TheRPGSite

This was from the Exalted questions thread but its not specfically a problem relating to Exalted but gaming in general. It feels like we're, a a hobby, becoming way to tied to published material and "professional" game designers in place of creativity and improvisation.

QuoteAre there non-offensive actions characters can take in physical combat to assist their fighty companions? We know that "social combat" can exist within physical combat, but I always seem to run into players who want to do clever things like knock over carts or shoot out lanterns or distract opponents rather than actually harm them or engage them in conversation."

Do you really need to ask if this is possible or the permission of specific rules to try it? It seems counter intuitive to the idea of role playing games. Of course you can do that. and a gm worth their salt should be able to moderate what happens.

Agreed, though I would bring up the obvious in that some systems, Like FATE, encourage improvisation by making it a core mechanic (i.e., "create a condition").  I've almost always had folks who tried weird stuff. The poster child for that sort of thing was my wife's halfling character, who liked to basicallyt scramble up on and ride anything big enough to carry him. Her reasoning was, "if they hit me, they hit themselves!" I'm not sure she EVER used a normal attack (maybe a crossbow here and there--most of the time it was weird stuff like that).

"We know that "social combat" can exist within physical combat, but I always seem to run into players who want to do clever things like knock over carts or shoot out lanterns or distract opponents rather than actually harm them or engage them in conversation."
:huhsign::jaw-dropping:
The GM seems to be saying this like finding players who want to do stunts is a bad thing. But that can't be right, can it?

I think their concern is that that rules might not specifically cover such actions like if they don't they can't make a ruling on it. In fairness it may be more "Do the rules make this sort of action effective?" but that, IMO, is up to the GM, the action in question and the situation not an objective mechanical standard.

But it seems that increasingly the attitude is that if the rules to specifically address and cover an action in detail, then it can't be done. Which just seems add especially for games with general action resolution mechanics which is most of the games I'm familiar with.

I think, Nexus, you are missing the key context... in combat.

There are a lot of people who have a sort of dualist view of actions. There's stuff in combat, and... everything else.

People are usually pretty open to winging stuff OUTSIDE of combat. But in combat, there are loads of horror stories of people 'breaking' systems because they tip over walls of iron or whatever, effectively finding some loophole that lets them turn some minor ability or idea into DESTROY EVERY COMBAT EVAR.

In THAT context, looking for 'permitted' actions, looking for rule bits to access, is specifically 'stuff that's compatible and balanced with the combat system without blowing shit up.'

Edit to add:
Of course people can say 'the GM should decide and let all sorts of stuff happen in combat!'
Except the point of having rules with details is to save the GM time in trying to create and judge actions and make sure they interact in a desirable manner. It's not weird to be reluctant to just drop in more actions and possibilities in combat that are spur of the moment.

Quote from: Will;815591I think, Nexus, you are missing the key context... in combat.

There are a lot of people who have a sort of dualist view of actions. There's stuff in combat, and... everything else.

People are usually pretty open to winging stuff OUTSIDE of combat. But in combat, there are loads of horror stories of people 'breaking' systems because they tip over walls of iron or whatever, effectively finding some loophole that lets them turn some minor ability or idea into DESTROY EVERY COMBAT EVAR.

In THAT context, looking for 'permitted' actions, looking for rule bits to access, is specifically 'stuff that's compatible and balanced with the combat system without blowing shit up.'

Edit to add:
Of course people can say 'the GM should decide and let all sorts of stuff happen in combat!'
Except the point of having rules with details is to save the GM time in trying to create and judge actions and make sure they interact in a desirable manner. It's not weird to be reluctant to just drop in more actions and possibilities in combat that are spur of the moment.

I grasp the idea that its in combat. I'm still baffled and somewhat dismayed that its come to the point that people don't feel confident and creative enough to try different things in combat (or out) without getting some kind of figurative nod from the game designer. Its very different from my experience.

For me the "point" of the rules is to provide guide lines for determining the success or failure of the character's actions. They help and save time but they can't possibly cover everything and one of the jobs of the GM is provide interpretation and judgement calls and so facilitate a more flexible experience than a video or board game provide while being interactive than a movie or novel. It one of the reasons I've been gaming for so long. These sort of things have been par for the games I've ran and played, at least the ones I've stayed with for long.

When your combat system is a giant, horribly swollen, overdesigned mess, anything calling upon GMs and/or PCs to improvise is... poorly received.

I usually handle this sort of thing well.

An important note for me is the Character/players intent. I'm fine with you doing stuff not covered by the rules but when you do tell me your intent. Flipping over the cart isn't as important as why are you doin it. Looking for cover, hoping the barrels of oil break and grease the ground etc.  With that I can adjudicate what the results are and at least inform the player what the odds are or possible effects.

the I want to surprise the gm with my plan players often do things so twisted that I have trouble seeing it happen the same way they do. I want us on the same page and doing things like that seems more adversarial to me.

You stand a much better chance telling me what you hope happens cause if it sounds cool the chances radically increase of a success.

My experience with detailed systems (rules medium to heavy) is that 'being creative' in combat is usually 'trying to fuck the system hard and HAHAHAHAH'

Which is one reason I prefer lighter systems where people have more freedom to improvise without the system falling apart.

Quote from: Will;815603My experience with detailed systems (rules medium to heavy) is that 'being creative' in combat is usually 'trying to fuck the system hard and HAHAHAHAH'

Which is one reason I prefer lighter systems where people have more freedom to improvise without the system falling apart.

I prefer more "crunchy" systems (Hero, GURPS, for example). If/When I have to improvise I find it much easier when I have a solid basis to work with and build on.

Quote from: Nexus;815615I prefer more "crunchy" systems (Hero, GURPS, for example). If/When I have to improvise I find it much easier when I have a solid basis to work with and build on.

:D I would prefer a combat system like Final Fantasy games, where there is a straightforward, quick, varied, yet rigid fight structure segregated from the rest of the game's mechanics that's done in a couple of minutes so we can get back to the the exploring or/and story or rapidly chain a dozen fights as needed. Wham bam, thank you man.

In such a system, "improvisation" would actually be the name of a combat action that has a random effect, or a debuff, or something fixed, whatever. If a player complained I would just say, "Do interesting shit outside of combat to make up for it."

I say I "would" prefer such a system, except there aren't a lot of games that fully embrace this paradigm, and I don't think I could get players on board with it. :D

Quote from: Nexus;815596For me the "point" of the rules is to provide guide lines for determining the success or failure of the character's actions. They help and save time but they can't possibly cover everything and one of the jobs of the GM is provide interpretation and judgement calls and so facilitate a more flexible experience than a video or board game provide while being interactive than a movie or novel. It one of the reasons I've been gaming for so long. These sort of things have been par for the games I've ran and played, at least the ones I've stayed with for long.

Agreed.

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;815600An important note for me is the Character/players intent. I'm fine with you doing stuff not covered by the rules but when you do tell me your intent. Flipping over the cart isn't as important as why are you doin it. Looking for cover, hoping the barrels of oil break and grease the ground etc.  With that I can adjudicate what the results are and at least inform the player what the odds are or possible effects.

Good point. Sometimes the plan that the player thinks is oh so clever comes across to the GM as WTF?!? Explaining what you are trying to accomplish by flipping over the cart helps to avoid that frustrating impasse which is often a consequence of the player seeing the scene differently than the GM either because the player forgot part of the scene description or because the GM didn't describe enough of the scene.

Quote from: Will;815603My experience with detailed systems (rules medium to heavy) is that 'being creative' in combat is usually 'trying to fuck the system hard and HAHAHAHAH'

That's my experience of certain playstyles, rather than certain systems.

My experience is that if the player wants to do something that he thinks is an auto win maneuver. I remind them that if you can do it, then the bad guys can do it.

Had a player wanted to stab someone in the eye using a magic summoned dagger. (in a game without called shots or hit locations) I said sure as long as I could stab him the eye under the same circumstances. The wizard decided that was not a good idea.

Usually solves the I do crazy shit to win versus its cool or a nice tactical idea but not some "Ah ha" I win move.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;815621:D I would prefer a combat system like Final Fantasy games, where there is a straightforward, quick, varied, yet rigid fight structure segregated from the rest of the game's mechanics that's done in a couple of minutes so we can get back to the the exploring or/and story or rapidly chain a dozen fights as needed. Wham bam, thank you man.

In such a system, "improvisation" would actually be the name of a combat action that has a random effect, or a debuff, or something fixed, whatever. If a player complained I would just say, "Do interesting shit outside of combat to make up for it."

I say I "would" prefer such a system, except there aren't a lot of games that fully embrace this paradigm, and I don't think I could get players on board with it. :D

D&D originally tried for both: a quick, abstract system for when we just want results and then to get on with the adventure, plus supplemental "chrome" rules adding this or that detail.

The big problem came in with people who insisted on using the whole nine yards (and growing!) all the time.

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;815638My experience is that if the player wants to do something that he thinks is an auto win maneuver. I remind them that if you can do it, then the bad guys can do it.

Had a player wanted to stab someone in the eye using a magic summoned dagger. (in a game without called shots or hit locations) I said sure as long as I could stab him the eye under the same circumstances. The wizard decided that was not a good idea.

Usually solves the I do crazy shit to win versus its cool or a nice tactical idea but not some "Ah ha" I win move.

That's my experience, too. It's a two-way street, kids!

Not a lost art. But there has been from probably right after the start a fractioning of ideals between the purely hack-n-slashers, the political intriguers and the rounded out everythingers.

Not helped when some look at a system, see just rules for combat and they cannot imagine that the game doesnt have some equal rules for interaction.

I used my own book as an example whenever someone trots that out. The books rules are. Chargen & Combat. (I do not consider equipment and spell blocks to be rules) That was because all interaction was player driven. The only thing that needed hammered down was combat. I pointed out that I could have used the same rules for interaction. But that was the last thing on Earth I wanted to do as the game thrived on the player and NPC interplays.

I vote yes.

In the abdication of home games from public space, leaving predominantly to Organized Play, you are going to get a new batch of players trained on the most publicly prevalent voice.

Many voices are better. Contest everything.

This is nothing new: I started seeing the complaint in APAs as soon as AD&D came out.  There's always been a large faction who believe that anything not explicitly permitted in the rules is forbidden, just as there's always been a large faction who believe that anything not expressly forbidden by the rules is permitted.

I don't think there's any trend one way or another: for every new player who comes to tabletop used to the limited choices allowed by console games, there's a player who comes to tabletop used to the vast options available in LARPs.

Yeah, the still ongoing conversation over on RPGG is like that. The OP for the thread on Opportunity + Reach when suggested that improvising bows and lt crossbow for melee being a d4 and a heavy crossbow being possibly a d6. Could not see that as "the rules say ranged weapons only d4." when they do not quite say that.

And yet he complains because the rules say reach extends OA making it less usefull because it doesnt make sense to him. Then when pointed out that this is how pole arms really work - its denied. And round and round we go.

At the opposite end someone else was arguing that they could take a short rest at any time because the rules do not say they cannot. Same for long rest except with the added crevat that the only way to interrupt it is to stage a single combat an hour long because the rules dont say that a bunch of individual attacks over an hour count.

and so on ad nausium.

Another vote for the GOML camp.

Fuck the Player who cannot improvise while playing and fuck the GM who does not allow improvisation because it isn't covered by the rules.

Quote from: Ravenswing;815724
For every new player who comes to tabletop used to the limited choices allowed by console games, there's a player who comes to tabletop used to the vast options available in LARPs.

Maybe it's just my neck of the woods, but I'm really not sure I'd say those two sources of new players are equal. I'll go so far as to say that, as I see it, video game RPGs are the primary onramp for new tabletop players these days. It's certainly half of why I'm involved in the hobby (choose-your-own-adventure books being the other half).

As a result, a big part of my sales pitch to potential newbies is, "Unlike a video game, you can do anything your character could really do at any time."

I just wish more of them would realize that this is most useful OUTSIDE of combat rather than always trying to find the "I win every time" button in fights. :rolleyes:

And the reply. Improvisation and thinking dies just that little fraction more.

QuoteBefore common sense i like to have the fact from the rules.
You are quote right, but my quote is also right and specifik on range weapon and is damage and it say nothing about SOME range weapon, so you must read it as all. Also as you say, a heavy crossbow must be like a club. Club is 1d4.

If you whant to change that, please do but the rules are clear IMO.

What the heck is GOML?

Quote from: yojimbouk;815792What the heck is GOML?

Get Off My Lawn

Improvisation is certainly alive and well at my table.

Gaming back in the 80s through today, I have always come across both players and GMs who could not think beyond what is written on the character sheet and never have anything more interesting to contribute to the game beyond what is already written in the rules.  We have always called them seat warmers.  Pretty much a necessary evil to be able to continually game and a very large part of why I routinely GM rather than play.

No big deal.  Same today as it has always been, and not much different than me shuffling through a basketball game with my weak ball skills.

I had a gm who often grump 'play your character, not your character sheet!'

Of course, the problem is a lot of systems really discourage improving (like 3e).

I disagree that 3e made it any more or less difficult to do things like lure an iron golem into a pit trap or topple a statue to block off an exit.  I've never found the game system to have much to do with it.  Just whether the players want to try it and whether the DM wants to encourage it.

That wasn't my experience.

By making encounter design and balance explicit, and attempting to justify various actions, 3e discouraged doing 'undeclared maneuvers.'

Systems that cover less and systems that have open 'do stuff' rules, IMO, do better.

Ahh, OK.  The encounter math stuff is one playstyle for 3e.  I never used it.  Playstyle can definitely impact improvisation.  

If a party of 1st level PCs never encounters an iron golem, they will never need to come up with a plan to get past it.

Quote from: yojimbouk;815792What the heck is GOML?

Get Off My Lawn because "Lamentations of an Old Fart" took too long to type. :)

Quote from: Nexus;815576It feels like we're, a a hobby, becoming way to tied to published material and "professional" game designers in place of creativity and improvisation.

The future of humanity won't survive if it can't copy/paste from the web any answers it needs.

Quote from: Nexus;815576This was from the Exalted questions thread but its not specfically a problem relating to Exalted but gaming in general. It feels like we're, a a hobby, becoming way to tied to published material and "professional" game designers in place of creativity and improvisation.



Do you really need to ask if this is possible or the permission of specific rules to try it? It seems counter intuitive to the idea of role playing games. Of course you can do that. and a gm worth their salt should be able to moderate what happens.

i think thats quite a lead of logic going from i want some rules for this to i wont make rules for things if needed

sure you can make things up as you go but its much better when its already an existing rule

Quote from: tuypo1;816999i think thats quite a lead of logic going from i want some rules for this to i wont make rules for things if needed

sure you can make things up as you go but its much better when its already an existing rule

Not from the way its phrased the vast majority of times. It asking "Can I do X. There are no rules for it." Not "how would I do X in this game." That might seem like a pedantic quibble but lends an entirely different feel to the discussions, like they're asking permission or if there is no official published rule for an action you cannot perform it. Often there's an attached anecdote that confirms that is indeed the purpose of the question. "There are no rules for setting a hay bale on fire as a distraction so the GM didn't like me do it."

