Quote from: rgrove0172;1009568I hear what everyone is saying. To my mind my player was dissapointed because I don't play the entire game and create my.whole setting exactly as per the core book stats. Some players and GM'S roll that way. I prefer to create my setting and then curb the rules to fit. He's one of those analytical types that uses the rules as a weapon to dominate. My style frustrates that. That's my opinion.

So you still think you're right? In one way, I think you are. The amount of protection an armor type gives is not necessarily set hard and fast in the rules. I think the idea that a particular suit of mail might be rusty or weakened in some other way is not terribly unlikely. And I don't think players should have the damn numbers in their heads anyway. "Mail is better than leather, so I guess this guy might be good" is fine. "Ah, ACwhatever," meh.

I have made posts in this thread that might seem to support you. However, I don't think you handled it well  at all. Give the player a reason that the armor wasn't as good as expected. Have an NPC non-com exclaim in disgust "Rust!! it's a pity for the equipment." or something like that.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009440Why is everyone assuming I made a mistake? I never said that. The armor class was exactly what I intended it to be. I was well aware of what the RAW indicated chainmail should be rated for, I chose to do otherwise. Is that so vile that it has to be assumed to be a mistake?

Why are you assuming that we're all claiming your ruling was a mistake?  Your action was a YMMV deal: you think that opposition attributes should be fluid, even down to its gear and abilities, to suit your notion of how tough challenges should be.  I agree about 20% with that -- you don't have to bend a system a jot to adjust skill levels, equipage, headcount or fanaticism of the mooks -- but in the end it's up to how you prefer to GM, and we don't get a vote on that.  An opinion, yes; a vote, no.  

Where you really screwed up is that you hadn't informed your players, and plainly at least one of them doesn't care for that style of play.  (I wouldn't myself, being in agreement with Gronan's take on how much your players can trust the descriptions you give them.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009546I cannot begin to recall all the times on this site Ive have heard GMs claim they ignore or change the rules as a matter of standard practice. They "Make RULINGS" not "Follow RULES". And yet that seems to be a travesty when I do it.

Eeeesh.  I've got a big word for you here.  Let me spell it out for you.

C-O-N-S-I-S-T-E-N-C-Y

Indeed, I make rulings, and I change rules as suits me.  But my players know I don't do it often, lightly or capriciously.  I decided, for instance, that I didn't like how GURPS did prerequisite chains for learning magic spells.  So I came up with a fix of my own.  I didn't like third edition ranged weapon mechanics, so I stuck with the second edition mechanics.  I wanted to make PCs slightly more survivable, so I just gave them all five extra HP across the board.  I wanted to make magic items more common, so I liberalized how many mage-days it would take to enchant things by a factor of four.  I rule that a roll of a 5 always succeeds, and that 16 always fails.

The most recent of those changes was in 1989.  And it's not only that I change things around very seldom, but that I've got a handout summarizing every one I've ever made.  My players know I'm not going to flip-flop based on my whim of the moment.

While you're wondering why So Many People Are Always Against Me, as long as you insist on debating with what you want us to be saying rather than what we actually are saying, you'll never get it.

Rgrove, I'd like to put something out there which I'm almost certain you'll ignore.  But what the hell, it's nearly 2 AM and here I am in an online debate no one will care about next week or remember the week after that, least of all me.  So why not.

Let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that you come onto this board and whatever you say, Everyone Is Always Against You.

So what do you truly think is more likely?  That dozens of other people are Always Wrong and you, alone, are Always Right?

Or that -- just possibly, just maybe -- you might actually be wrong?

Quote from: Ravenswing;1009600
While you're wondering why So Many People Are Always Against Me, as long as you insist on debating with what you want us to be saying rather than what we actually are saying, you'll never get it.

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

The problem was Rgrove's explanation.

Why does an Orc with Chainmail Hauberk have AC 11?

Right Answer = something that makes sense in the setting.

Wrong Answer = because I change stuff on a whim

Alterations on a whim are bad because they toss out consistency which fucks badly with immersion.

Instead, that Orc should have been found with a pegleg (-2 Dex, thus AC 12) or the chainmail was severely damaged / rusted / badly made, or the PC pulls their blade from the orc guts and out pours worms, orc disappears as an illusion, etc.

AKA, almost anything but "I just change rules on the fly".

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009547The outcome in this case was a F....ing Orc with an AC of 11. So sue me. Geeze people, get a grip.

