What happened to all the D&D people who claim the rules are just suggestions and the DM can & should use rulings over rules?

Is there no mechanic for foes of different skill to be harder to hit than others, other than armor class which doesn't get adjustments?

If not, it sounds to like rgrove was just trying to improve the combat system, and in a way that sounds like an improvement to me, no?

Quote from: Skarg;1009470What happened to all the D&D people who claim the rules are just suggestions and the DM can & should use rulings over rules?

Is there no mechanic for foes of different skill to be harder to hit than others, other than armor class which doesn't get adjustments?

If not, it sounds to like rgrove was just trying to improve the combat system, and in a way that sounds like an improvement to me, no?

No.

Grove decided, for whatever reason, that this particular orc was less hard to hit.  Instead of using a rule to make the Orc less hard to hit, or come up with a rule to make the Orc less hard to hit, he simply, without any rule whatsoever, decided that despite all the rules that dictated the AC should be X, he decided Y.

The rules essentially mean nothing in his game, as he will ignore them at any given time to deliver his desired outcome, he's been admitting to such for...yes it's been over a year now.

Go read up on Illusionism in RPGs and Schrodinger's Ogre, or read some of his past posts.  Pay special attention to the one where because he didn't want a PC to catch an NPC because he didn't want her to find out the guy was actually her long lost brother, he nullified the fact that he rolled a fail to evade her and she rolled a very good success to catch him because it would have been inconvenient for his planned tale. (To be fair to Grove, he admits that was probably going too far in retrospect.)

I am still right here where I have always been, Skarg, but I am upfront with my players that sometimes I will override the letter of the printed rules. Upfront, as in before we start playing. Not pull bait and switch. And when I do it I am honest about it.

If I make a house ruled improvement to a game system I tell my players the new rule that will be in play. It is not unreasonable to make changes to the game rules. It is also not unreasonable to expect the game to be played by the printed rules unless told otherwise. What is unreasonable is to change the rules without telling the players. Or to simply toss the rules entirely at arbitraily determined moments and not tell the players that this may occur.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009467Some of you guys are blatantly hostile or dense. You miss the whole point. But yeah, you win...the nays have it. Whoop!

You had the Star Wars player react unexpectedly when you told him how you GM, and came here to find out why.
You had this player react unexpectedly when you told him how you GM, and came here to find out why.
We've been telling you for a year now why this is happening and why this should not be unexpected and you still don't understand, or refuse to understand why people may be hostile to finding out after the fact what's actually going on behind the curtain.

You may find Jeff's response hostile, but guess what...so were your players, right?

So...maybe try to understand that point of view, instead of dismiss it and go Tra-la-la-ing along blissfully ignoring the advice people are giving in repeated attempts, despite your repeated mockery of their views, to help you understand.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009467Some of you guys are blatantly hostile or dense. You miss the whole point. But yeah, you win...the nays have it. Whoop!

I can't agree with some of the criticisms, but I have to weigh in with the nays.

The problem is not that the orc has a worse armor class than it should (what does that even mean?), but that the descriptive detail you wanted ("wearing chainmail") now has no correlation with any game statistic. The players can respond in one or more ways:

• Ignore every description that you give, unless it's explicitly a game statistic like AC, because apparently it's just meaningless fluff.
• Delay the game by spending the rest of the session trying to fathom why the orc was easy to hit despite wearing chainmail.
• Never choose an interesting path because they can't pick out (or trust) the subtle clues that might, correctly or incorrectly, point them in that direction.
• Never disguise themselves or use illusions, because why should they expect mere appearance to deceive an NPC when it tells the PCs nothing reliable?
• Complain about your GMing, to you or to each other or to an online forum or to random non-gamers who don't have any idea what they're talking about.

None of these benefit your game. Conversely, if descriptions actually correlate with the game statistics, players will hang on your descriptions and ask for more detail. If Green Dagger tribe orcs use poison and Shadowed Eye tribe orcs are almost all spell-casters, then the players will try to learn the subtle distinctions in tattoos and ritual scarring that distinguish these two tribes so they can proceed with better tactics. And I'm not saying that the players should always be able to discern everything from observable details; the guy in ordinary clothes they meet on the road might be a peasant, a well-nigh unbeatable martial artist, a powerful wizard or a shape-changed dragon.

Quote from: Azraele;1009469This:



Is a childish way to respond to this:



But every fucking post, man, this is what happens. This is why I get frustrated.

You get frustrated? I get maybe 10% support on any idea I relate! Laugh.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009491You get frustrated? I get maybe 10% support on any idea I relate! Laugh.

You're looking for approval under the guise of asking for opinions: you're lying. And when people take you at your word, you get frustrated and complain about it. You refuse, both in your online interactions with us and in your in-game interactions with your players, to recognize that your deception is the key ingredient  to your own misery.

Yeah, that's frustrating. Further frustrating? You seem to need approval from an egomass to justify your own decisions to yourself. Do you know why you feel that need, dude? It's because even you know that you're behaving poorly.

Let me save you another year of frustrated posting: stop lying. Be 100% honest. That's what I do, and my problems just melt away. Be honest about what you want in your interactions with us (support, not feedback). Be honest about how you make decisions with your players (you modify things behind the screen to fit with your idea of how they should play out).

Not everyone here agrees with either of those things; far from it. But, according to your own admission, 10% of us do. Honesty will result in a 100% response rate from those people, and the vast majority of us lured here under the pretense of actually debating you will not show up; why would we? I ignore threads I can't contribute to; you'd never have me chew your ass again.