 And, I guess this is where my elitism shows it does seem a bit sad to need official rules for every little thing. Ofter these aren't complex or strange things and the games already have some basic resolution mechanics (simple test against an attribute if nothing else) so making a call isn't that onerous but there's such an obsessive worry over getting it "right"

I can fully understand wanting, for instance, more compliated rules for actions and events that are going to be major parts of your game if they're not covered (like there's been or going to be a lot of car chases in the game but vehicle combat rules are thin and extremely simple) but it feels like no one wants to make judgement calls or work out things from the system but would rather deny one of the main things I like about rpgs until they can get some kind of official answer.

Quote from: tuypo1;816999sure you can make things up as you go but its much better when its already an existing rule

How so?  If that were true, then computer "RPGs" would be definitively superior to tabletop, since they only allow you to do things for which there's already an existing rule.

Repeating/clarifying myself, I like games like Fate where improving is encouraged and has a mechanical hook so the GM doesn't accidentally make up a rule that derails the game.

'I'm going to trick the enemy into doing X by launching a flaming writing desk at them!'
"Er, ok, roll (bla) skill..."
~Wait, I'm going to help by adding sparklers!~
"Ha ha, ok, ~you~ roll Craft..."
~Ok, I add 2 to 'their' result.~
'And I roll (bla)'
"Ok! The sparkling, flaming writing desk sails through the air and WHOMPH into the Cobra minions, they run screaming."
(Minion strength reduced by 4, or whatever variant of Fate is being used)

Quote from: tuypo1;816999i think thats quite a lead of logic going from i want some rules for this to i wont make rules for things if needed

sure you can make things up as you go but its much better when its already an existing rule

Better in what way?

All having a rule for lighting a hay bale on fire to distract the guards does is add more and more clutterd rules for things that should be as simple as the DM thinking it through and/or making a wisdom check for example.

What good does having a rule for jumping on a table serve?

Quote from: Will;817024"Ok! The sparkling, flaming writing desk sails through the air and WHOMPH into the Cobra minions, they run screaming."
(Minion strength reduced by 4, or whatever variant of Fate is being used)

I remember that episode! Wasnt that followed up by the episode where Cobra Commander summons the Egyptian god Set? :D

What exactly is the rule for distracting your friend whos been turned into an orca monster and is rampaging in the ocean? For that matter, what is the rule for turning your friend into a giant orca monster?

One thing I really like about Torg, which is a late 90s game with lots of rules, is that it also has a rather open-ended 'dramatic results.'

So that if you want to do just about anything to bring disadvantage to the enemies that isn't specifically damage, there was a table of results depending on how well you roll. This encompassed everything from Staredown, glibly confusing the enemies, or anything. And you could get really credible, big results (max result was something like 'choose what happens,' so you could have a bunch of enemies run off a cliff, or a bunch of dragons show up to help you, or whatever)

So despite being a system with lots of rules for stuff, a lot of those rules were rather open frameworks, and it could handle a wide variety of crazy shit.

Quote from: Will;817033One thing I really like about Torg, which is a late 90s game with lots of rules, is that it also has a rather open-ended 'dramatic results.'

Torgs strength was, and still is, its flexibility combined with its "anything CAN happen" setting.

The Vampire Hunter wants to leap out of the burning Nile Empire bomber plane without a parachute and land on the back of a T-Rex? Can do. Might not succeed. But you sure as heck can try.

Frankly, it remains the game that, to me, most validates social characters, between the resolution and the card system that at least 1/4 of the time says 'do something social to get a card.'

I rate it more highly in that regard than Fate... though on the whole I find Fate 'better' (lighter rule load, less intimidating to run, more flexibility in other ways, better overall balance)

Quote from: nDervish;817009How so?  If that were true, then computer "RPGs" would be definitively superior to tabletop, since they only allow you to do things for which there's already an existing rule.

Wrong. Why? Because some people want both more guidelines AND freedom.

However, crpgs are "definitely superior" in terms of getting big profits from a mass market.

Quote from: Omega;817029Better in what way?

All having a rule for lighting a hay bale on fire to distract the guards does is add more and more clutterd rules for things that should be as simple as the DM thinking it through and/or making a wisdom check for example.

What good does having a rule for jumping on a table serve?

"Jumping on a table" might, in its arbitrary particularity,  be a temptation to absurdly fallacious argument. Let's stick, please, with the concept of having something to cover whatever you (or I, or whoever is actually involved) consider worth covering. After all, a whole lot of folks DO buy rules sets rather than "reinvent the wheel" from scratch.

Sticking with that, I'll bet you can answer your own question from personal experience - even if it's limited to experience with Omega's House Rules Nobody Else Knows.

Quote from: Phillip;817092"Jumping on a table" might, in its arbitrary particularity,  be a temptation to absurdly fallacious argument. Let's stick, please, with the concept of having something to cover whatever you (or I, or whoever is actually involved) consider worth covering. After all, a whole lot of folks DO buy rules sets rather than "reinvent the wheel" from scratch.

Sticking with that, I'll bet you can answer your own question from personal experience - even if it's limited to experience with Omega's House Rules Nobody Else Knows.

Considering the number of threads elsewhere on "how high can I jump? The rules dont say?" The jumping on table example is unfortunately a valid example.

Quote from: Phillip;817089Wrong. Why? Because some people want both more guidelines AND freedom.

However, crpgs are "definitely superior" in terms of getting big profits from a mass market.

Thats because CRPGs arent actual RPGs in the standard sense and attract a different playerbase than RPGs. Thats why CRPGs never "killed off" RPGs as so many predicted way back and every year thereafter.

Quote from: tuypo1;816999sure you can make things up as you go but its much better when its already an existing rule

Quote from: nDervish;817009How so?  If that were true, then computer "RPGs" would be definitively superior to tabletop, since they only allow you to do things for which there's already an existing rule.

Quote from: Phillip;817089Wrong. Why? Because some people want both more guidelines AND freedom.

That still doesn't answer the question I was getting at:  In what way is it "much better" to have an existing rule than rely on a GM ruling?

You don't even contradict me - if people want both more guidelines (existing rules) and freedom (ability to make things up as you go), then that implies that existing rules are not inherently "much better".

Quote from: Omega;817029Better in what way?

All having a rule for lighting a hay bale on fire to distract the guards does is add more and more clutterd rules for things that should be as simple as the DM thinking it through and/or making a wisdom check for example.

What good does having a rule for jumping on a table serve?

you dont need a rule for jumping on a table when there are already rules for jumping, rules for balancing and rules for fire you dont need lots of rules you need the building blocks to make complex rules in a way

Quote from: nDervish;817195That still doesn't answer the question I was getting at:  In what way is it "much better" to have an existing rule than rely on a GM ruling?

You don't even contradict me - if people want both more guidelines (existing rules) and freedom (ability to make things up as you go), then that implies that existing rules are not inherently "much better".

you make up rules when there is nothing existing but existing rules are preferable

Quote from: Phillip;817092temptation to absurdly fallacious argument

sounds a lot like fantasy adventures to adult lechery

Quote from: tuypo1;817197you make up rules when there is nothing existing but existing rules are preferable

Why?

Quote from: Will;817217Why?

Consistency.

You see it here when an actual play example pops up here every blue moon.  You end up with 30 different answers on how to adjudicate the action.

It's no big deal if you have your own gaming group with one DM, you get that peeps vision.  However if you have multiple groups with multiple DMs then you open the door to multiple visions of the same action.

I think the game should tell me how failure and success work in general. Then maybe toss in some ideas on how to handle "side cases". In general. Generically. Then you have the skills section. It outlines some example rulings with suggestions. Not rules. Just how you might do it. Same in the "adventuring" section.

You would have the best of both worlds. Just state at the beginning "the GM decides the outcome. The suggestions are here to help the GM make rulings." Then outline that the players play the characters. Don't think in terms of rules, think in terms of "what do I want to do". The GM should be encouraged to say "roll vs. something" and not "no" at every turn.

You would encourage the players to be players and the GMs to be GMs and your game would offer tools to help both do what they are supposed to be doing.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817239Consistency.

You see it here when an actual play example pops up here every blue moon.  You end up with 30 different answers on how to adjudicate the action.

It's no big deal if you have your own gaming group with one DM, you get that peeps vision.  However if you have multiple groups with multiple DMs then you open the door to multiple visions of the same action.

Consistency is welcomed so long as that consistency applies to the imagined game world. A given thing should work more or less the same given identical circumstances.

A hard coded rule applied for the sake of rules consistency alone even though the circumstances in the game world do not support it is idiocy in action.

Quote from: trechriron;817241You would have the best of both worlds. Just state at the beginning "the GM decides the outcome. The suggestions are here to help the GM make rulings." Then outline that the players play the characters. Don't think in terms of rules, think in terms of "what do I want to do". The GM should be encouraged to say "roll vs. something" and not "no" at every turn.

You would encourage the players to be players and the GMs to be GMs and your game would offer tools to help both do what they are supposed to be doing.

This is where players start scratching their heads a bit.
The players play the character, but the GM decides the outcome?  Am I actually playing the character or am I just suggesting actions for the Gm to decide if he likes it or not?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;817244Consistency is welcomed so long as that consistency applies to the imagined game world. A given thing should work more or less the same given identical circumstances.

That's what people are finding out to not be true.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;817244A hard coded rule applied for the sake of rules consistency alone even though the circumstances in the game world do not support it is idiocy in action.

That just defined every RPG out there.  Good Job!

Those corner cases may suffer, but it's that whole greater good thing in action.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817256This is where players start scratching their heads a bit.
The players play the character, but the GM decides the outcome?  Am I actually playing the character or am I just suggesting actions for the Gm to decide if he likes it or not?
...

Ummmmmm. So maybe I pointed at the wrong spot on the map...  I will reword for clarity...

In the book, you have a generic rule like "roll 3d6, a result under 6 is a critical success, a result under 12 is a success. A result over 12 is a failure and a result over 16 is a critical failure". Then you go on to demonstrate how to take this generic rule and make rulings. You outline examples for jumping, lifting, hiking, fighting, etc.

Before the go into "ruling examples" you explain a basic principle. "in this game, you tell the GM what you are doing. Something like - I jump across the pit! Then the GM decides how that's going to work using our generic rule. So he says - make a dexterity check, the pit is large, so you have a +3. You roll 3d6+3. You score a 17 - critical failure! The GM will then adjudicates the results, explaining what happens, probably falling into the pit."

When we talk about "rulings not rules" I think there is a way to approach this that is clearer upfront. You give the general idea, then plenty of ruling examples BUT those examples are NOT rules. They are examples. So you inform everyone up front that the GM decides the outcome. The outcome is "you hit, or you succeeded and grappled the snake-wolf, or you critically failed dropping your sword through your foot pinning you to the cave floor".

This is how RPGs work anyways (as far as I'm concerned). We could do better explicitly working that into the text, helping GMs with rulings, and helping manage player's expectations. The focus would be on playing, not on maximizing probability or limiting GM creativity by explicit procedures, formulas or mechanics.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817239Consistency.

You see it here when an actual play example pops up here every blue moon.  You end up with 30 different answers on how to adjudicate the action.

Except that even with a rule in place. Two people may read it TOTALLY differently and both think it very clearly states what they believe it to be because of how they read the rule.

Quote from: Omega;817340Except that even with a rule in place. Two people may read it TOTALLY differently and both think it very clearly states what they believe it to be because of how they read the rule.

And some find that infinitely better then having one person who decides.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817341And some find that infinitely better then having one person who decides.

Translation: Nothing gets actually played because every 5 steps an argument breaks out over some wording of the rules and how player A reads it and how player B reads it.

That is the DMs job.

Or worse yet, the players keep stopping the game to bitchfest with the DM.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817256This is where players start scratching their heads a bit.
The players play the character, but the GM decides the outcome?  Am I actually playing the character or am I just suggesting actions for the Gm to decide if he likes it or not?

Depends on the system.  In Amber Diceless, yes, that's exactly how it works.  (Which is why I almost immediately quit running Amber - as a GM, I don't want to have to make those decisions without getting help from my dice.)

But you seem to be assuming a capricious (or perhaps even malicious?) GM who will rule based on the whim of the moment.  Were that the case, I would agree with you, but it's not something I've ever seen myself.  When I GM, I do my best to assess "if this situation were real, what things would factor into the outcome and how should I best resolve the interaction of those factors?", which allows players to make their own reasonable assessment of what's likely to result, regardless of whether they know the rules or not and regardless of whether applicable rules even exist or not.

And here's the real kicker:  It's the exact same thought process regardless of whether I end up applying existing, codified rules or making up something new on the fly.

If I were to be capricious or malicious, I could do so just as effectively regardless of the rules (or lack of them) in place, simply by choosing which rules to favor and which to neglect or, if a player were to call me on a neglected rule, by setting up the situation so that the rule I want to ignore doesn't apply.

"The players play the character, but the GM decides the outcome" (or at least the GM decides how to determine the outcome) is, ultimately, the way that every remotely-traditional RPG works.  (I can't actually think of any RPGs which don't work that way, but I'm open to the possibility that some indie title or other has discarded all semblance of GM authority over the system or setting.)

Quote from: ExploderwizardA hard coded rule applied for the sake of rules consistency alone even though the circumstances in the game world do not support it is idiocy in action.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817256That just defined every RPG out there. Good Job!

Doesn't define the RPGs I run.  I only apply hard-coded rules when the circumstances in the game world support their application.  If the rule doesn't fit with the in-game situation, I'll gladly ignore that rule, mechanical consistency be damned.  My ultimate loyalty is to the setting, not the system.

Quote from: nDervish;817373Doesn't define the RPGs I run.  I only apply hard-coded rules when the circumstances in the game world support their application.  If the rule doesn't fit with the in-game situation, I'll gladly ignore that rule, mechanical consistency be damned.  My ultimate loyalty is to the setting, not the system.

DING!

Quote from: nDervish;817373Doesn't define the RPGs I run.  I only apply hard-coded rules when the circumstances in the game world support their application.  If the rule doesn't fit with the in-game situation, I'll gladly ignore that rule, mechanical consistency be damned.  My ultimate loyalty is to the setting, not the system.

That describes the games I run as well.  I'll go even further my loyalties are:

First, to keeping the setting consistent so players can interact with it easily.

Second, to common sense so that players can have their characters do things and expect the range of possible results to make sense.

Third, to the players having fun.  (BTW, min-maxing and rules lawyering are defined as "not fun" in my campaigns, players who want to have fun doing those things need to play in a different campaign GMed by someone else.)

Fourth, to me (the GM) having fun.

And finally to "following the rules" in the books. To me RPG rules are just guidelines for the GM to help the GM achieve the four things listed above. When they interfere with that, I ignore them/modify them to fit the current circumstances/whatever. The rules should serve the GM and the campaign, not the other way around.

I've had two recent experiences with newcomers to the hobby and in both cases they got the whole improvisation thing off the bat. If anything, I think amongst players it's something that people naturally want to be able to do but get discouraged from for various reasons:

- Sometimes they've run into especially shitty GMs out there who flat-out refuse to countenance improvisation because they just can't cope with it.