Actually, the outcome also includes this thread, and we couldn't be here commenting on this unless the situation bothered you enough to start a post...and you did, so it did. You might as well listen to (or read since it's text) the results.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009568I hear what everyone is saying. To my mind my player was dissapointed because I don't play the entire game and create my.whole setting exactly as per the core book stats. Some players and GM'S roll that way. I prefer to create my setting and then curb the rules to fit. He's one of those analytical types that uses the rules as a weapon to dominate. My style frustrates that. That's my opinion.

Um. No. Sounds like the player was just irked that there was no consistency or reason. Not that he wanted everything nailed down.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009557"Size matters not."  You violated your player's trust, and told him so to his face.  This is what everybody is having a problem with.

To be honest, as a GM I have no problem with it and as a player I'd let it go.

Other people are getting very irate over something that, in my game, would be inconsequential.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1009560Most people here support GMs making rulings on the fly and ignoring the letter of the rules, as long as such decisions are based on an internally consistent logic that is visible to the players when it should be visible to the characters.

Good reasons for altering the AC or damage of your orc:

• "Mooks in this game have worse combat stats than the baseline, to help show how bad-ass the PCs are. In this case, a typical orc has a 2 point AC penalty and uses one die-type lower than normal for damage."
• "After fighting a number of orcs, you have noticed that, in general, they are far less fierce and dangerous than common wisdom indicates." (Both this and the previous option set a baseline, and it is now the GM's duty to be clear when an orc is met that fights better than the baseline.)
  
• "This particular orc is noticeably incompetent."
• "This orc is unusually scrawny and does not appear confident."
• "You realise now that taking down this orc was easier than it should have been, but you can't identify a clear reason. Something strange must be going on." (Leaving the player the option of investigating further if a better answer is important to them.  Were those orcs cursed? Does that war hammer you found last session have orc-slaying properties? Has a divine power taken an interest in the character and is subtly helping them out?)

Bad reason for altering the orc's AC

• "NPCs, monsters and the environment have whatever stats and effects seem suitable to me at the time, and when I describe things I won't give you any clue as to what I'm actually thinking."

The problem with the OP's position is that it specifically states that descriptions of the environment provided to the players by the GM contain no useful decision-making information.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1009572Your player may be an annoying idiot who wants everything the GM does to have a clear justification based on a clearly written, official rule. If so, that's pretty shit. I wouldn't want them in my group.

You know what is even more shit? A GM who thinks it "Doesnt matter how I describe it."

The point you're missing, Grover, is that even if your player is, in fact, an annoying, shit player, that doesn't absolve you of being an annoying, shit GM.

In general, I think that this thread might help people on this board understand better why some people dislike "Mother, May I" style and prefer rules instead of rulings. Putting it simply, because rgrove's example isn't actually all that uncommon. I've seen it in more than one GM I've played with, on a different continent from him:).
Yes, I don't play with them.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009568I hear what everyone is saying. To my mind my player was dissapointed because I don't play the entire game and create my.whole setting exactly as per the core book stats. Some players and GM'S roll that way. I prefer to create my setting and then curb the rules to fit. He's one of those analytical types that uses the rules as a weapon to dominate. My style frustrates that. That's my opinion.

Maybe he is exactly as you describe him, maybe you've misrepresenting him - consciously or not.
It doesn't matter. As you can see, the majority of people in this thread still believe that you were in the wrong. And as you noted, that's THE board for "rulings, not rules" people;)!
Hint: those people just believe that your ruling, in this particular situation, sucked.

Listen, Rgrove, it's not a problem that you decided to change the rules. The problem is you had no IC justification for it, and indicated to the player that the reasons are totally OOC. "GM's whim" is OOC, too.
People here believe you make a ruling when the situation warrants it.
You make your rulings because it fits better your narrative.
Narrative=/=situation. You actually even - tacitly - told the player not to look at the situation (by indicating that the changes were based purely on GM's whim). Don't know if that's what you meant, but if it wasn't: the majority of people in this thread would have misunderstood you, too. To me, that means you weren't clear enough.

Guys 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. Yes, these could be seen as deviations of the monster in a different setting but they could also be differences present in the species. Why should a demi-human adversary be any different? The weapon is merely an extension of their ability to do damage. Is it so strange to think that a Goblin with a mace does a bit less than a human? Or that he is easier to damage in his leather jerkin, or harder, than his human counter part?

Sure... These changes can, and admittedly probably should, be explained to players when encountered, (Especially to the rules mongrel types) but from a GM perspective it simply IS what it IS. If that makes any sense.

