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.

WRONG!

Go back and read your original post. The outcome in this case was that at least one of your players now feels as follows, "Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change," and is not at all happy about it.

The outcome in this case is that you pissed off at least one of your players with your GMing style. This tread has been people trying to get you to see how and why that happened.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009567WRONG!

Go back and read your original post. The outcome in this case was that at least one of your players now feels as follows, "Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change," and is not at all happy about it.

The outcome in this case is that you pissed off at least one of your players with your GMing style. This tread has been people trying to get you to see how and why that happened.

I 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.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009551And yet another useless, immature comment ... this one oddly accusing me of being immature.

You're just feeling defensive because you did something very stupid and apparently expected accolades rather than criticism. Get over it. Stop posting your idiotic questions if you don't want to be mocked for fucking up your own games and then whining about it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009551And yet another useless, immature comment ... this one oddly accusing me of being immature.

You didn't answer the question. So, are you eight?

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.

Your 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.

Bingo.

The referee's description is the players' only source of information.  Grover insists that the referee's description does not have to be related to reality.  Which means that the players have no actual source of reliable information.

And he pretends to not understand this.  At this point, he's just being an asshole, because nobody is that fucking stupid.

The other day, I invited some friends over for a party, where I served cake. I explained in the invitations that I would be serving a chocolate mudcake. After everyone had eaten, one of my guests pointed out that that it tasted a bit off. I explained to the guest that I had made the cake out of my own excrement, because it was my party and it doesn't matter how I describe the menu, I serve whatever I feel is best.

The guest was angry, because the accepted High Society Style Guides indicate that in November you should only serve white chocolate mudcake. These style guides are just pretentious twattery, and the guest was being completely unreasonable. Why should I be limited to serving only white chocolate in November?

Clearly, the only real issue here is the guest's insistence that the style guide be adhered to.

[video=youtube;51iohb6sOS8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51iohb6sOS8[/youtube]

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.

We'll see you for the next time a player complains then.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009556To balance the encounter a bit, go just a little easier on the players. Simple as that. I dont believe the stat blocks are chiseled in stone. They are there to be modified as fitting the GMs setting and or the specific encounter. I find it hard to believe this is a strange concept to the veterans here. Surely you guys dont buy into the MM religion?

No one in this thread has criticised that part of your post.

Dude. GMs fuck up. The problem is when a GM doesn't or can't see their error and improve.

I ran a combat once upon a time where I played the monsters "smart", and had them use focus fire tactics. I killed the party doing that, and pissed of my players. I apologized, and after some thought, I introduced a bit of randomness to my NPC "AI". This improved my approach considerably, and I do it for all my games now. The GM has access to information that the NPCs don't, and sometimes using randomness introduces a bit of uncertainty to their tactics. And keeps encounters from becoming "Beat the GM", instead of "Beat the monsters".
I could have doubled-down and said it's only appropriate for the NPCs to use good tactics, but I recognized that the players had a legitimate complaint, and reacted accordingly.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1009323What you should do when explaining it is say you're not basing the AC and attack and damage on the armor/weapon, it doesn't represent the armor itself, per se, but the AC represents the ability of the orc to prevent you damaging it. And that's affected by the orc's skill itself.

Yes or, you know, actually use the rules of the game you are purportedly playing or choose a different game with rules you want to use.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1009338Yup. In the player's defense, now he has no idea what any armor, or even equipment is capable of. An opponent with plate mail and a battle axe could be as effective as a guy in cloth armor wielding a dagger, or vice versa. A player needs information in order to make decisions and that kind of information is now removed from the game.

Yep. While the character in the game world probably doesn't have exact probabilities an experienced fighter ought to have some reasonably accurate idea about how weapons and armor work in the universe they fight in.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009352Yeah, a 2 modifier to the AC has removed all consistency from the game. All is lost, all is lost.

Not all consistency, but significant consistency for those players who can do arithmetic and understand the rules. Why not give the orc worse armor and avoid the whimsical modifier?

Quote from: wombat1;1009363You, original poster, as the game master, may design the orc any way you like, however, there are two possibilities here:

1. You have designed something that is at variance with the rules as written because you want that particular outcome.  In that case, to my way of thinking, should be some description that explains the variation, should the player pop up with exactly the dialogue you offer in the original post.  The time to offer that explanation is during combat as it may affect player decisions and tactics.  

So, "the orc has chainmail, to be sure, but as you examine it more closely, it has links that are missing, bits that are torn and exposed, a lot of damage and rust.  Sure, it is chainmail, and you could fix it up, but at the moment it is a sad case, and oh by the way, the value as treasure is also diminished."

On the whole though life is easier all round when one doesn't do that too often.  SO AC 11 orc has leather armor and leather armored orc has AC 11 and AC 14 orc has chainmail and chainmail armored orc has AC 14 if that is the way the rules are written.

2. An honest mistake has been made, in which 11 was written for chainmail when 14 was originally intended.  In this case, to my way of thinking, any mistakes I make on behalf of the players stay on behalf of the players; I am not going to walk them back, and I will try to fix any mistakes I make against the players, though that is harder.

See now this is what I always thought was assumed in RPGs.

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?

Kind of this, except in the example, the orc knight moves like a pawn for the GM and like a knight for the player.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009554It was a drop of 2 in AC and maybe one die type for the weapon. I hardly see that as a massive change in perceived threat...hell it was barely a noticeable change in actual performance.

Massive? No. Significant? Damn straight.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009339Well, OD&D assumes that armor class is armor class, so if an orc has chainmail it's because I want him to have chainmail.

Chainmail is chainmail; I wouldn't vary it depending on who wears it.

YM, as always, MV.

But it sounds to me like the player was "chainmail is fucking chainmail, not Schroedinger's Armor," which is a position I personally agree with.  But I'm an armor fetishist.

Is it riveted mail? There were rusty suits of mail that wouldn't stand up to a hard stare and perfectly good suits that looked like crap. If a player in my campaign sees mail on a Hobgoblin (I don't have Orcs) she would not assume that it was rusty and weak but it often would be because most Hobgoblins take really bad care of their gear. I think the variation that the OP made was larger than I usually allow and needed a better explanation but it wasn't out of line.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009352Yeah, a 2 modifier to the AC has removed all consistency from the game. All is lost, all is lost.

Why not "the armor was rusted and weak. Orcs sometimes don't take good care of their gear." Add a little color; shut the player up.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1009590Why not "the armor was rusted and weak. Orcs sometimes don't take good care of their gear." Add a little color; shut the player up.

You mean, like pretty much everybody has been saying throughout this thread?

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1009587I think the variation that the OP made was larger than I usually allow and needed a better explanation but it wasn't out of line.

Except the variation in protection was not based on a variation in the armor.* It could have been poor armor and an orc with a below normal DEX. It could have been normal armor and an orc with a terrible DEX. It could have been terrible armor and an orc with a normal DEX. It wasn't any of those things which the character might have been able to observe either during or after the combat. It was a narrative or whimsical GM change which was applied this one time and which might or might not apply some other time.


*

Spoiler

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Player: So chainmail for me is 14 but for him is 11?  Do you make up other kinds of chaimails for other guys?

GM: No, well, yeah...