- Sometimes they're used to playing with groups/GMs who like to play as close to RAW as possible, which can slow things down on occasion, particularly in systems without a clear, basic resolution mechanic, especially when the GMs/groups involved lack the system mastery to quickly know whether a particular situation is handled by the rules or not. Nothing worse than play grinding to a halt whilst someone flicks back and forth in the rulebook before deciding that this isn't a situation governed by a specific rule; even if you then succeed at whatever roll the GM asks you to make, the loss of momentum is a drag.

- Sometimes they've been burned once too often by a GM who either neglected to make sure they understood the player's intent, or decided that their intent was silly and ended up having an entirely different set of consequences happening anyway. (Incidentally, this is why I 100% agree with the sentiments expressed upthread that making sure you understand what a player hopes to accomplish by an action is crucial - and if the action in question clearly wouldn't have the consequences the player thinks it would for reasons the PC would see, tell the player and give them a chance to change their mind).

- Very often, particularly in combat contexts, I find it's actually a system problem - namely, the systems they are used to are set up such that taking your default actions in combat is usually more likely to be successful than taking an improvised action. (This is often exacerbated if a GM is quite conservative about giving out bonuses to rolls for particularly favourable plans, or is stingy about what difficulties they set tasks at - or if the game actively discourages this.) I remember one of the things putting me off D&D 4E when it first came out was that, as I estimated it, the rules for taking improvised actions in combat meant that you were almost always better off just taking your allotted movement and using the appropriate daily/encounter/at-will power unless the GM was willing to be extremely generous about situational bonuses.

Improvisation is a delicate flower and is easily discouraged, but make the right environment for it and it will survive and thrive.

Quote from: Phillip;817092"Jumping on a table" might, in its arbitrary particularity,  be a temptation to absurdly fallacious argument. Let's stick, please, with the concept of having something to cover whatever you (or I, or whoever is actually involved) consider worth covering. After all, a whole lot of folks DO buy rules sets rather than "reinvent the wheel" from scratch.

It also can't come as an astonishing surprise to Omega -- or to anyone else who's been in the hobby longer than a mayfly -- that there are people who like and need crunchier rules than others.  Indeed, there are many settings and playstyles for which specific table-jumping rules would be superfluous.

I rather expect that one of those styles with which Omega's unfamiliar (or he wouldn't have asked the question) is swashbucklers, where leaping from balconies, swinging on chandeliers and, yes, jumping on tables are combat standards.  A rules-heavy gaming circle may well want an explicit table-jumping guideline, and this isn't any sillier a notion than any set of RPG rules more complicated than the one-page of GURPS Ultra-Lite.

In Runequest/Call of Cthulhu/BRP games or in WEG's Star Wars D6 there is a Jumping skill (techically it is Climbing/Jumping in WEG's SWD6) so jumping on tables is covered--as is jumping over a crevase or from rooftop to rooftop.

In Honor+Intrigue there is no jumping skill, but the rules provide several recommended approaches for the GM. If there is some risk involved, jumping (or climbing, or swinging from a chandelier) is probably a Daring roll or if strength is more important the GM could call for a Might roll. If jumping onto the table is part of some flashy sword play, the GM might use Flair instead or just assume that jumping on the table in a duel is covered by the Footwork maneuver. In practice for table jumping I use Footwork and for chandelier swinging I use Daring.

Quote from: Ravenswing;817411I rather expect that one of those styles with which Omega's unfamiliar (or he wouldn't have asked the question) is swashbucklers, where leaping from balconies, swinging on chandeliers and, yes, jumping on tables are combat standards.  A rules-heavy gaming circle may well want an explicit table-jumping guideline, and this isn't any sillier a notion than any set of RPG rules more complicated than the one-page of GURPS Ultra-Lite.

Nice try little by blue but that is not what I said. I know its hard for you sometimes. But do try to keep up with the conversation.

My reply was in response to the comment that more and more rules are better. They usually arent if they can be handled with something allready in the system or just waived off as an easy action.

Quote from: nDervish;817373But you seem to be assuming a capricious (or perhaps even malicious?) GM who will rule based on the whim of the moment.  Were that the case, I would agree with you, but it's not something I've ever seen myself.  When I GM, I do my best to assess "if this situation were real, what things would factor into the outcome and how should I best resolve the interaction of those factors?", which allows players to make their own reasonable assessment of what's likely to result, regardless of whether they know the rules or not and regardless of whether applicable rules even exist or not.

And here's the real kicker:  It's the exact same thought process regardless of whether I end up applying existing, codified rules or making up something new on the fly.

It does back to my original post
"Consistency.
You see it here(@ the rpgsite) when an actual play example pops up here(@ the rpgsite) every blue moon. You end up with 30 different answers on how to adjudicate the action.
It's no big deal if you have your own gaming group with one DM, you get that peeps vision. However if you have multiple groups with multiple DMs then you open the door to multiple visions of the same action."
Your When I GM, I do my best to assess "if this situation were real, what things would factor into the outcome and how should I best resolve the interaction of those factors?" opinion may be completely different than mDevish's, tDervish's, 4Dervish's, .Dervish's, or Bob's. Sure, who cares what mDevish's, tDervish's, 4Dervish's, .Dervish's, or Bob's opinion is when I only play with you. Steve on the other hand does play in other groups.  He does see what mDevish's, tDervish's, 4Dervish's, .Dervish's, or Bob's opinion are. He does grumble that there should a more standardized way to do this.

Quote from: nDervish;817373"The players play the character, but the GM decides the outcome" (or at least the GM decides how to determine the outcome) is, ultimately, the way that every remotely-traditional RPG works.  (I can't actually think of any RPGs which don't work that way, but I'm open to the possibility that some indie title or other has discarded all semblance of GM authority over the system or setting.)

There is a difference and sometimes not between GM decides the outcome, GM decides how to determine the outcome.

Quote from: nDervish;817373Doesn't define the RPGs I run.  I only apply hard-coded rules when the circumstances in the game world support their application.  If the rule doesn't fit with the in-game situation, I'll gladly ignore that rule, mechanical consistency be damned.  My ultimate loyalty is to the setting, not the system.

Sure it does.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817448Sure, who cares what mDevish's, tDervish's, 4Dervish's, .Dervish's, or Bob's opinion is when I only play with you. Steve on the other hand does play in other groups.  He does see what mDevish's, tDervish's, 4Dervish's, .Dervish's, or Bob's opinion are. He does grumble that there should a more standardized way to do this.

Virtually everyone I've ever gamed with over the last 40+ years plays in campaigns with different GMs. Many of those people are themselves GMs. None of us expect every GM to do things the same way. Steve just needs to realize that this is the way of the world, stop trying to get the world to accomodate itself to him, and instead learn to accomodate himself to the world.

Quote from: Bren;817463Virtually everyone I've ever gamed with over the last 40+ years plays in campaigns with different GMs. Many of those people are themselves GMs. None of us expect every GM to do things the same way. Steve just needs to realize that this is the way of the world, stop trying to get the world to accomodate itself to him, and instead learn to accomodate himself to the world.

Strange that.

mDevish, tDervish, 4Dervish, .Dervish, and Bob are encouraged to change the world to accommodate themselves.  Doing so makes Steve accommodate himself to the world as mDevish, tDervish, 4Dervish, .Dervish, or Bob sees it.  Doesn't matter that mDevish, tDervish, 4Dervish, .Dervish, or Bob are using the exact same world. It's Steve's fault for thinking there might/should be some consistency with the world.  Shame on him.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817556Strange that.

mDevish, tDervish, 4Dervish, .Dervish, and Bob are encouraged to change the world to accommodate themselves.  Doing so makes Steve accommodate himself to the world as mDevish, tDervish, 4Dervish, .Dervish, or Bob sees it.  Doesn't matter that mDevish, tDervish, 4Dervish, .Dervish, or Bob are using the exact same world. It's Steve's fault for thinking there might/should be some consistency with the world.  Shame on him.

What game world are you talking about and what is the role played by Bob, Steve, and the various dervishes?

If the dervishes are all different GMs, why would Steve think that plural GMs result in a singlular world that is consistent between the GMs without those GMs actually communicating with each other. That's a strange thing to think. It seems obvious that plural GMs would result in plural worlds. Where ever did Steve get his one world notion from?

And if those aren't different GMs, I have no idea what you are on about.

Quote from: Bren;817570What game world are you talking about and what is the role played by Bob, Steve, and the various dervishes?

If the dervishes are all different GMs, why would Steve think that plural GMs result in a singlular world that is consistent between the GMs without those GMs actually communicating with each other. That's a strange thing to think. It seems obvious that plural GMs would result in plural worlds. Where ever did Steve get his one world notion from?

And if those aren't different GMs, I have no idea what you are on about.

Here hope this helps.

Quote from: Omega;817029What good does having a rule for jumping on a table serve?

Quote from: trechriron;817270In the book, you have a generic rule like "roll 3d6, a result under 6 is a critical success, a result under 12 is a success. A result over 12 is a failure and a result over 16 is a critical failure".

Steve is attempting to jump onto the table
At the table of;
mDevish: Agility check of 3d6 + 3, because reasons
tDervish: Agility check of 3d6 - 2, because reasons
4Dervish: Agility Check of 3d6 +2 plus a Strength check of 3d6, because reasons
.Dervish: Agility Check of 3d6, because reasons
Bob: No, because reasons

Steve rolls an 11
At the table of;
mDevish: 14, fails
tDervish: 9, passes
4Dervish: 13, fails
.Dervish: 11, passes
Bob: no

Steve wonders why this same action is ruled is so many different ways.  Thinks to himself or out loud.  "Why can't there be a more consistent way to handle this."

Quote from: nDervish;817373But you seem to be assuming a capricious (or perhaps even malicious?) GM who will rule based on the whim of the moment.  Were that the case, I would agree with you, but it's not something I've ever seen myself.  When I GM, I do my best to assess "if this situation were real, what things would factor into the outcome and how should I best resolve the interaction of those factors?", which allows players to make their own reasonable assessment of what's likely to result, regardless of whether they know the rules or not and regardless of whether applicable rules even exist or not.

Sommerjon was touched in a naughty place by a GM once and he has never ever gotten over it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817575Steve is attempting to jump onto the table
At the table of;
mDevish: Agility check of 3d6 + 3, because reasons
tDervish: Agility check of 3d6 - 2, because reasons
4Dervish: Agility Check of 3d6 +2 plus a Strength check of 3d6, because reasons
.Dervish: Agility Check of 3d6, because reasons
Bob: No, because reasons

Steve rolls an 11
At the table of;
mDevish: 14, fails
tDervish: 9, passes
4Dervish: 13, fails
.Dervish: 11, passes
Bob: no

Steve wonders why this same action is ruled is so many different ways.  Thinks to himself or out loud.  "Why can't there be a more consistent way to handle this."

This only even approaches a problem if Steve is trying to jump on the same table under the same circumstances each time.

To be fair, that might be the case if all the Dervishes plus Bob are running the same prewritten module (particularly likely if they're all in the same organised play network, which kind of explains why those things have a reputation for rigidly enforcing RAW and limiting GM decision-making).

If it isn't the case, then you'd expect the "reasons" to be different each time anyway, so Steve can chalk it up to different circumstances.

If it is the case, then evidently each GM is relying on different reasons (or interpreting the same reasons differently). Frankly, that's fine by me: tabletop RPGs are ultimately conversation-driven games, part of player skill is presenting your actions such that you make sure to highlight the circumstances you feel are in hour favour, part of GMing is going with your gut feeling on that plus assigning suitable weight to all the other circumstances involved.

The GM part of that equation is always going to involve a certain amount of guesstimation, with different GMs assigning different weights to different circumstances, plus some GMs are going to be more generous than others. You deal with it and accept that as part of being at that GM's table, or you walk if you find that your view of reality and the GM's are so disparate that you're constantly talking at cross-purposes. To achieve consistency would require either one of two solutions:

SOLUTION 1:
You provide rules which rules cover all the circumstances that are potentially involved and assign precise weights to them. At which point you have made the rules incredibly cumbersome, and the task of GMing correspondingly more difficult.

SOLUTION 2:
You explicitly provide set difficulties for actions and disallow GM-applied penalties or bonuses to actions. At which point you lose the ability to incorporate favourable or unfavourable circumstances into the simulation and your game just lost a degree of verisimilitude.

Personally, I consider both of these outcomes to be significantly worse than the problem-which-might-not-be-a-problem of a lack of consistency from table to table.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;817244A hard coded rule applied for the sake of rules consistency alone even though the circumstances in the game world do not support it is idiocy in action.

Quote from: nDervish;817373Doesn't define the RPGs I run.  I only apply hard-coded rules when the circumstances in the game world support their application.  If the rule doesn't fit with the in-game situation, I'll gladly ignore that rule, mechanical consistency be damned.  My ultimate loyalty is to the setting, not the system.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817448Sure it does.

I guess I must be a little slow today.  Please explain to me how it is that "rules are applied for the sake of consistency, even when they don't fit the in-game circumstances" and "rules are ignored when they don't fit the in-game circumstances, mechanical consistency be damned" are - or even could possibly be - the same thing.  It seems to me that "rules are always applied" and "rules are sometimes ignored" would be mutually exclusive.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817556mDevish, tDervish, 4Dervish, .Dervish, and Bob are encouraged to change the world to accommodate themselves.  Doing so makes Steve accommodate himself to the world as mDevish, tDervish, 4Dervish, .Dervish, or Bob sees it.  Doesn't matter that mDevish, tDervish, 4Dervish, .Dervish, or Bob are using the exact same world. It's Steve's fault for thinking there might/should be some consistency with the world.  Shame on him.

Steve doesn't need to accommodate himself to my game world.  He does, however, need to accommodate himself to the real world, in which different rules will be applied by different GMs to similar - or even identical! - in-game circumstances.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817575Steve is attempting to jump onto the table
At the table of;
mDevish: Agility check of 3d6 + 3, because reasons
tDervish: Agility check of 3d6 - 2, because reasons
...
Steve wonders why this same action is ruled is so many different ways.  Thinks to himself or out loud.  "Why can't there be a more consistent way to handle this."

As I said in my last reply here, having codified rules does not change this.

Let us assume that all are playing a game in which the rules explicitly state that jumping onto a table requires an unmodified Strength check.  Steve now attempts to jump onto a table.

Alice: ok, roll Strength
Bob: It's a Strength roll, but this is one of those bar-height tables that you stand at, so you'll need to roll at -3 because of the height.
Charlie: Roll Strength to jump onto the table, but then you'll also need to roll Agility to keep your footing on the tablecloth - if the Agility roll fails, your feet will shoot out from under you, leaving you on the table, but prone.
Dervish: It's just a coffee table, not a normal table, so don't bother rolling.  You can step up onto it automatically without needing to jump.

Yep, that rule got us total consistency!

Oh, wait, no...  It didn't.

Now, I suppose you could, in theory, expand the rule with a list of modifiers for every possible height of table, whether there's a tablecloth on it (including a matrix cross-indexing the tablecloth's material, the table's surface, and how far the tablecloth hangs off the edge of the table), etc., but providing exact rules in that level of detail for every little thing will give you a 42-volume rulebook that make the Encyclopedia Britannica look like light reading.  It would be utterly unplayable... but at least it would be consistently unplayable, no matter who's running it!

