Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009734None of which he said.  He said "because."

In other words, he did his own version of "Because FUCK YOU -that's what they eat!"

Are you just miffed that he's poaching on your turf now?

QuoteDO try to keep up.

Why keep up when I'm so far ahead?

Quote from: Elfdart;1009849In other words, he did his own version of "Because FUCK YOU -that's what they eat!"

Are you just miffed that he's poaching on your turf now?



Why keep up when I'm so far ahead?

If you read the actual description of the origin of the McDonald's, I noted that "had Phil had some plan or idea that depended on how the monsters got their food supply, I would have come up with something.  But he was just busting my ass."

I submit that Grover's player was not just busting his ass, but trying to understand how things worked.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009847SURE, I ADMIT FREELY, I made a mistake by not simply explaining this difference when asked about it - instead I resented the player's probing and showed my ass. Lashing accepted. However, the act of making a suit of armor less effective on one individual for any number of reasons, especially in a system like D&D when AC and even weapon damage reflects any number of actual elements, is perfectly acceptable as far as Im concerned. Ill continue to do it in the future when appropriate, but I will have a clear reason available should the player ask and perhaps even drop a hint during the encounter that this specimen may not be the norm.

Serious question.

The vast majority of posters in this thread are taking issue with your actions not because you changed something, but, as you stated above, because you gave the player no in game reason.  The overwhelming objection is your lack of giving a reason.

Why, throughout this thread, have you maintained that the majority complaint is that you changed something, rather than the clearly stated majority complaint that you failed to answer the player's questions in a suitable way?

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1009846So, a version of D&D finally had combatants become harder to hit as they advanced. Wow, if they had left armor out of the calculation, and let it absorb damage instead, they would have reached what my system has been like since 1985. And why aren't NPCs just characters. Is a simple 4e character so difficult to create?

Fate of the Norns: Ragnarok and OpenQuest to name at least two use exactly the same process to generate NPCs and monsters as they do to generate PCs. So in those games chainmail is chainmail is chainmail. If an orc in chainmail goes down easier than expected then if a PC puts on that chainmail it will protect less than expected. If the orc's broadsword does less damage than a broadsword usually does then it will do less damage in a PC's hands as well. At least in as much as the fault is in the equipment. If the orc has less combat skill or is weak and clumsy those will effect his combat ability in the same way as they would for a PC, but his equipment will still function normally, both for im and for the PC.

Again the issue is not than orc in chainmail with a broadsword was AC11 and did 1d6 damage when it "should" have been AC14 and done 1d8 damage.  We are all fine with that. The issue is that the only reason given was "because I said so, and by the way the sword will do its normal 1d8 for you."

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009847....
From what you are saying my description must match their perception, and frankly the one by the designers of the game we are playing, exactly. If I describe a Minotaur it must have this AC, do this much damage, move this speed etc....

No, I think he is saying exactly the opposite--the players' perceptions depend ENTIRELY on the Game Master description;  there is no other source about the world, and in the absence of evidence of change provided by the Game Master, then the players will fall back upon the rules as written.  So, if you in play call, "Oh look a Minotaur!" without more, the players will assume that it does indeed have a poor attitude, a given AC, a given weapon, which does a specific damage and move at a specific speed.  IF on the other hand if you in play call, "Oh look a Minotaur clad only in a cod piece with a feather duster," the players will assume something else about its intent and capabilities.

QuoteLooks like a Black Pudding, but there is a slight shimmer of green youve never encountered or heard of before."

If they have seen Black Puddings before, then yes, that is a significant detail of the sort described as it alerts the players to news about the world.

QuotePersonally in a world where the Monster Manual isnt available on newstands I think having to do the above is pretty silly, unless the characters happen to be specialists on puddings or something but in the interest of peace at the table, when most players are intimately familiar with most creatures, its probably a good idea top avoid misunderstandings. (Applies to suits of armor too of course)

No, I disagree about the silliness.  It is the way the players learn about the world the game master has created.

On reflection this situation points up one of the flaws in the internal logic of D&D and related games. For PCs AC and weapon damage vary according to what equipment the PC is using and what their Attributes are. For most monsters, including humanoid ones, an AC and attack damage is assigned, sometimes with optional "or by weapon type". This is not explicitly tied to the actual arms and armour the monster may be employing. So effectively an orc is Armour Class: Orc, 1 attack per round, Damage per Attack: Orc or by weapon type.

So my B/X D&D orc is "Armor Class:6, Attacks: 1 weapon, Damage 1-6 or by weapon" No where in the description does it state what armour and weapons these might be. Any and all orc armour gives them AC: 6, any and all orcish weapons can do 1-6 points of damage or the DM can check the weapons table.  Of course in early versions of the game variable damage by weapon type was an optional rule with the default being 1-6.