I made up a giant insect for a Star Wars game a while back. I imagined it a certain way and jotted down the stats to fit. I didnt worry that this insect must be a bit slower than this other one in the rulebook because its defense was lower, or that its bite must be more ferocious than this other alien creature because it did more damage. Perhaps the reason for the ability I assigned was obvious (chitinous armor for a tough defense etc.) but perhaps not. I certainly didnt compare its abilities to that of player characters, they operate on different scales entirely. I just created the adversary the way I perceived it and with a mind towards how tough they would be to overcome by the characters at hand.

Thats what I was doing here with the damned Orc. In retrospect I got testy and made the situation worse but I dont see what I did initially as a break of trust with the players or against some sort of unwritten GM oath to follow the letter of the rules. Consistency in a rule is of course important. I put a great deal of time and effort researching, testing and then documenting houserules, and provide a copy to my players. The variation of a particular stat of a certain creature during a single encounter however doesnt apply in my opinion.

Last word -

Recently in a rare, hobby shop game wherein I was actually a player, our group (strangers most of us) encountered a mummy. We werent having much luck and getting our asses handed to us when someone decided to attack with a torch from a momentary position of advantage. They rolled a nat 20 and the GM described the thing going up in flames, whirling around crazily for several rounds and then dying.  We all cheered and moved on. Later during a break one of our group, another rules lawyer, questioned the outcome. Mummies are vulnerable to flame but even with additional damage, and even GM assigned damage for actually being on fire shouldnt have killed it that easily, should it have? The GM should have, according to what you all are saying here, explained how its bandages were soaked in old oils or something, or maybe that it had a curse on it making it very susceptible to fire or whatever. Instead, he simply stated that he realized the mummy might have been a bit too much of a challenge and let the Critical Hit finish it off, something along the lines of 40HP reduced.

He chose to do that on a whim, side stepped the rules in favor of the players to bail them out of a bad situation. Perhaps he made an error when building the encounter and was trying to make up for it? Maybe he shouldnt have chosen a mummy as an adversary. Would it have been better to have assigned the mummy the super vulnerability before hand? Kind of like my -2 Chainmail.

Funny thing is, the GM of this game with the mummy? He was the guy complaining about the chainmail. Go figure. Apparently its critical you follow the rules to the letter right up to the point where you dont want to.

Thanks guys, as always - good information from all - even in the roughest format.

If you think that the player questioning your lack of consistency is a Rules Lawyer, then you haven't listened to a fucking thing you have been told in this thread.

It was never about the AC of an orc in chainmail.

It was fine to lower the difficulty of the mummy encounter because the DM realized he had erred and made it too powerful for the group.  Mummy is on fire and burns up is a sensible way in game for it to go, and most players will buy the out of game rationale of "I made a mistake and am correcting it".

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.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009656It was never about the AC of an orc in chainmail.

It was fine to lower the difficulty of the mummy encounter because the DM realized he had erred and made it too powerful for the group.  Mummy is on fire and burns up is a sensible way in game for it to go, and most players will buy the out of game rationale of "I made a mistake and am correcting it".

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.

Doesnt 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?


Something I should probably remind those who havent followed some of these threads is that a VAST amount of the gaming I have done over the last 35 years or so has been with a single player or perhaps two. For many reasons its been a very rare occasion indeed when I had a group to game with.  I am finding out recently that the dynamics are quite different when gaming with a few strangers or maybe even loose acquaintances v.s. a single or pair of close friends. The trust there is implicit, these issues simply dont come up. If I as GM decided to forego rolling the die, change a scene or modify an adversary, the friends Ive had over the years wouldnt have balked, or frankly thought anything of it. I did in fact, frequently as Ive eluded to before and never got a complaint. They knew that my primary goal was for us to have a good time and to allow them share in the experience of a narrated adventure. The idea of "cheating" simply didnt exist. I was the GM, I had essentially infinite power to do as I pleased in the pursuit of our common goal. There was no sense of competition or strict adherence to RAW to raise its nasty head and ruin our fun. It was all about the roles taken on by the players and the world they were pretending to play them in.

Apparently that makes a big difference and Ill admit freely that my style of GMing was heavily influenced by those experiences. I am seeing now, for the past year or so on this forum, that I was isolated as a gamer and missed many of the notions, nuances, unwritten rules, perceptions and ideals apparently common in the hobby. I wont apologize for it however as it provided me and my friends with decades of enjoyable gaming. Even now, although my style has changed but little from my exposure here, the vast majority of the time all is well in my gaming. Only when a player with a decidedly different view of gaming ethics appears at my table have I had issues. You guys have made it clear however that those rare individuals at my table are probably the norm and I and my friends the oddity across the hobby.

Well, when you engage in a group activity with strangers, it's good sense to understand the preferences and styles favored by that group. This is true for everything from basketball to jujutsu to rpgs.