Quote from: Sommerjon;817575Here hope this helps.

Thank you. Yes that greatly clarifies the issue that you are concerned about.

Quote from: Warthur;817595This only even approaches a problem if Steve is trying to jump on the same table under the same circumstances each time.

To be fair, that might be the case if all the Dervishes plus Bob are running the same prewritten module (particularly likely if they're all in the same organised play network, which kind of explains why those things have a reputation for rigidly enforcing RAW and limiting GM decision-making).

If it isn't the case, then you'd expect the "reasons" to be different each time anyway, so Steve can chalk it up to different circumstances.

If it is the case, then evidently each GM is relying on different reasons (or interpreting the same reasons differently). Frankly, that's fine by me: tabletop RPGs are ultimately conversation-driven games, part of player skill is presenting your actions such that you make sure to highlight the circumstances you feel are in hour favour, part of GMing is going with your gut feeling on that plus assigning suitable weight to all the other circumstances involved.

The GM part of that equation is always going to involve a certain amount of guesstimation, with different GMs assigning different weights to different circumstances, plus some GMs are going to be more generous than others. You deal with it and accept that as part of being at that GM's table, or you walk if you find that your view of reality and the GM's are so disparate that you're constantly talking at cross-purposes. To achieve consistency would require either one of two solutions:

SOLUTION 1:
You provide rules which rules cover all the circumstances that are potentially involved and assign precise weights to them. At which point you have made the rules incredibly cumbersome, and the task of GMing correspondingly more difficult.

SOLUTION 2:
You explicitly provide set difficulties for actions and disallow GM-applied penalties or bonuses to actions. At which point you lose the ability to incorporate favourable or unfavourable circumstances into the simulation and your game just lost a degree of verisimilitude.

Personally, I consider both of these outcomes to be significantly worse than the problem-which-might-not-be-a-problem of a lack of consistency from table to table.

Warthur, you saved me from having to write anything in response. :) I agree 100% with what you posted.

I bolded part of your response because it is a situation I usually ignore since (a) I don't belong to an organized group and (b) I find organized group play not at all to my taste.

I'd imagine that scenarios written for organized group play may end up including the modifier for a lot of commonly attempted actions which seems like a much more effective solution to the issue than creating the Encyclopedia Systema Gamica.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817556Strange that.

mDevish, tDervish, 4Dervish, .Dervish, and Bob are encouraged to change the world to accommodate themselves.  Doing so makes Steve accommodate himself to the world as mDevish, tDervish, 4Dervish, .Dervish, or Bob sees it.  Doesn't matter that mDevish, tDervish, 4Dervish, .Dervish, or Bob are using the exact same world. It's Steve's fault for thinking there might/should be some consistency with the world.  Shame on him.

No, Steve does not have to change himself at all.  He can choose to only play in games where everything is covered by the rules and the GM and players agree to play absolutely RAW with a pre-agreed list of books (and/or pages in books) that will be used.  I warn potential players up front that I run my games with the rules as mere guidelines for the GM and that I do not care how other tables handle situation X. Other tables don't have to handle it the same why I do and I don't have to handle it the way they do. Setting consistency matters to me, while mechanical/rules consistency matters far less to me and being consistent with how other GMs handle things does not matter to me at all. Players who do not want to play this way are free to find a different campaign.

Steve seems like a peculiarly persnickity person when it comes to rules with the odd inability to speak up and say, "hey GM, don't that sound a bit hard just to jump on a table, here let me demonstrate just how easy it is."  

Steve needs to learn the art of persuading the GM when the GM makes an obviously bad call.  Alternatively, Steve can actually step up to the plate and offer to GM a game himself.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817575Here hope this helps.

Steve is attempting to jump onto the table
At the table of;
mDevish: Agility check of 3d6 + 3, because reasons
tDervish: Agility check of 3d6 - 2, because reasons
4Dervish: Agility Check of 3d6 +2 plus a Strength check of 3d6, because reasons
.Dervish: Agility Check of 3d6, because reasons
Bob: No, because reasons

Steve rolls an 11
At the table of;
mDevish: 14, fails
tDervish: 9, passes
4Dervish: 13, fails
.Dervish: 11, passes
Bob: no

Steve wonders why this same action is ruled is so many different ways.  Thinks to himself or out loud.  "Why can't there be a more consistent way to handle this."

You left out.
Omega: Ok. You jump on the table.
DM-X: Agility check + modifiers based on whats ON the table. + modifiers for table size + a check on table material to see if it can support the table jumping character.

Which was my point about why some players keep asking for more rules.

Problem is.

Lets say the book states "Jumping on a table is a Strength check -1 per dish on the table."  One DM looks at that and says "Thats absurd!" and makes up their own rule. Another says "Thats too easy!" and adds more modifiers, another says "Makes perfect sense to me." and someone else says "Why is there even a rule for this?" and tosses it.

So Steve is going to possibly see, from the same rule no less, differences from table to table.

Yes. Having rules in place is good. But thinking that you are going to play the same thing from one table to the next or trying to actually force it, can be a bit silly.

It is excusable if the player has no frame of refference to base off of. But after say three different groups one would think Steve would have caught on that DMs call some things not the same?

Using Jannet as a example. She likes her half-orcs. But she has enough common sense to know that not every table allows half-orcs. She especially knows that it may be rare to sit at an AD&D table that allows a half-orc ranger. She adapts to each rather than freaking out and railing against the cruelty of the DM for doing something different than she is used to.

Or for me. In Star Frontiers I usually play a Vrusk. One of the few games where I dont play a human if humans are in the game. But I know that some other DM might be running a human only version, or asking for an all Dralasite team, or whatever.

Where the player settles into this varies so wildly. Steve wants a consistent game from table to table. Jan would like a consistent game but adapts as needed. And someone else could care less and plays whats there now. Or may even enjoy the variations.

Quote from: Omega;817438Nice try little by blue but that is not what I said. I know its hard for you sometimes. But do try to keep up with the conversation.

My reply was in response to the comment that more and more rules are better. They usually arent if they can be handled with something allready in the system or just waived off as an easy action.

You like this all the time or are you just a part-time asshole?

Moving right along, that's exactly what you said.  If you've got a hard time owning up to what you said in your own posts, well, gosh, you can do that, but getting others to take your statements at face value might be a stretch.

You mean this part?

Quote

Quotei think thats quite a lead of logic going from i want some rules for this to i wont make rules for things if needed

sure you can make things up as you go but its much better when its already an existing rule

Better in what way?

All having a rule for lighting a hay bale on fire to distract the guards does is add more and more clutterd rules for things that should be as simple as the DM thinking it through and/or making a wisdom check for example.

What good does having a rule for jumping on a table serve?

That you responded to with this?

QuoteIt also can't come as an astonishing surprise to Omega -- or to anyone else who's been in the hobby longer than a mayfly -- that there are people who like and need crunchier rules than others. Indeed, there are many settings and playstyles for which specific table-jumping rules would be superfluous.

I rather expect that one of those styles with which Omega's unfamiliar (or he wouldn't have asked the question) is swashbucklers, where leaping from balconies, swinging on chandeliers and, yes, jumping on tables are combat standards. A rules-heavy gaming circle may well want an explicit table-jumping guideline, and this isn't any sillier a notion than any set of RPG rules more complicated than the one-page of GURPS Ultra-Lite.

Which I've allready pointed out as well that there are people who like more complex rules for everything? But somehow that warrants a personal attack. Way to go there yeah.

And still having two pages of rules in a book just to jump on a damn table does not make it better or more useful. It just means there are two pages of rules to jump on a table that probably could have been handled in a paragraph or a sentence.

Quote from: Warthur;817595Personally, I consider both of these outcomes to be significantly worse than the problem-which-might-not-be-a-problem of a lack of consistency from table to table.

Quote from: nDervish;817614Now, I suppose you could, in theory, expand the rule with a list of modifiers for every possible height of table, whether there's a tablecloth on it (including a matrix cross-indexing the tablecloth's material, the table's surface, and how far the tablecloth hangs off the edge of the table), etc., but providing exact rules in that level of detail for every little thing will give you a 42-volume rulebook that make the Encyclopedia Britannica look like light reading.  It would be utterly unplayable... but at least it would be consistently unplayable, no matter who's running it!

Interesting you both are proposing rules minutia for RPGs not actually written out, but in the brainpan of the GM.

Which brings me to the question.  Why is it bad for a player to come to a  decision in game without the blessing of the GM?

You're gonna have to unpack that statement a bit more because, whilst I think I know what you're talking about, you went for snappiness instead of clarity and I want to be sure I read your meaning.

Quote from: Warthur;817928You're gonna have to unpack that statement a bit more because, whilst I think I know what you're talking about, you went for snappiness instead of clarity and I want to be sure I read your meaning.

Me too.

Quote from: Warthur;817928You're gonna have to unpack that statement a bit more because, whilst I think I know what you're talking about, you went for snappiness instead of clarity and I want to be sure I read your meaning.

Sure.

You said
The GM part of that equation is always going to involve a certain amount of guesstimation, with different GMs assigning different weights to different circumstances, plus some GMs are going to be more generous than others. You deal with it and accept that as part of being at that GM's table, or you walk if you find that your view of reality and the GM's are so disparate that you're constantly talking at cross-purposes. To achieve consistency would require either one of two solutions:

SOLUTION 1:
You provide rules which rules cover all the circumstances that are potentially involved and assign precise weights to them. At which point you have made the rules incredibly cumbersome, and the task of GMing correspondingly more difficult.

SOLUTION 2:
You explicitly provide set difficulties for actions and disallow GM-applied penalties or bonuses to actions. At which point you lose the ability to incorporate favourable or unfavourable circumstances into the simulation and your game just lost a degree of verisimilitude.
In solution 1 having the precise modifiers is too cumbersome making the GM jobs more difficult.
OTOH
you say that part of the job of the GM is guesstimating the precise modifiers for individual tasks.

It can come across as "the modifiers need to be kept secret from the players."

As to the 'Why is it bad for a player to come to a decision in game without the blessing of the GM?' comment.
A player mentioned that once to me about GM.  more along the lines of "I wish I could do something in game with the mofoin blessing of that dick."
Wasn't until I was driving home thinking about it and yes I see the point.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818051It can come across as "the modifiers need to be kept secret from the players."

Where do you get that? It's down to the GM to let the players know what modifiers in play if they choose to do so but generally I do unless there's some reason why the PCs wouldn't know about some of the circumstances involved (like the table they are about to try to jump on is magic and will try to throw them off if they jump onto it).

QuoteAs to the 'Why is it bad for a player to come to a decision in game without the blessing of the GM?' comment.
A player mentioned that once to me about GM.  more along the lines of "I wish I could do something in game with the mofoin blessing of that dick."
Wasn't until I was driving home thinking about it and yes I see the point.

That is a repetition of the same statement, not an explanation of what you mean by it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817923Interesting you both are proposing rules minutia for RPGs not actually written out, but in the brainpan of the GM.

My actual view is closer to "it is a practical impossibility for the rules to cover absolutely every possible situation, therefore we must rely on the GM's judgment to fill in the gaps".  Finding the optimal balance between detailed rules and GM judgment calls is left as an exercise for the reader, but note that this is a subjective "optimum" and it is expected that different readers will find their optimal balance at different points.

I didn't enter this thread to argue that rules are bad, but only that more rules are not always better.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817923Which brings me to the question.  Why is it bad for a player to come to a  decision in game without the blessing of the GM?

It's not.  In one of my earlier posts, I even specifically referenced that, when making a judgment call, the GM needs to do it in such a way that players can also make their own independent assessment of the situation and be reasonably confident that it will be similar to what the GM will come up with.  (Or at least with what their character would come up with, since it's possible that there may be relevant factors which are known only to the GM.)

Quote from: Sommerjon;818051It can come across as "the modifiers need to be kept secret from the players."

That's a matter of playstyle.  Depending on the group and campaign, I (or other GMs) may tell the players all of the modifiers which will be applied to a roll and allow them to change their mind or debate the numbers before the roll is actually made, or, at the other extreme, all numbers may be hidden from the players.[1]  Most of the time, it falls somewhere in between.

The point of using GM judgment calls rather than "by the book" codified rules isn't to disempower players by hiding modifiers from them.  It's to empower the players by allowing them to attempt anything they can dream up, regardless of whether there's a rule in place for it or not.


[1]  In my last D&D-like campaign, I rolled all dice and didn't tell the players any of the numbers rolled or modifiers applied.  They didn't even know how many HP they had!  And this was, incidentally, something the players requested, not something I imposed.

Quote from: nDervish;818092The point of using GM judgment calls rather than "by the book" codified rules isn't to disempower players by hiding modifiers from them.  It's to empower the players by allowing them to attempt anything they can dream up, regardless of whether there's a rule in place for it or not.

As a player, I much prefer the freedom to try off the wall shit to having to stick to a pre-defined menu of allowed actions. What good is knowing all the odds of success if all the known options are boring. I don't want to put up with being bored just to preserve a certain mechanical procedure.

If I don't trust the GM to be fair, then I won't keep playing in their game. Rigid and bloated rules don't fix dick GMs but they do make the game more work to run, and are often avoided by good GMs.

I agree with what was said by Warthur and nDervish regarding modifiers not typically being kept secret from the players.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818051It can come across as "the modifiers need to be kept secret from the players."

Sometimes I, as the GM, don't always know exactly* what the modifiers are and depending on what's going on in the game I may suggest that the player "just roll." Depending on the roll, success or failure may be obvious and not require an exact calculation which might slow down play. If a player really wants to know the probability I will stop and calculate it out. Unless there is some compelling reason to conceal the NPCs abilities, I'll include all the modifiers from both the PC and their opponent in the calculation.

In H+I I have little or no interest in hiding any of that stuff from the players. When we first started play I intentionally did all those calculations openly telling them exactly how the total was calculated. Sometimes the players are running some of the NPCs in combat against other players so these are not kept secret. Now that we've all been using the system for 2 years or more I just want to speed up play and not yank people out of character immersion just to do arithmetic.



* In H+I each combat maneuver has specific modifiers based on the Qualities (stats) and Combat Abilities of the attacker and defender. There may be an additional modifier for the Dueling Style of the attacker or defender and for mastery of the maneuver either by the attacker and defender. I don't have all those factors memorized for every maneuver and for each and every PC and NPC in the campaign.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818051you say that part of the job of the GM is guesstimating the precise modifiers for individual tasks.

It can come across as "the modifiers need to be kept secret from the players."

I've never understood players who believe they should know the (nearly) exact probability of success of actions they are about to attempt -- especially as their character probably isn't taking the game time needed to think those things through.

In the real world I don't know anything like my exact chances of jumping on my dining room table and grabbing the light fixture above it and swinging from that fixture to clear the chair at the end of the table and land on my feet ready for action -- and this in in my own house with a floor, table, light fixture, etc. I am quite familiar with -- in such a way that the table doesn't move unexpectedly or break when I impact it, the light fixture supports my weight and allows me to clear the chair when I swing, and that I will be able to land in a position that allows me to move immediately without stumbling or needing to steady myself.  My GUESS is that I'd have a "fair" chance of successfully pulling this stunt off. What's a "fair chance" on numbers? I'm not sure, but probably somewhere between a 35% and 65% of success.  Is that guess correct? I have no idea and trying it once will not tell me if my guess is accurate or not.

