Quote from: Skarg;1009506I 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.

It depends on the rules.

In OD&D armor class is armor class, period.  You COULD assign a dex penalty to modify the AC.  But Grover didn't do that, he used "just because."

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

You told your player "armor does whatever I want it to, and weapons do whatever I want them to."

So.  There are two orcs, one with a jockstrap and a stick, the other in plate armor with a battleaxe.

How the FUCK is the player supposed to make any meaningful decision about which one is the greatest danger, when you SAID "It doesn't matter how I describe it"?  Your OWN FUCKING WORDS, Cupcake.  You told the player in as many words that the information you give them as referee is not actually useful, and whine when your player points out that the entire game is now meaningless.

You bitch, whine, piss, moan, and shit yourself publicly about rules, and then wonder why people throw rocks at you when you say "fuck rules, I'm pulling this all out of my ass as I go."

Your problems are entirely of your own making.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009509It depends on the rules.

In OD&D armor class is armor class, period.  You COULD assign a dex penalty to modify the AC.  But Grover didn't do that, he used "just because."

I see, thanks. It also (in addition to using whatever mechanic is appropriate to represent incompetence) occurs to me that when the orcs are notably bad, the GM should mention that, probably particularly when a roll happens where the result is different than expected, like this one, e.g. "the orc is wearing chainmail, but he fights like an untrained clod, allowing you injure him nonetheless."

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!

Except some of us are enguaging the question and offering thoughts and insights. And you seem to keep ignoring those and only picking up the ones where you get to defend yourself. Again.

It also makes some of your other threads look really off kilter when in one you post about how the rules are GOD and you are frustrated, then you post about how you totally overhaul a game and houserule it till its an different game, then you post about how the rules are meaningless because you might change them on a whim to suit the story.

For me the hangup as noted in my other post you ignored is that theres no logic or consistency to what you did. For a player this can be a really jarring experience and can lead to a player wondering why even bother? Not because Chainmail is AC 14 here and 11 there. But because it is so "just because".

You did right by telling the truth and explaining to the player why things were as they were. The player had due reason to be a little irked.

You had the right idea. You just executed it poorly.

Give your alterations an internal consistency or reasonable explanation and players will be fine with it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009496I suspect lack of fiber.

Close.

(I've had the dubious pleasure of dealing with Ken Whitman today on Facebook. My patience for playing dumb is pretty low right now.)

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!

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009473You may find Jeff's response hostile, but guess what...so were your players, right?

Rgrove0172, fuck you, you fucking fuck.

Now THAT was hostile and dense. The rest is just people telling you that most players want to play a game and not be set pieces in a story you have playing in your head that masquerades as a game.

Quote from: jeff37923;1009527Close.

(I've had the dubious pleasure of dealing with Ken Whitman today on Facebook.)

Dear Christ on the Cross, WHY?

Quote from: jeff37923;1009528Rgrove0172, fuck you, you fucking fuck.

You forgot "with fuck sauce."

Quote from: jeff37923;1009528The rest is just people telling you that most players want to play a game and not be set pieces in a story you have playing in your head that masquerades as a game.

"Tonight on 'It's the Mind,' we present Deja Vu: The feeling that you have experienced something before."

It had seemed like Grover was starting to get some of what people were trying to tell him.  Then this.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009529Dear Christ on the Cross, WHY?

The duties of being a Group Admin require it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009531You forgot "with fuck sauce."

Mea culpa.

Quote from: jeff37923;1009527Close.

(I've had the dubious pleasure of dealing with Ken Whitman today on Facebook. My patience for playing dumb is pretty low right now.)

Who'd he rip off today?

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296A comment by Gronan on GM rulings reminded me of a strange conversation I had with a player a while back. It involved myself, as GM, altering the stats of an adversary and his response when he found out. Before I paraphrase it let me say the player is a great guy and an avid player but is somewhat of a stickler for the game/challenge/tactics/mechanics side of RPing.

GM: The orc goes down, a solid hit in the ribs yields a loud crack beneath his mail and he spits a gout of blood as he collapses.

Player: Awesome! Thats the last of them. We... wait...  Did you say mail?

GM: Huh? Oh, yeah... chainmail, he was wearing a chainmail hauberk, grieves... you know?

Player: But I rolled a 12 to hit. Chainmail is 14?

GM: Yeah, his AC was an 11.

Player: But thats not chainmal, thats like hardened leather or whatever. I should have missed.

Things would deviate at this point

Me: But you hit. That should tell you something about the world.  Think about it.

Player: It tells me you aren't following the rules.

Me: What did I tell you when you started playing  in my game about "the rules"? I believe it was something like "There really aren't any rules, the written rules are only guidelines for the GM to use or not use as he needs to determine what happens." Thinking about what the rules say isn't really going to help you here. The orcs are wearing chainmail armor, but their chainmail armor doesn't seem to protect them to the extent you expect it to. This should tell you something about the world -- or at least this part of it.

In my experience, if the player doesn't realize this means this orc tribe's chainmail is probably defective or poorly made, some other player in the game who is more focused on the world instead of the rules will quickly suggest it.

Quote from: jeff37923;1009445Because when you read the discussion between you and the player about the chainmail wearing orc, it reads like you are not playing the game as intended but are trying to adjust setting pieces so that a storyline within your head is realized instead of players determining the outcome of an encounter by their actions. It kills the suspension of disbelief that the players are fully three dimensional characters immersed in a living breathing world and not just some low resolution NPCs in a computer game acting out a story with a scripted plot and a predetermined ending.

Your biggest mistake is that in the exchange with your player, you essentially lifted the curtain and showed that The Great and Powerful Oz was nothing more than a charlatan pulling levers and twisting knobs on a special effects device designed to fool the rubes.

"Playing the game as intended". Just what the heck is that? Im willing to bet every GM plays their game the way they want, designer intentions be damned. We arent talking about winging or tossing entire rules sections. Its a modifier to an armor class for christs sake.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009450RGrove here is what you are doing: you are asking your player to join you for a game of chess, then with no warning or explanation you are moving a pawn as if it were a knight. When asked for an explanation you are saying "because that is the way this pawn moves today, for you pawns move like standard chess." Your pawn, err, player now wonders what is next, a bishop moving like a queen perhaps?

Thats a very poor example. Perhaps a better one would be I forgive him a dumb move and ignore his exposed bishop for a turn so as to continue playing a bit longer.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009543"Playing the game as intended". Just what the heck is that? Im willing to bet every GM plays their game the way they want, designer intentions be damned. We arent talking about winging or tossing entire rules sections. Its a modifier to an armor class for christs sake.

So why did you do it?

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009455This isn't about clashing genre expectations. Rgrove and the player are playing a game with rules. The player knows the rules and how they work. The player quite reasonably expects that as GM Rgrove is also playing by the rules. Rgrove has stated to the player that he is not, in fact, playing by the rules. Quite the contrary, Rgrove has stated to teh player that he ignores the rules whenever he sees fit for any reason whatsoever.

What genre the game is has no relevance. It is an issue of are teh rules going to be followed in playing the game or not.

 I 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.