the two.

!i!

Quote from: GnomeWorks;360357Could you be a bit more specific as to why you think this?

Sure. By following the RAW for d20 Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook you end up with situations whose results do not emulate the genre, in this case a character surviving smothering a grenade without some extraordinary extenuating circumstances has more in common with the superhero genre than the Star Wars universe.

Is that specific enough, or do you want an example that would allow you to dissemble more?

Quote from: jeff37923;360364Sure. By following the RAW for d20 Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook you end up with situations whose results do not emulate the genre, in this case a character surviving smothering a grenade without some extraordinary extenuating circumstances has more in common with the superhero genre than the Star Wars universe.

I'm sorry, I don't really recognize genre as being at all synonymous with immersion or suspension of disbelief. "Genre emulation" always struck me as a really weird idea, and isn't something I grok.

Honestly, I find the idea of playing in the Star Wars universe kind of weird, anyway; I'm not really a fan of trying to play in settings we see in film or read about in books, because the very nature of the game is almost certain to not jive well - at least in a few situations - with the universe as presented in the original medium.

When I play in SW d20, I think of it as playing a d20 game that happens to be set in the SW universe, not as a SW game using d20 mechanics. That's an important distinction, and maybe my approach is different than the one you're coming from.