If I can't accurately predict my change of success for something like this where I am very familiar with the room, floor, table, light, and chair and am not under any time pressure nor to I have to pay attention to what others in the room are doing, why the hell should I expect to know the exact chance (aka the exact modifiers so I can compute the exact probability of success) my character in a tabletop RPG has to do that stunt where said character is not at all familiar with the specific setup, is under pressure, and has to watch what everyone else is doing so no one stabs him while he am trying the stunt?

IMHO, players who expect to be have enough in game knowledge to accurately predict their chance of success (that is, know all the modifiers exactly) are demanding information their character simply would not have.  Should the GM tell the player the general chance of success (e.g. something like very unlikely, poor, fair, good, excellent, almost a sure thing)? Of course. Does the player have some right to know all the modifiers so he can calculate his exact chance of success. Not in my games.

The d20 System seems to have a lot more specified probabilities than most rules sets. I don't know what % of people use it, or what % of those consider such consistency essential, but it's certainly a "squeaky wheel" demographic. Rather naturally, it's the big thing for "organized play" institutions.

That need not hinder improvisation other than making up rules when that's superfluous. If GURPS or Hero System or BRP had more apparatus defining what skill ratings really mean, I think a lot of people who already like those systems would find that it actually made adjudication easier. Those of us more inclined to make up than to look up can ignore material effortlessly! (The big question is whether the stuff we actually use is worth a price that pays for the rest.)

Some people might not modify CoC skill rolls except where stipulated in the combat rules, otherwise ignoring consideration of tasks being of varying difficulty. As I mentioned in an earlier post (using OD&D combat as an example), that opens up a certain mode of improvisation. Yet at the same time it can be a hard rule of probabilites that satisfies people more interested in the game aspect than the simulation aspect.

Quote from: Omega;817157Thats because CRPGs arent actual RPGs in the standard sense and attract a different playerbase than RPGs. Thats why CRPGs never "killed off" RPGs as so many predicted way back and every year thereafter.

Plus computers don't bring pizza!

Back when home computers were new, my uncle made the prediction and I argued against it. I wouldn't have argued, though, against his giving me an Atari 800 for Xmas instead of RuneQuest ;)

Quote from: nDervish;817195That still doesn't answer the question I was getting at:  In what way is it "much better" to have an existing rule than rely on a GM ruling?

You don't even contradict me - if people want both more guidelines (existing rules) and freedom (ability to make things up as you go), then that implies that existing rules are not inherently "much better".

It's better in having all the virtues of lacking rules - since we can ignore what we don't want - and also the virtues peculiar to having rules. We're free to labor at creating new rules, but we're not required by necessity to do so.

I'm personally more of a "wing it" type, but I appreciate being able to inform my adjudication with what others have found useful. Sometimes game data is a good enough substitute for real-world research I'm not anyhow going to do while holding up the game.

When it comes to military hardware, I'm no Tom Clancy. Therefore I have two different approaches to the subject, depending on the kind of game at hand.

If it's only of marginal interest, I whip up somethng off the cuff.

If it plays a central role, I use data and algorithms already worked out by someone such as Frank Chadwick.

Quote from: RandallS;818120I've never understood players who believe they should know the (nearly) exact probability of success of actions they are about to attempt -- especially if their character probably isn't taking the game time needed to think those things through.

In the real world I don't know anything like my exact chances of jumping on my dining room table and grabbing the light fixture above it and swinging from that fixture to clear the chair at the end of the table and land on my feet ready for action -- and this in in my own house with a floor, table, light fixture, etc. I am quite familiar with -- in such a way that the table doesn't move unexpectedly or break when I impact it, the light fixture supports my weight and allows me to clear the chair when I swing, and that I will be able to land in a position that allows me to move immediately without stumbling or needing to steady myself.  My GUESS is that I'd have a "fair" chance of successfully pulling this stunt off. What's a "fair chance" on numbers? I'm not sure, but probably somewhere between a 35% and 65% of success.  Is that guess correct? I have no idea and trying it once will not tell me if my guess is accurate or not.

If I can't accurately predict my change of success for something like this where I am very familiar with the room, floor, table, light, and chair and am not under any time pressure nor to I have to pay attention to what others in the room are doing, why the hell should I expect to know the exact chance (aka the exact modifiers so I can compute the exact probability of success) my character in a tabletop RPG has to do that stunt where said character is not at all familiar with the specific setup, is under pressure, and has to watch what everyone else is doing so no one stabs him while he am trying the stunt?

IMHO, players who expect to be have enough in game knowledge to accurately predict their chance of success (that is, know all the modifiers exactly) are demanding information their character simply would not have.  Should the GM tell the player the general chance of success (e.g. something like very unlikely, poor, fair, good, excellent, almost a sure thing)? Of course. Does the player have some right to know all the modifiers so he can calculate his exact chance of success. Not in my games.

This is how I like to run and play as well. Unless the character has some specific ability to know the more precise information its stated in more generation terms.

Quote from: Phillip;818144Back when home computers were new, my uncle made the prediction and I argued against it. I wouldn't have argued, though, against his giving me an Atari 800 for Xmas instead of RuneQuest ;)

An Atari 800!   Man that brings back memories of waiting 20 minutes for Frogger to load from cassette. ;)

Quote from: Sommerjon;818051It can come across as "the modifiers need to be kept secret from the players."

Not really. Memorizing hundreds of pages of rules and the modifiers they correspond to is a lot harder than just eyeballing a task and throwing out a difficulty that seems in the ballpark. It's especially easier because the number would come from your own intuition, which you don't need to study.

The same is true for running modules, I noticed. It's a lot harder for me to run the module than just freestyle it because with a module I have to constantly double check everything against the story that was laid out in the book to make sure things are going according to plan. When I'm winging it, I can just make everything fit on the fly.

Quote from: RandallS;818120I've never understood players who believe they should know the (nearly) exact probability of success of actions they are about to attempt -- especially as their character probably isn't taking the game time needed to think those things through.

In the real world I don't know anything like my exact chances of jumping on my dining room table and grabbing the light fixture above it and swinging from that fixture to clear the chair at the end of the table and land on my feet ready for action -- and this in in my own house with a floor, table, light fixture, etc. I am quite familiar with -- in such a way that the table doesn't move unexpectedly or break when I impact it, the light fixture supports my weight and allows me to clear the chair when I swing, and that I will be able to land in a position that allows me to move immediately without stumbling or needing to steady myself.  My GUESS is that I'd have a "fair" chance of successfully pulling this stunt off. What's a "fair chance" on numbers? I'm not sure, but probably somewhere between a 35% and 65% of success.  Is that guess correct? I have no idea and trying it once will not tell me if my guess is accurate or not.

If I can't accurately predict my change of success for something like this where I am very familiar with the room, floor, table, light, and chair and am not under any time pressure nor to I have to pay attention to what others in the room are doing, why the hell should I expect to know the exact chance (aka the exact modifiers so I can compute the exact probability of success) my character in a tabletop RPG has to do that stunt where said character is not at all familiar with the specific setup, is under pressure, and has to watch what everyone else is doing so no one stabs him while he am trying the stunt?

IMHO, players who expect to be have enough in game knowledge to accurately predict their chance of success (that is, know all the modifiers exactly) are demanding information their character simply would not have.  Should the GM tell the player the general chance of success (e.g. something like very unlikely, poor, fair, good, excellent, almost a sure thing)? Of course. Does the player have some right to know all the modifiers so he can calculate his exact chance of success. Not in my games.

Yet, once you put your GM hat on you instantly know that exact modifiers to do this?

How odd that you are able to do this but a player is not.

The light fixture wouldn't support your weight unless you have a heavy chandelier style light fixture specifically crafted and installed to support heavy weight.  It will fail at one of 2 places; the connection from the light to the box or the box to the joist.

Quote from: Warthur;818087Where do you get that? It's down to the GM to let the players know what modifiers in play if they choose to do so but generally I do unless there's some reason why the PCs wouldn't know about some of the circumstances involved (like the table they are about to try to jump on is magic and will try to throw them off if they jump onto it).

Where do I get that?
um, here let me show you
"It's down to the GM to let the players know what modifiers in play if they choose to do so"

Quote from: Warthur;818087That is a repetition of the same statement, not an explanation of what you mean by it.

Think about it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;818191Not really. Memorizing hundreds of pages of rules and the modifiers they correspond to is a lot harder than just eyeballing a task and throwing out a difficulty that seems in the ballpark. It's especially easier because the number would come from your own intuition, which you don't need to study.

And your eyeballing intuition can just plain suck?
That could be why your players are unwilling to go off script.  They cling to that character sheet, because that you're not going to fuck up as bad.

I ask if it's possible for my character to do something physical(this is where some players have issues.  Does my character not also possess this intuition you talk about?  Would they not also intuitively know when something is a bad  choice?), my character being described as akin to Dwayne Johnson.  Using your eyeballed intuition my character becomes Ralphie May.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818215Where do I get that?
um, here let me show you
"It's down to the GM to let the players know what modifiers in play if they choose to do so"

So Warthur says he gives the player the probability or the approximate probability except when their character wouldn't know the probability. And you interpret that to mean the GM doesn't tell the player the approximate odds of success.  :confused:

How did you get that from what he said?

This makes it sound like you are inventing a strawman that explicitly doesn't agree with what Warthur said or else that you think that players should always know the exact chance for success even when their character would not know the chance of success. Please clarify your position on this.

QuoteThink about it.

Why? Why not just explain what you mean instead of getting all cryptic and obscure? WTF is up with the obscurity?

Quote from: Sommerjon;818215And your eyeballing intuition can just plain suck?
That could be why your players are unwilling to go off script.  They cling to that character sheet, because that you're not going to fuck up as bad.

That's part of life. You suck at something and then you practice and get better at it.

If the DM is that bad then the rules aren't going to save you.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818201Yet, once you put your GM hat on you instantly know that exact modifiers to do this?

No, I don't. However, as GM it is my job to decide how likely success is given what I know about the situation and give the player a general idea of his chance of success based on his knowledge of the in game situation. If that's not what you want from your GM, don't play in my game.

Quote from: Bren;818219So Warthur says he gives the player the probability or the approximate probability except when their character wouldn't know the probability. And you interpret that to mean the GM doesn't tell the player the approximate odds of success.  :confused:

How did you get that from what he said?

This makes it sound like you are inventing a strawman that explicitly doesn't agree with what Warthur said or else that you think that players should always know the exact chance for success even when their character would not know the chance of success. Please clarify your position on this.

It's nice that Warthur likes to give the odds, however he said
It's down to the GM to let the players know what modifiers in play if they choose to do so but generally I do unless...
Why the great mystery?  Why is it 'wrong' for a player, before asking for the blessing of the GM, to be able to calculate how hard a particular action will be?

Quote from: Bren;818219Why? Why not just explain what you mean instead of getting all cryptic and obscure? WTF is up with the obscurity?

Don't think it is that hard to understand, but whatever.

The Gm needs to 'approve' every. single. action. taken by the player(s).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;818223That's part of life. You suck at something and then you practice and get better at it.

If the DM is that bad then the rules aren't going to save you.

Not really.  Look at RandallS bit about him jumping onto his table giving himself a 35-65% of success. If I am at his gaming table and point out that the light fixture wouldn't support his weight,  at his table questioning his authority is rules lawyering and you are kicked.  Never question his authority.  There is no practice if you refuse to admit you can be wrong.

Quote from: RandallS;818241No, I don't. However, as GM it is my job to decide how likely success is given what I know about the situation and give the player a general idea of his chance of success based on his knowledge of the in game situation. If that's not what you want from your GM, don't play in my game.

Dude I would never play in one of your games.  You have made it perfectly clear that your presence at the head of the table is an honor and privilege to the people sitting around it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818293It's nice that Warthur likes to give the odds, however he said
It's down to the GM to let the players know what modifiers in play if they choose to do so but generally I do unless...
Why the great mystery?  Why is it 'wrong' for a player, before asking for the blessing of the GM, to be able to calculate how hard a particular action will be?

There's no mystery. He answered your question in the part of the quote you left off. I'll bold the part you need to read.

Quote from: Warthur;818087Where do you get that? It's down to the GM to let the players know what modifiers in play if they choose to do so but generally I do unless there's some reason why the PCs wouldn't know about some of the circumstances involved (like the table they are about to try to jump on is magic and will try to throw them off if they jump onto it).

I don't think this is hard to understand. It is clear that Warthur thinks that the GM shouldn't give the player the correct odds when the player's character has no way of knowing or estimating the odds. Personally, I think that makes a lot of sense.

Do you think that makes a lot of sense?

QuoteThe Gm needs to 'approve' every. single. action. taken by the player(s).

The GM approves every single action in the same way that a referee approves every action that a player on the field makes - was the player off sides, did they commit a foul, was the shot good, etc. I think you are greatly exaggerating the GM needing to "approve every. single. action." But whatever.

If you don't want a game with a human GM acting as the mediator between the player and the game world, then a traditional table top RPG is the wrong game for you to be playing. Fortunately there are other games where you don't need a human GM. You should investigate one of those.

QuoteNever question his authority.  There is no practice if you refuse to admit you can be wrong.

I don't know where you are getting that from what Randall said. Speaking for myself, I don't give a toss whether a player wants to question my ruling. I might have forgotten a rule or they might have a better knowledge of relevant facts or maybe we are seeing the scene very differently and need to get a common understanding of the situation. It happens. It's not unusual for it to happen several times a session, because people know and imagine different things and because playing via video chat makes it more difficult for everyone to see the scene exactly the same way.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818215And your eyeballing intuition can just plain suck?
That could be why your players are unwilling to go off script.  They cling to that character sheet, because that you're not going to fuck up as bad.

Yeah, I think I'm going to have to go with the "once upon a time, a GM touched you in a bad place" theory.  You've apparently had some bad experiences with being screwed over by a GM who used hidden and/or uncertain mechanical information as a weapon against you.  This does not, however, mean that all GMs who go beyond the rules are screwing their players over by doing so.

I refer you back to the footnote in my last response.  In my last D&D-style campaign (actually ACKS, not that that matters), I rolled all the dice, calculated all the modifiers, and determined all the outcomes without the players having any knowledge of what the rolls or modifiers were.  And my players specifically asked me to run the game that way.

So, no, my players absolutely aren't "unwilling to go off script" for fear that my "eyeballing intuition can just plain suck".  They have enough trust that my eyeballing intuition won't suck that they have asked me to hide all of the rules and all of the mechanics from them, then played sessions where, even if they had a character sheet in front of them (some did, others didn't bother with it), they rarely referenced it and certainly didn't cling to it.

Also, side point, they couldn't "go off script" even if they tried because there's no script to go off of.  Anything they want to try and that their character can pull off is fair game.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818215I ask if it's possible for my character to do something physical(this is where some players have issues.  Does my character not also possess this intuition you talk about?  Would they not also intuitively know when something is a bad  choice?), my character being described as akin to Dwayne Johnson.  Using your eyeballed intuition my character becomes Ralphie May.