I would still give an explanation of rusted or poorly maintained armour for an AC worse than expected, and lack of skill or dull weapon for damage less than expected. But the rules as written do not require this.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1009846So, a version of D&D finally had combatants become harder to hit as they advanced. Wow, if they had left armor out of the calculation, and let it absorb damage instead, they would have reached what my system has been like since 1985.

So, "The Fantasy Trip," then.

Quote from: Elfdart;1009849In other words, he did his own version of "Because FUCK YOU -that's what they eat!"

Are you just miffed that he's poaching on your turf now?



Why keep up when I'm so far ahead?

That's actually a pretty good point. I was thinking along those lines when I mentioned others have admitted to screwing with the rules.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009867Serious question.

The vast majority of posters in this thread are taking issue with your actions not because you changed something, but, as you stated above, because you gave the player no in game reason.  The overwhelming objection is your lack of giving a reason.

Why, throughout this thread, have you maintained that the majority complaint is that you changed something, rather than the clearly stated majority complaint that you failed to answer the player's questions in a suitable way?

I've replied to both, several times now.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009876I've replied to both, several times now.

Answer it again for us slow ones in the audience.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1009846So, a version of D&D finally had combatants become harder to hit as they advanced. Wow, if they had left armor out of the calculation, and let it absorb damage instead, they would have reached what my system has been like since 1985. And why aren't NPCs just characters. Is a simple 4e character so difficult to create?

4e PCs are very complicated compared to NPCs (though arguably no worse than 3e/PF NPCs & PCs).
However the biggest problem is that 4e PCs compared to monsters have far fewer hp and do far more damage, so an NPC built that way will be an extreme glass cannon. 4e PCs & NPCs aren't really designed to be comparable at all. Without tweaking the healing surge rules you can't really even have a book NPC accompany PCs in their party. And Minions are utterly disposable with 1 hp - I changed that to 1/4 standard monster hp.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009847If I am accosted by a street tough on my way to the store his appearance may give me an accurate assessment of how much of a threat he is, and then again it may not. There are hints perhaps, his bearing, his expression and so on but that knife in his hand could be a d4 weapon in the hands of a desperate but incompetent thug to a d20 lethal instrument in the hands of a career criminal.

Well IRL it's always a lethal weapon, with an open-ended exploding damage die.
And I'd say appearance is an extremely good guide to danger. I'd say IRL I can assess threat a lot better than I can in an RPG, due to the limited descriptions I get from the GM. But this is compensated for in most games by monsters & NPCs being relatively much less dangerous/my PC being extremely competent.

There are unfortunately a lot of dick GMs out there. Also unimaginative ones.

It's funny. But Grove's admittance of being a dick was the perfect disclaimer. Had I been in his game, I would have left that day. And I would be grateful for his honesty so I could avoid him as a GM in the future. Most illusionary GMs are wonderful at coming up with lies about how they tweak the game to force an outcome. It's really hard to put your finger on it. I like it when the dick GM's are forthright in the dickness.

Dick GMs generally find themselves playing a game with 2 or 3 dick players. It's the natural cycle of the RPG community. Good players find dick GMs and leave. Dick players find Good GMs who won't put up with them and leave. Eventually trial and error sorts them into Good groups and Dick groups.

We have a GURPS GM here in Seattle that brags about his dickness with a proud smug demeanor. He's always looking for players. After talking with him for 15 minutes I realized that he was ruining GURPS for every person he touched. Super sad. But hey, a lot of people are in it for themselves. It should be no surprise to anyone when you find yourself at the business-end of a Dick GM.

I believe in player-centric play. I am a fan of the characters and a fan of my players. I strive to create an enjoyable experience. I don't coddle and I certainly don't pull my punches but I'm also not looking to edit the rules, on the fly, to reach my anticipated outcome. The story should fall out of play not be constructed by the GM.

Players seek out and or negotiate to play particular games because they WANT to play that system/setting. The majority of players do not want a free-for-all or freeform gaming experience. It cheapens the thrill. If you can't be bothered to create a consistent setting and be consistent in your rules, you're likely to be considered a dick GM. Now, maybe your players won't have the courage to tell that to your face. Instead, you will hemmorage players at a disconcerting rate as they seek out a better (and more consistent) play experience elsewhere.

Frankly, I'm good with that. My tables are full of your drop-outs and thier experience with you makes them more appreciative of what I'm bringing. Thanks!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009874So, "The Fantasy Trip," then.

When TFT was available at the local hobby shop, we had been playing Glory Road Roleplay for awhile but not for very long. If I had read it first, and especially if I had seen RuneQuest first, I would probably never done the work. But I'm glad I did.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009876I've replied to both, several times now.

You failed to answer my question, sir.