Honesty in how you run games will let you frustrated player know that he's going to be let down by your style. He'll find another game, and you'll find a player that loves the way you run. People do! Loads of people love the exact style you're describing!

I don't want to shit on the way you enjoy your elfgames, sir; I respect your right to play and run however best suits your taste. As a matter of fact, I heartily invite debate on our differences; I'm certain you have something to teach me about our shared hobby.

But I do you a disservice if I fail to teach you the wages of dishonesty. Post and run in good faith Rgrove, and you'll be received in kind.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009437Gotta ask. Why leave a comment like that. Its not constructive or helpful... just argumentative. You that miserable or what?

I suspect lack of fiber.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009328I always thought that was sort of assumed? But point taken.

The game treats it more like, you put on chain mail, and the mere quality of the armor determines your AC. Same with the weapon. There's an objective relationship between their mechanics and the object. Chain mail is always so and so AC, a longsword always deals d8 damage, etc.

If you want to change those, just change the description. Call it shitty, run down chain mail. Call it a rusty sword. That way the details of the world match the mechanics.

Quote from: Skarg;1009470What happened to all the D&D people who claim the rules are just suggestions and the DM can & should use rulings over rules?

Is there no mechanic for foes of different skill to be harder to hit than others, other than armor class which doesn't get adjustments?

If not, it sounds to like rgrove was just trying to improve the combat system, and in a way that sounds like an improvement to me, no?

As I've said many times, the rules and in-game explanation are different.

Many, many people in this thread have pointed out ways Grover could have done this other than "I pulled it out of my ass."  He didin't use a mechanic for foes of different skill, he said "I wanted this orc to be easier to hit because reasons."

Basically, he's being dishonest with his player and destroying the trust.  The single most important thing in Free Kriegsspiel is that the players have to trust the referee.  Grover just shot his player's trust in the face.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009467Some of you guys are blatantly hostile or dense. You miss the whole point. But yeah, you win...the nays have it. Whoop!

Man, YOU miss the point.  You TOLD the player to his face that things are entirely arbitrary based on whim.  You could have said "This orc was old and arthritic" or anything else, but you chose to say "Dance for me, monkey, dance."

Until you realize that you ass-raped your players' trust in you to death, NONE of your pity party threads are going to turn out differently.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009491You get frustrated? I get maybe 10% support on any idea I relate! Laugh.

Maybe it's because your ideas aren't very good.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009466To put it another way, if you are going to freeform the game instead of following the printed rules, tell your players up front so they know what to expect.

Reminds me of playing Legos (Star Wars rebels versus battledroids or whatever they are) with my son where he essentially tells me what he wants my Lego guys to do and then if it isn't working out as he expected, changes the rules mid-game so that it does. But he's eight.

Grover, are you eight?

Quote from: Ravenswing;1009428Well ... we can all opine what we'd have done in his shoes, and whether if we did things his way we'd have lied about it or covered it up in some way.  Instead he was honest with his player, and I can't throw bricks at that.

Nobody is accusing him because of this:). And yes, kudos for being honest.
People are just saying that when they see chainmail-wearing people, they expect a certain difficulty to hit them. Now, the chain might be butted or riveted, the steel of higher or lower quality...but that's D&D's rules not always mapping well to reality, which contains variations, and not anyone's fault. And to be honest, preciously few games give armours a range of possible qualities!

Quote from: Voros;1009453I'm a bit mystified how Rgorove, who couldn't let the rapid healing rules for 5e go, has no issue ignoring as basic a rule as AC.

I admit I was a bit surprised, myself. But what I was thinking while reading was what Azraele posted.

Quote from: Azraele;1009459Remember this post, buddy?

So, my question to rgrove is - do we assume the OP here is you trying to change the ways mentioned in the post Azraele quoted? Or just continuing them?

Quote from: Skarg;1009470What happened to all the D&D people who claim the rules are just suggestions and the DM can & should use rulings over rules?

Is there no mechanic for foes of different skill to be harder to hit than others, other than armor class which doesn't get adjustments?

You know that in D&D that's represented by the HP, right;)? Not necessarily the most elegant solution, but it mostly works.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009471No.

Grove decided, for whatever reason, that this particular orc was less hard to hit.  Instead of using a rule to make the Orc less hard to hit, or come up with a rule to make the Orc less hard to hit, he simply, without any rule whatsoever, decided that despite all the rules that dictated the AC should be X, he decided Y.

The rules essentially mean nothing in his game, as he will ignore them at any given time to deliver his desired outcome, he's been admitting to such for...yes it's been over a year now.

Go read up on Illusionism in RPGs and Schrodinger's Ogre, or read some of his past posts.  Pay special attention to the one where because he didn't want a PC to catch an NPC because he didn't want her to find out the guy was actually her long lost brother, he nullified the fact that he rolled a fail to evade her and she rolled a very good success to catch him because it would have been inconvenient for his planned tale. (To be fair to Grove, he admits that was probably going too far in retrospect.)

I remember quite a few previous Grove posts and threads (where he talked about narrating whatever he liked and pretended to roll and was asking if any of us even use the rules or roll LOL), but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and taking him at his word and responding to what he wrote in this original question. I'm not very familiar with D&D but it seemed like he was saying he just basically assigned a +2 to hit the Orcs in the Duke of Poop's fodder brigade because they generally suck, though it sounds like many players expect that not to be something DM's mess with.