Yes, your character does possess that intuition.  Any half-decent GM should be willing to tell you how likely your character thinks he is to be able to pull something off, although it will vary from GM to GM whether they'll describe it as "extremely likely", "it's an Agility roll at +3", or "85%".

Yes, your character absolutely should intuitively know when something is an obviously bad choice and, again, the GM should inform you when it appears that a player's assessment of the situation is substantially different from how their character would see it.

This is not a matter of having to ask the GM for permission to do anything, but rather that the GM is your interface to the game world, or, if you prefer, your character's eyes and ears.  If you want to jump up onto a table, you don't stand there with your eyes closed and expect to know how likely you are to succeed, you open your eyes (ask the GM) and work it out.  And, again... this isn't unique to the situation where the GM makes a judgment call.  Even if there's a rule saying that jumping onto a table takes a -1 modifier per foot of the table's height, you still have to ask the GM how tall the table is.


The Dwayne Johnson/Ralphie May thing is a more fundamental issue of campaign style.  Before you even start creating characters everyone should be on the same page regarding whether the campaign will be about existing heroes, a zero-to-hero progression, common folk swept up in a dangerous situation, or whatever.  If you think your character is a world-class athlete while the GM thinks your character is an overweight comedian, then things have already gone wrong even before any modifiers to a roll are considered, regardless of whether those modifiers come from a rulebook or from the GM's intuition.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818293If I am at his gaming table and point out that the light fixture wouldn't support his weight,  at his table questioning his authority is rules lawyering and you are kicked.  Never question his authority.  There is no practice if you refuse to admit you can be wrong.

Again, you've clearly had one or more bad experiences with tyrannical GMs and are generalizing to all GMs.  Nobody in this thread has claimed that the GM's assessment is infallible.  If you were at my table and pointed that out, then I would reply in one of two ways, depending on the tone of the campaign being played:

1) (Realistic campaign) Oh, good point - I hadn't thought of that.  When Randall tries to swing on the chandelier, the fixture rips halfway out of the ceiling before one of the lower sections breaks.  He lands hard on his back and slides halfway across the table before coming to a stop.

2) (Cinematic campaign)  Yeah, it wouldn't support him in the real world, but it always works in action movies, so it's fine.

In neither case would I accuse you of rules-lawyering (how can you rules-lawyer a situation which isn't covered by the rules?) or kick you out of the game.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818293Not really.  Look at RandallS bit about him jumping onto his table giving himself a 35-65% of success. If I am at his gaming table and point out that the light fixture wouldn't support his weight,  at his table questioning his authority is rules lawyering and you are kicked.  Never question his authority.  There is no practice if you refuse to admit you can be wrong.

How do you know whether the light fixture over my table would support my weight on not? You can't see it from this message any more than you can see the one in a in the room your character were in if this was about your character in a game instead of a table in my house.  If the game situation actually involved a character jumping on my table and swinging from a light in my house (and it could in a modern day game, I guess) and you pointed out that the light fixture looked like it would pull out of the ceiling if someone used it that way, I would likely agree with you.

What effect that agreement would have on the game would depend if it was a realistic game (the light fixture would pull out of the ceiling and the attempt would fail at that point -- no roll needed) or a cinematic game (I'd go with whatever success chance I thought good because people swing from stuff that would not hold their weight in action movies all the time).

QuoteDude I would never play in one of your games.  You have made it perfectly clear that your presence at the head of the table is an honor and privilege to the people sitting around it.

If you say so. What I was attempting to make clear was somewhat different, however: I don't accept players who want something radically different from from what my games are as I know they will not be happy playing in my game. Other than that, you are correct, you would not be a player in my game because it would be obvious to me after discussing gaming with you for even just a few minutes that you would not enjoy any game I would be willing to run.

Quote from: nDervish;818304Yeah, I think I'm going to have to go with the "once upon a time, a GM touched you in a bad place" theory.

Again, you've clearly had one or more bad experiences with tyrannical GMs and are generalizing to all GMs.  

"Scarred for Life" I mutterd darkly...

Either that or hes off his meds. Possibly both.

Really. Weaning players off these sorts of mindsets is an absolute pain in the ass and every time I want to find the previous DM and Beat the Hell out of him.

Quote from: Nexus;815576This was from the Exalted questions thread but its not specfically a problem relating to Exalted but gaming in general. It feels like we're, a a hobby, becoming way to tied to published material and "professional" game designers in place of creativity and improvisation.

Hollywood produces remakes and reboots of franchises. Same with games. It's all about the re-hashing a franchise. Players grow up in this environment, expecting this is how creativity is supposed to work (dumbed down) in every field. Sell what people already have.

Quote from: Bren;818302There's no mystery. He answered your question in the part of the quote you left off. I'll bold the part you need to read.
I don't think this is hard to understand. It is clear that Warthur thinks that the GM shouldn't give the player the correct odds when the player's character has no way of knowing or estimating the odds. Personally, I think that makes a lot of sense.

Let me back this up a bit for you.
I said It can come across as "the modifiers need to be kept secret from the players."
He responded with
"It's down to the GM to let the players know
what modifiers in play
if they choose to do so
but generally I do
unless there's some reason why the PCs wouldn't know"
Perhaps this changes things a bit for you when I emphasized the red over the blue.

Quote from: Bren;818302The GM approves every single action in the same way that a referee approves every action that a player on the field makes - was the player off sides, did they commit a foul, was the shot good, etc. I think you are greatly exaggerating the GM needing to "approve every. single. action." But whatever.

So a GM is like a referee, because they look and watch for mistakes done by players and punish the group for the infraction of the rules?
Wouldn't that suggest the players know the 'rules' for jumping onto the table and they use the rule correctly or try to sketchy around it?
Don't think the QB is doing 20 questions with the Referee to figure out if he thinks it's better to run the double post route over the half back sweep.

Quote from: Bren;818302If you don't want a game with a human GM acting as the mediator between the player and the game world, then a traditional table top RPG is the wrong game for you to be playing. Fortunately there are other games where you don't need a human GM. You should investigate one of those.

Love the traditional table top RPG line.  So funny.
You are exactly right some want a game with a human GM acting as the mediator between the player and the game world.  They don't want a game with a human GM acting as the mediator between the player and the game mechanics.

Quote from: nDervish;818304Yeah, I think I'm going to have to go with the "once upon a time, a GM touched you in a bad place" theory.  You've apparently had some bad experiences with being screwed over by a GM who used hidden and/or uncertain mechanical information as a weapon against you.  This does not, however, mean that all GMs who go beyond the rules are screwing their players over by doing so.

No what I learned over the years is I don't want to or need to 'GM decides the outcome'.
Actual play coming at ya.
Player: Can I jump onto the table and swing from the chandelier and land on the other side of the combat?
Me:  Don't ask me, do it.  I'll give you a heads up if your trying to do too much.
Player: I take a couple steps jump up onto the table...
Me: Not gracefully..
Player: Huh?
Me: You described your character has the physique of Kevin James.
Player: Oh yeah, I land on the table awkwardly, grab the chandelier for balance, quickly try to swing for the other side, miss my landing fall back onto the table flipping it over.

Looky there.  That was a 2e D&D game from this past summer.  Is that not a "traditional table top RPG"?
Did the traditional table top RPG stop being a traditional table top RPG because I didn't decide the outcome or let the dice decide the outcome for the player?
I was fine with him swinging over the combat.  The player decided he failed, that is how he thought it would happen.

Bren has been playing RPGs since 1967, is he unable to play his character to the degree he describes it as?  Is his player intuition that messed up?  Why is his GM intuition so keen for if his player intuition cannot be trusted?

Quote from: nDervish;818304I refer you back to the footnote in my last response.  In my last D&D-style campaign (actually ACKS, not that that matters), I rolled all the dice, calculated all the modifiers, and determined all the outcomes without the players having any knowledge of what the rolls or modifiers were.  And my players specifically asked me to run the game that way.

That's nice, so what?
Perhaps your players got tired of all the die rolling you made them do.  They figure since you like rolling dice so much, why not let you do it all?

Sommerjon, I'm going to give you the brief AP report of this weekend's Mongoose Traveller game. None of which was handled by rules in any book or PDF of any version of Traveller. It was all done by using best judgement as a GM improvising, since nothing was covered by the rules.

Quote from: Actual PlayIn tonight's game.....

The PCs were chartered to fly a couple of scientists into the atmosphere of a gas giant so they could research the medusa floating there. One of them was wondering what the creatures were eating, so the ship's engineer agreed to go out and take some samples. I decided that these food sized creatures for a kilometer diameter floating jellyfish would behave like simple sea creatures, so when the PC poked a floating blob with a piece of metal pipe, it formed a vacuole and wrapped itself around the end trying to squeeze the pipe to death. The table responded with:

"I poked a blob!"

"For SCIENCE!"

"Now you've got a blobsicle!"

Fuck you and your belief that any subject not covered by RAW means that it will be abused by the GM to hurt the Players.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818525You are exactly right some want a game with a human GM acting as the mediator between the player and the game world.  They don't want a game with a human GM acting as the mediator between the player and the game mechanics.

To the extent that the game mechanics mirror the game world, it's the exact same thing.  There is no difference.  When the GM determines what the world is like, that also determines which mechanics will be used to interact with it.  The GM declaring "this table is 50cm high, which the rules say imposes a -3 modifier on attempts to jump onto it" is exactly the same as the GM declaring "there's a -3 modifier to jump onto this table" without referring back to the rules.  (Hint:  The first case could just as easily be "I want the modifier to jump onto this table to be -3, so its... [looks in rulebook] 50cm high.")

Quote from: Sommerjon;818525No what I learned over the years is I don't want to or need to 'GM decides the outcome'.
Actual play coming at ya.
Player: Can I jump onto the table and swing from the chandelier and land on the other side of the combat?
Me:  Don't ask me, do it.  I'll give you a heads up if your trying to do too much.
Player: I take a couple steps jump up onto the table...
Me: Not gracefully..

Whoops!  You just decided the outcome there when you said that he couldn't do it gracefully.  You didn't consult the rules, you didn't invoke specific modifiers (either pulled from the rulebook or based on your GM's intuition), you didn't even roll a die.  You just decided that the outcome can't be graceful, end of story, purely by GM fiat.

And I have no problem with that, but it is exactly what you appear to have been arguing against all along - he couldn't get onto the table gracefully because he didn't have the GM's blessing to do so.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818525Looky there.  That was a 2e D&D game from this past summer.  Is that not a "traditional table top RPG"?
Did the traditional table top RPG stop being a traditional table top RPG because I didn't decide the outcome or let the dice decide the outcome for the player?

Yes, I would call that at least marginally non-traditional, in that you allowed the player to dictate the outcome of an event that was not fully under his character's control without rolling to account for the uncontrolled factors.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818525That's nice, so what?

Your basic argument seems to be "GMs cannot/should not be trusted".  It is relevant as an example of a group of players who do trust their GM and don't feel that the GM abuses that trust.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818525Perhaps your players got tired of all the die rolling you made them do.  They figure since you like rolling dice so much, why not let you do it all?

Do you know any of my players?  mAcular Chaotic's players?  Have you talked to any of them?

If not, then where the fuck do you get off with these constant assumptions that any time a group has a playstyle that differs from yours, it has to involve the players hating or fearing the GM?  If the players are paying close attention to the mechanics, they're "cling[ing] to that character sheet, because that you're not going to fuck up as bad."  If they don't concern themselves with mechanics, it's because they "got tired of all the die rolling you made them do."

If you would feel that way, fine.  Then don't play in our games because you seem unlikely to enjoy them.  Doesn't mean that nobody would enjoy them.  And I won't play in your game either, because it seems unlikely that I would enjoy yours.  But, again, that doesn't mean that nobody would enjoy it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818525Let me back this up a bit for you.
I said It can come across as "the modifiers need to be kept secret from the players."
He responded with
"It's down to the GM to let the players know
what modifiers in play
if they choose to do so
but generally I do
unless there's some reason why the PCs wouldn't know"
Perhaps this changes things a bit for you when I emphasized the red over the blue.

It doesn't. His intention was clear and it was not keep modifiers secret from the players for vindictive shits and giggles. It was modifiers need to be keep secret when the character couldn't assess the modifier correctly. I'm still waiting for you to clarify your position on this because I think that is particularly relevant to your disatisfaction with traditional gaming.

In a situation where the character would not know the correct modifiers, do you think the player should know the modifiers?

QuoteSo a GM is like a referee, because they look and watch for mistakes done by players and punish the group for the infraction of the rules?

No. They are like a referee because they attempt to be impartial about enforcing the rules.

QuoteYou are exactly right some want a game with a human GM acting as the mediator between the player and the game world.  They don't want a game with a human GM acting as the mediator between the player and the game mechanics.

It is provably impossible for the rules to be complete. Therefore your desire for complete rules is futile. Groups and games can deal with incompleteness a number of ways. Here are the three most common ways in order of frequency. Note that there are published games that use some version of all of these methods.

1.   Use a human GM to interpret situations that are not covered by the rules.

2.   Treat the game more like a game of football or a video game and narrow the scope of what can be attempted to only what is allowed under the rules.

3.   Game without a GM and share the interpretive function. Some groups will in effect vote, some will alternate the GM function in some fashion, others will allow the player to decide what his character can do.

QuoteNo what I learned over the years is I don't want to or need to 'GM decides the outcome'.

So find a bunch of people who like games that use method #2 or #3 and play those games. Then you can stop bitching about how most people who aren't you choose to play games that use method #1.
 

QuotePlayer: Can I jump onto the table and swing from the chandelier and land on the other side of the combat?
Me:  Don't ask me, do it.  I'll give you a heads up if your trying to do too much.

You didn't tell the player the chance of success. You even told the player not to ask you for the odds. When Warthur suggested that a GM might do that you got all annoyed about secret modifiers. Why is it OK when you do that?

QuoteMe: You described your character has the physique of Kevin James.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. From a mechanical standpoint (STR, CON, DEX) what does "the physique of Kevin James"even mean? Are you playing some story game that doesn't have stats covering physical abilities or are you playing D&D which has stats for things like agility and strength?

QuoteBren has been playing RPGs since 1967, is he unable to play his character to the degree he describes it as?  Is his player intuition that messed up?  Why is his GM intuition so keen for if his player intuition cannot be trusted?

As far as I am aware, no one was playing RPGs in 1967. Personally I started playing D&D in 1974.

As far as the player's intuition, the actual GM is traditionally the person who knows what's in the room and the players are the people who traditionally explore what is in the room. So the GM decides the odds because the GM knows more about the relevant factors involved. You can change that around and let the players invent what is in the room so that they now know as much or more than the GM does about the factors and thus are able to decide what their character can accomplish. There are even games that do that. They just don't happen to be called D&D.

In my experience most, but not all, players have a difficult time being impartial about the success and failure of their own character and that makes it more difficult for them to fairly assess their character's chances of success or failure. Usually this manifests as their character succeeding when they should fail, but occasionally you get a player who underestimates their character's chance to succeed and would have them fail when they should succeed. In my experience the GM is more likely to be impartial and thus is much less likely to have those same problems. This allows the game to be presented much more consistently.

I prefer games where the game world is available to be explored. I prefer that the setting and mechanics determine how skilled a character is rather than an indivdual players mood or whim. The setting and the mechanics is something we all share and can access. Other people's internal impressions are not. Consistency is one of the most important aspects of gaming for me. So I prefer to use the game and setting rather than each person's unique impression of how agile or strong their character is to determine the odds of success. Those defined elements of the game should inform the player about their character and should help shape the player's concept of the character. Not the other way around. Having the player shape the character's skill to be higher or lower than what the mechanics indicate because of their concept where they described their character as being like some guy on some wrestling show or movie makes the game way less consistent and thus much less fun for me. Given that many games are designed that way, I don't think I am alone in that position.

Quote from: Bren;818553In my experience most, but not all, players have a difficult time being impartial about the success and failure of their own character and that makes it more difficult for them to fairly assess their character's chances of success or failure. Usually this manifests as their character succeeding when they should fail, but occasionally you get a player who underestimates their character's chance to succeed and would have them fail when they should succeed.

Indeed. Tangential, but, sort of on the idea of partiality:

A friend of mine running 5E recently has beengaming with a dude who is chronic cheat on the dice rolls (talk about partial to the point of douche baggery). GM came up with a system to fix that by making everyone roll into a box (if it's not in the box where I can see it, it doesn't count. Partiality bullshit problem #1 solved, BUT: there's MORE!  Same player had set his PC up to be studly in all ways (evidently) but one--his Wisdom was weak, by comparison. Dude failed a WIS save, got SUPER pissy and sulked the rest of the session. Prime example of a player who doesn't believe they ever SHOULD fail, regardless.

Now, how does this relate to anything? This player evidently believes the GM has it out for him because he had to face an attack not suited for this strengths. Doesn't matter what the book entries say, evidently. So, even WITH the rules in hand, you can get into trouble with some folks, just because of maturity issues. Then again, players like the one above, who evidently have to be coaxed to improvise DICE ROLLS, are, hopefully quite rare. Hopefully...

Quote from: cranebump;818558Now, how does this relate to anything? This player evidently believes the GM has it out for him because he had to face an attack not suited for this strengths. Doesn't matter what the book entries say, evidently. So, even WITH the rules in hand, you can get into trouble with some folks, just because of maturity issues.

I don't think what you said is at all tangential. Rules don't and can't fix people issues. If the player feels like the GM has it in for him, no amount of rules are going to fix that. And it doesn't matter whether the player is correct or a loon. You can't fix a vindictive or unfair GM via rules nor can you fix an immature or loony player via rules.

When I play face-to-face I want the players to roll where I can see it. That isn't because I think my players are going to cheat, but I know that they often make mistakes - they read dice wrong, forget a modifier, make arithmetical errors sometimes all of the above. I watch their rolls so I can correct that. As often as not the correction is in the player's favor (which is one of the ways I deduce that they aren't cheating).

Quote from: nDervish;818534To the extent that the game mechanics mirror the game world, it's the exact same thing.  There is no difference.  When the GM determines what the world is like, that also determines which mechanics will be used to interact with it.  The GM declaring "this table is 50cm high, which the rules say imposes a -3 modifier on attempts to jump onto it" is exactly the same as the GM declaring "there's a -3 modifier to jump onto this table" without referring back to the rules.  (Hint:  The first case could just as easily be "I want the modifier to jump onto this table to be -3, so its... [looks in rulebook] 50cm high.")

There it is.  It only took 109 posts to have someone actually admit it.

Quote from: nDervish;818534Whoops!  You just decided the outcome there when you said that he couldn't do it gracefully.  You didn't consult the rules, you didn't invoke specific modifiers (either pulled from the rulebook or based on your GM's intuition), you didn't even roll a die.  You just decided that the outcome can't be graceful, end of story, purely by GM fiat.

And I have no problem with that, but it is exactly what you appear to have been arguing against all along - he couldn't get onto the table gracefully because he didn't have the GM's blessing to do so.

No that is me knowing the player.  The player was the one who described his character as not being graceful.   I was reminding the player of the description of his character.  

Quote from: nDervish;818534Yes, I would call that at least marginally non-traditional, in that you allowed the player to dictate the outcome of an event that was not fully under his character's control without rolling to account for the uncontrolled factors.

Because 99.95% of actions taken by anyone is not fully under their control.  So why are you not making them roll for all of their actions then?  Why are you picking and choosing actions to roll?  Is this another of those I want things?

Quote from: Sommerjon;818566No that is me knowing the player.  The player was the one who described his character as not being graceful.   I was reminding the player of the description of his character.  

Because it is perfectly ok for you to do it ad a DM. But it is evil and wrong for someone else to do it as a DM.

Take a moment to read what you are saying and how you are acting here.

Quote from: Omega;818575Because it is perfectly ok for you to do it ad a DM. But it is evil and wrong for someone else to do it as a DM.

Take a moment to read what you are saying and how you are acting here.

Yes it is perfectly okay for me. The player's default character is the dextrous thief type.  If I had not interrupted him, his described actions would have very likely run his default type and not him finally playing against his preferred type.

I didn't "Gm decides the outcome"
I didn't "I want the modifier to jump onto this table to be -3, so its... [looks in rulebook] 50cm high.")"

I let the player control his character.

Remember it was the red before the blue.
Player: Can I jump onto the table and swing from the chandelier and land on the other side of the combat?
Me: Don't ask me, do it. I'll give you a heads up if your trying to do too much.
Player: I take a couple steps jump up onto the table...
Me: Not gracefully..
Player: Huh?
Me: You described your character has the physique of Kevin James.
Player: Oh yeah,

Quote from: Sommerjon;818566Because 99.95% of actions taken by anyone is not fully under their control.  So why are you not making them roll for all of their actions then?  Why are you picking and choosing actions to roll?  Is this another of those I want things?

Their actions may likely be completely under their control. The results of those actions may not be.

If you step onto the surface of a frozen pond, you are fully in control of taking that step. If the ice isn't thick enough,( a factor you do not control) you will fall through.

In this case, a roll from the player may not even be called for. Perhaps the DM determines the thickness of the ice in that area randomly. Unless the PC stopped to test the ice with an object of known weight he/she might not be privy to the odds of the ice being able to take the weight.

So in this case the player would either have to stop and test the ice or risk a crossing of unknown probability.

In general calling for a roll on every attempted action is a waste of time. If the action could fail, and there is a meaningful consequence of that failure, then a roll seems appropriate. Just rolling for the hell of it is a huge waste of time.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818597I didn't "Gm decides the outcome"

Actually you did. He jumped on the table in a neutral manner and you, the GM, decided that his jump was ungraceful. You didn't even give him a chance to jump gracefully, you just decided the outcome by fiat.

Quote from: Bren;818302It is clear that Warthur thinks that the GM shouldn't give the player the correct odds when the player's character has no way of knowing or estimating the odds. Personally, I think that makes a lot of sense.

Do you think that makes a lot of sense?

Quote from: Bren;818553It doesn't. His intention was clear and it was not keep modifiers secret from the players for vindictive shits and giggles. It was modifiers need to be keep secret when the character couldn’t assess the modifier correctly. I’m still waiting for you to clarify your position on this because I think that is particularly relevant to your disatisfaction with traditional gaming.

In a situation where the character would not know the correct modifiers, do you think the player should know the modifiers?

Still waiting for your answer.

Quote from: Bren;818603Actually you did. He jumped on the table in a neutral manner and you, the GM, decided that his jump was ungraceful. You didn't even give him a chance to jump gracefully, you just decided the outcome by fiat.

No I didn't.  I didn't think this was that hard but let me break this down for you a bit more.

Don as I said before will play a dextrous thief type character if he has the choice.  
Let me say that again, just in case you didn't understand it the first two times.

Don will play a dextrous thief type character if he has the choice.

He went against his type this summer and played an ungraceful, slovenly, chubby thief.
What I did, when he went into one of his patented acrobatics maneuvers, was remind him that his character wasn't.

I did not decide the outcome.

When you remind a player of something they said, did, etc.  are you deciding the outcome?  If not why am I being accused not once, but twice of 'deciding the outcome'  When all I did was remind the player of something they said about their character.

Quote from: Bren;818553It doesn't. His intention was clear and it was not keep modifiers secret from the players for vindictive shits and giggles. It was modifiers need to be keep secret when the character couldn't assess the modifier correctly. I'm still waiting for you to clarify your position on this because I think that is particularly relevant to your disatisfaction with traditional gaming.

I don't agree 'traditional gaming' can only be gamed with players making checks, making unknowable checks, etc.  

Quote from: Bren;818553In a situation where the character would not know the correct modifiers, do you think the player should know the modifiers?

Still waiting for your answer.

Sure, why not?
What's wrong with the player knowing the 'correct modifiers'?

Once you give your vague check(keeping the true difficulty super secret) is the player forced to go through with the action or can they back out and do something different?

Ah, OK, you were in fact going in the direction I thought you were with this - I just wanted to check to make sure I didn't take us down a conversational cul-de-sac.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818293It's nice that Warthur likes to give the odds, however he said
It's down to the GM to let the players know what modifiers in play if they choose to do so but generally I do unless...
Why the great mystery?  Why is it 'wrong' for a player, before asking for the blessing of the GM, to be able to calculate how hard a particular action will be?

Because of the division of information in the traditional RPG format - because there's information that the GM is privy to that the player doesn't have access to, the player can't calculate the odds of an action succeeding because they never know whether there's a relevant hidden factor.

For instance: Player 1 wants their character to jump onto a table. However, a magic-user has sneakily cast Grease on the table, making this stunt much more dangerous and difficult to pull off than it would otherwise have been. The GM knows about this, but Player 1 doesn't. If Player 1 comes up with their own odds for the roll, they won't include the information about the Grease spell; only the GM is in a position to accurately calculate the odds because only they possess all the information about the gameworld.

QuoteDon't think it is that hard to understand, but whatever.

The Gm needs to 'approve' every. single. action. taken by the player(s).

Yes, they pretty much have to, because otherwise the traditional RPG model breaks down. There's two very good reasons why this has to be the case:

• As I explained above, only the GM possesses all the relevant information, so only the GM can make sure that all the relevant factors are being taken into account when coming up with the final difficulty.
• If players could just go off and do actions without clearing them with the GM, then there'd be stuff at work in the game which individual players could be aware of but with the GM wouldn't be aware of - at which point, you end up with a situation where nobody has a 100% complete picture of what's going on and consequently nobody can actually take all the different factors into account when coming up with a difficulty.
  

The only way to have a game where PCs could do stuff without keeping the GM appraised of what they are attempting to do would be to have a game where everyone has all the relevant information all the time, so all the setting and adventure notes are out in the open and everyone keeps everyone else fully appraised of what their characters are doing. At that point you've abandoned the traditional RPG format for something else, which is cool if that's what you enjoy, but it does mean that what you're after is probably some sort of collaborative no-GM storygame type affair rather than a GM-helmed RPG in the first place.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818618No I didn't.

You can continue to pretend your changing his result was just a reminder. It's clear from context that the player said he was doing one thing and you said, no you can't do that thing you have to do some other thing. The fact that the player later made his result even worse than what you said you would accept, doesn't change your little imposition of mother may I on his result.

QuoteI don't agree 'traditional gaming' can only be gamed with players making checks, making unknowable checks, etc.  

Which only demonstrates that you don't understand what traditional gaming is.

QuoteSure, why not?
What's wrong with the player knowing the 'correct modifiers'?

Because traditionally the player is not supposed to know more about the situation than their character can perceive.

If you are playing a game where the players have access to perfect knowledge before making decisions, you aren't playing a traditional RPG in a traditional way. That's fine for you. But don't confuse yourself and us by claiming that what you are doing is traditional or even relevant to how most of the rest of us want to play RPGs.

QuoteOnce you give your vague check(keeping the true difficulty super secret) is the player forced to go through with the action or can they back out and do something different?

Let me break that down for you.

Sometimes, the character doesn't have perfect information with which to make a decision. This may be due to the fog of war, to clever action on the part of the NPCs, the character's lack of knowledge, to prior failed rolls by the player, or to magic. In a traditional game, the player makes decisions on what to attempt based on the limited information available to their character at the time. Once they decide, based on the information available to their character at the time, to make the attempt then the results of the attempt are determined.

Quote from: Bren;818674Sometimes, the character doesn't have perfect information with which to make a decision. This may be due to the fog of war, to clever action on the part of the NPCs, the character's lack of knowledge, to prior failed rolls by the player, or to magic. In a traditional game, the player makes decisions on what to attempt based on the limited information available to their character at the time. Once they decide, based on the information available to their character at the time, to make the attempt then the results of the attempt are determined.

On top of that, it's wrong to assume that the game is going to be 100% co-operative all the time and player characters are never, ever going to work at cross-purposes. See my example of the table with the Grease spell on it: suppose Player 2 had cast that spell specifically to screw up Player 1's Errol Flynn antics. It'd obviously wreck Player 2's plan if Player 1 had to be informed of what happened.

Quote from: Warthur;818677On top of that, it's wrong to assume that the game is going to be 100% co-operative all the time and player characters are never, ever going to work at cross-purposes. See my example of the table with the Grease spell on it: suppose Player 2 had cast that spell specifically to screw up Player 1's Errol Flynn antics. It'd obviously wreck Player 2's plan if Player 1 had to be informed of what happened.

That would depend on the players. Some might be OK with playing out the result even though they know. I've seen those sort of situations play out both ways.

Of course the problem is that unless you know a priori that Player 1 is going to be cool with his character trying to look like Errol Flynn and ending up looking like one of the Three Stooges, once you give Player 1 that knowledge, you can't go back to Player 1 not knowing the table is a trap. Of course that is one of the reasons why traditional RPGs use a GM to be the interface between the players and the game world.

Most of the games I've seen that work around the premise of shared narrative control/GM-light/less structure have a general rule of everything being open specifically to deal with the problems that can occur otherwise.

I think its fair and reasonable to say that style ish't the Traditional way without traditional being a value judgment. It can fun and people play that way but its usually not the default assumed play style.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818566There it is.  It only took 109 posts to have someone actually admit it.

Yes, I admit it...  You caught me making exactly the point that I was trying to make all the way back in post #59, which was, incidentally, my first response to you in this thread:

Quote from: nDervish;817373When I GM, I do my best to assess "if this situation were real, what things would factor into the outcome and how should I best resolve the interaction of those factors?", which allows players to make their own reasonable assessment of what's likely to result, regardless of whether they know the rules or not and regardless of whether applicable rules even exist or not.

And here's the real kicker:  It's the exact same thought process regardless of whether I end up applying existing, codified rules or making up something new on the fly.

If I were to be capricious or malicious, I could do so just as effectively regardless of the rules (or lack of them) in place, simply by choosing which rules to favor and which to neglect or, if a player were to call me on a neglected rule, by setting up the situation so that the rule I want to ignore doesn't apply.

I'm not sure why you consider it to be some great victory that you were able to get me to repeat one of the points I've been trying to make all along.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818566No that is me knowing the player.  The player was the one who described his character as not being graceful.   I was reminding the player of the description of his character.  

OK.  And?  The character was still unable to get on the table without the GM's blessing.  The reason why you made that blessing contingent on it being graceless is irrelevant.  You went outside the codified rules of the game, unless 2e D&D has a rule stating "characters with the physique of Kevin James cannot jump onto tables gracefully" and I've forgotten about it.  (If such a rule exists, please tell me what book it's in and on what page so that I can refresh my memory.)

Your participation in this thread has consisted primarily of claiming that GMs should not go outside of the rules when determining whether actions succeed or fail and berating any active interpretation of the rules by the GM as requiring the player to obtain the GM's blessing before attempting an action, yet, in your example, you have done both of those things yourself.

And, again, I have no problem with how you handled that.  I think it was entirely appropriate.  But it does not meet the absolute "all must be based in codified rules with no GM interpretation or intervention" stance that you have been taking in this thread.  I am not accusing you of being a bad GM or of handling that attempt incorrectly.  I am accusing you of hypocrisy.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818566Because 99.95% of actions taken by anyone is not fully under their control.  So why are you not making them roll for all of their actions then?  Why are you picking and choosing actions to roll?

It's generally based on importance.  If you have all the time in the world to get on the table, then, yeah, sure, whatever...  You'll make it eventually, so don't bother rolling.  If it's in combat or you're trying to impress someone, though, then you only have one shot at it, so roll to find out how it turns out.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818597Remember it was the red before the blue.
Player: Can I jump onto the table and swing from the chandelier and land on the other side of the combat?
Me: Don't ask me, do it. I'll give you a heads up if your trying to do too much.
Player: I take a couple steps jump up onto the table...
Me: Not gracefully.

Since you decided to call that out...  You do realize that "I'll give you a heads up if your[sic] trying to do too much" basically means "as the GM, I am retaining veto power over your action", right?  (And then you went on to exercise that veto when you declared that it must be ungraceful.)

Quote from: Nexus;818680I think its fair and reasonable to say that style is Traditional, without traditional being a value judgment.

I think it is confusing to call that style traditional.

I don't place any value judgement on whether the game is or is not traditional. Traditional is just a classification term. OD&D, Traveller, and Runequest were all designed to operate with limited player information. The rules are clearly designed with the idea that the GM would have information unavailable to the players. Hence that GM style of play is traditional.

Later on games were designed with a shared narrative authority or to operate without a GM. Those games were in part a reaction against the traditional play style based on a desire by some people for a different style of play.

That seems to be what Sommerjon wants in a game. Which is perfectly acceptable. He can choose one of those newer non-traditional games or he can play an existing traditional game in a non-traditional way.

Choosing a game that isn't designed to be played that way and then raging that other people play the game the way it was designed seems a bit pants on head to me.

Quote from: Bren;818685I think it is confusing to call that style traditional.

Sorry, typo. isn't traditional.

Quote from: Nexus;818689Sorry, typo. isn't traditional.

Well no argument from me then. :)

Quote from: Phillip;818146It's better in having all the virtues of lacking rules - since we can ignore what we don't want - and also the virtues peculiar to having rules. We're free to labor at creating new rules, but we're not required by necessity to do so.

I'm personally more of a "wing it" type, but I appreciate being able to inform my adjudication with what others have found useful. Sometimes game data is a good enough substitute for real-world research I'm not anyhow going to do while holding up the game.

I find that the best thing is usually to be given a generally applicable task-resolution mechanism, and some guidance on what numbers to plug in for 'easy' 'hard' 'very hard' etc tasks. Then I can easily resolve pretty much any action, unless it's something I want/need to break down into much more detail - a grapple attempt or a starship combat might (or might not) be examples. WEG d6 system or the d20 system are examples of this - roll a bunch of d6 or roll a d20 vs a target number, with the number dependent on difficulty.

I don't want the game to give me lots of different complicated rules for various tasks, that is harder to run than a single simple mechanism, unless it is something central to play that we want to spend a lot of time on - individual combat in most RPGs, starship combat in a Star Wars RPG.

Edit: If the PC in-world would know the difficulty then it's ok to let the player know the target number - especially if he asks. For something like jumping a pit I'd normally tell a player the DC. I might not tell the player an NPC's Bluff or Sense Motive skill, though I'll indicate if these are likely to be high.

Quote from: Bren;818679That would depend on the players. Some might be OK with playing out the result even though they know. I've seen those sort of situations play out both ways.

True. The really crucial thing is that it can play out the same way whether or not Player 1 knows provided Player 1 is willing to separate their IC/OOC knowledge, whereas most RPG designs would break down if you start incorporating stuff into the scenario that the GM doesn't know about. Player knowledge can be worked around; referee ignorance corrodes and destroys the simulation.

Quote from: Warthur;818740True. The really crucial thing is that it can play out the same way whether or not Player 1 knows provided Player 1 is willing to separate their IC/OOC knowledge, whereas most RPG designs would break down if you start incorporating stuff into the scenario that the GM doesn't know about. Player knowledge can be worked around; referee ignorance corrodes and destroys the simulation.

Well a little bit of GM ignorance can also work. I ran a Star Wars campaign for about 10 years with a good friend of mine as the co-GM. There were some aspects of the game that each of us knew that the other did not. Usually that didn't matter, but occassionally we had to maneuver around those issues. Which requires a certain amount of trust and tact.

Other people allow players to create elements of their character background an drop that into play. Though to be fair, the usual assumption is that the GM can veto the player's creations, but that they won't without some good reason. I've seen that work as well.

I'm not particularly disagreeing with you, I'm just noting that the situation is not a simple black and white. Certainly it is far simpler and easier to divide responsibility in the traditional manner where the GM knows everything there is to know and is responsible for creating new information. There are degrees of limited shared authority that can occur in a group where there is sufficient maturity, trust, and interest in sharing authority for things to be a bit less black and white. Although I GM most of the time, I certainly wouldn't expect someone to share the GMing duties with me.

I want a consistent game world, not some gonzo conglomeration of random whimsy. To get a consistent game world, someone needs to have the ultimate authority to rule on what is in and what is out. To my mind, that is the GM.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818597Yes it is perfectly okay for me. The player's default character is the dextrous thief type.  If I had not interrupted him, his described actions would have very likely run his default type and not him finally playing against his preferred type.

I let the player control his character.

Got it.

I thought that was the norm and not what people were on about when mentioning assigning modifiers and yadda yadda?

Nox asks me "Can I blast an ice spike above the dragon so it drops on him?" I might say "Sure, make a to-hit roll to hit it at the right spot." Or he might just say "I wait the right moment and then blast the ice spike above the dragon." and depending on the situation I might say "That one is too big. But if you hold your action you think he will move under one you can" or "Roll to hit." or whatever fits.

Quote from: Bren;818743Well a little bit of GM ignorance can also work. I ran a Star Wars campaign for about 10 years with a good friend of mine as the co-GM. There were some aspects of the game that each of us knew that the other did not. Usually that didn't matter, but occassionally we had to maneuver around those issues. Which requires a certain amount of trust and tact.

And presumably even then, if a player claimed to have been doing a whole bunch of stuff on the side that hadn't been cleared with either of you, it wouldn't have flown - if neither you nor your co-GM knew about something, it effectively didn't exist as far as the game world was concerned.

Quote from: Bren;818674You can continue to pretend your changing his result was just a reminder. It's clear from context that the player said he was doing one thing and you said, no you can't do that thing you have to do some other thing. The fact that the player later made his result even worse than what you said you would accept, doesn't change your little imposition of mother may I on his result.

You desperately need this don't you?

I did not change his result.

Let me see if you can understand this. I'll try to use small words.
Don is dude.
Don play spry guy always
Don play spry but klutzy dude this time
Don starts to say spry nimble thing
I hint he play spry klutzy dude
Don say he miss that
Don say spry klutzy thing

hopefully you understand this time around.
Unless you are saying reminding players of something in the game is somehow "GM deciding the outcome"
Player: I use the yellow widget
GM: remember you left the yellow widget at the latrine.
GM deciding the outcome?

Player: I use the right-handed smoke shifter
GM: Didn't you say your character only uses left handed smoke shifters?
GM deciding the outcome?

Quote from: Bren;818674Which only demonstrates that you don't understand what traditional gaming is.

This statement.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818051As to the 'Why is it bad for a player to come to a decision in game without the blessing of the GM?' comment.
A player mentioned that once to me about GM.  more along the lines of "I wish I could do something in game with the mofoin blessing of that dick."
Wasn't until I was driving home thinking about it and yes I see the point.

That GM he was bitching about was me.
I understand it just fine.
I grew tired of it.
I realized there was whole swaths of games I was running or in that were negated by a single shitty die roll.

Quote from: Bren;818674Because traditionally the player is not supposed to know more about the situation than their character can perceive.

If you are playing a game where the players have access to perfect knowledge before making decisions, you aren't playing a traditional RPG in a traditional way. That's fine for you. But don't confuse yourself and us by claiming that what you are doing is traditional or even relevant to how most of the rest of us want to play RPGs.

When did knowing the modifiers morph into perfect knowledge?

You are the one using the traditional gaming defense, not me.  

Quote from: Bren;818674Let me break that down for you.

Sometimes, the character doesn't have perfect information with which to make a decision. This may be due to the fog of war, to clever action on the part of the NPCs, the character's lack of knowledge, to prior failed rolls by the player, or to magic. In a traditional game, the player makes decisions on what to attempt based on the limited information available to their character at the time. Once they decide, based on the information available to their character at the time, to make the attempt then the results of the attempt are determined.

You give information they are privy to.
They decide
They roll
You then secretly do the correct maths and give results.
How many rolls have this super secret information? 70%? 40%? 90%?

Quote from: Sommerjon;818802When did knowing the modifiers morph into perfect knowledge?

It necessarily requires it, because if you have imperfect knowledge you never know whether there's a factor you don't know about that should be giving a modifier.

QuoteYou give information they are privy to.
They decide
They roll
You then secretly do the correct maths and give results.
How many rolls have this super secret information? 70%? 40%? 90%?

The proportion doesn't really matter - what matters is that the players don't know ahead of time whether a particular course of action would be affected by hidden factors.

And of course, since the GM can't know ahead of time what the players are going to choose to do, they can't give a 100% exhaustive list of potential modifiers anyway - a lot of the time players will propose an action you hadn't thought of, which prompts you as the GM to assess the relevant factors on the spot.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818802I did not change his result.

Player: I jump on the table.
Sommerjon: Only if you do it in a klutzy way.

Yeah, you totally didn't change the original result of jumping on the table like Errol Flynn. :rolleyes: Out of curiousity what was this character's DEX anyway - 3, 5, what?

[/quote]You give information they are privy to.
They decide
They roll
You then secretly do the correct maths and give results.
How many rolls have this super secret information? 70%? 40%? 90%?[/QUOTE]Warthur covered this in his reply. But I am curious, why does the percentage matter to you? Are you OK with this method if the overall percentage is <40%?

Quote from: Warthur;818810It necessarily requires it, because if you have imperfect knowledge you never know whether there's a factor you don't know about that should be giving a modifier.

Same goes for the GM.  Which is why I am not a fan of the twenty questions to weed out all of the known modifiers and guesstimate the hidden modifiers that people go through for these actions.

Quote from: Warthur;818810The proportion doesn't really matter - what matters is that the players don't know ahead of time whether a particular course of action would be affected by hidden factors.

I found that the proportion does matter for some people.
It is a major factor on them giving up on 'improvisation in gaming'.

Quote from: Warthur;818810And of course, since the GM can't know ahead of time what the players are going to choose to do, they can't give a 100% exhaustive list of potential modifiers anyway - a lot of the time players will propose an action you hadn't thought of, which prompts you as the GM to assess the relevant factors on the spot.

Sure if you have a  group of players you have never gamed with, but your regular group?  I don't buy into this.  That player Bren is all up in arms about about me deciding what will happen.
Yeah no that is me knowing what Don was going to do.  That is why Don said "oh, yeah"  And went with the description of his character and not his standard maneuver.

Quote from: Bren;818823Player: I jump on the table.
Sommerjon: Only if you do it in a klutzy way.

Yeah, you totally didn't change the original result of jumping on the table like Errol Flynn. :rolleyes: Out of curiousity what was this character's DEX anyway - 3, 5, what?

No I didn't.

Why didn't you answer the other questions I asked?
Player: I use the yellow widget
GM: remember you left the yellow widget at the latrine.
GM deciding the outcome?

Player: I use the right-handed smoke shifter
GM: Didn't you say your character only uses left handed smoke shifters?
GM deciding the outcome?

Don's character had a Dex of 16.  

Quote from: Bren;818823

Quote from: Sommerjon;818802You give information they are privy to.
They decide
They roll
You then secretly do the correct maths and give results.
How many rolls have this super secret information? 70%? 40%? 90%?

Warthur covered this in his reply. But I am curious, why does the percentage matter to you? Are you OK with this method if the overall percentage is <40%?

I'm "okay" with any method.  I prefer other ways.  
If you have a high percentage in your games.  two typical causes.
1. You are not giving enough information
2. You are nitpicking modifiers
If you have a low percentage in your games
1. Why bother?
2. Is 'tradition' that important?

Quote from: Sommerjon;818853Why didn't you answer the other questions I asked?

Because the examples aren't relevant to the character's ability to jump on a table. Neither the ability to jump nor the character's DEX is piece of equipment that can be forgotten.

Moreover, a DEX 16 character should be able to jump on a table without looking like on of the Three Stooges, much less be utterly unable to leap on the table at all. Divoring stats from character concept is a very odd thing to do in D&D.

QuoteI'm "okay" with any method.

That really has not seemed to be the case in this thread. You've been complaining non-stop about the traditional method of gaming.

QuoteIf you have a low percentage in your games
1. Why bother?
2. Is 'tradition' that important?

Tradition has nothing to do with it. Tradition is just the descriptor applied to that style of play. The reason one bothers is because sometimes it matters that the character, and hence the player, doesn't have a good estimate of the odds when they are making there decision. And the player knowing that they can't really be certain of the exact odds that their action will be successful (or unsucessful) changes the game experience in a way that I find entertaining.

You might as well ask why bother having the player ever roll for anything. Instead you could just play a game where you let the player decide whether they succeed or fail and what that success or failure looks like without ever requiring a roll. I'm certain there are players who would like that. I don't happen to be one of them.

Quote from: Bren;818855Because the examples aren't relevant to the character's ability to jump on a table. Neither the ability to jump nor the character's DEX is piece of equipment that can be forgotten.

Evade.  

Quote from: Bren;818855Moreover, a DEX 16 character should be able to jump on a table without looking like on of the Three Stooges, much less be utterly unable to leap on the table at all. Divoring stats from character concept is a very odd thing to do in D&D.

You need to go back and read what was posted.  Your full on nerd rage is blinding you to what was said.

Don's description of his character said the character was not graceful and kinda klutzy.  That in no way means he cannot have a 16 dex.  It means when he does something 'agile based' it doesn't look pretty.

Quote from: Bren;818855That really has not seemed to be the case in this thread. You've been complaining non-stop about the traditional method of gaming.

Really?  Better go back and look.  You keep bringing up your precious traditional gaming.  Not me.  Sounds like you are the one with the problem.

Quote from: Bren;818855Tradition has nothing to do with it. Tradition is just the descriptor applied to that style of play. The reason one bothers is because sometimes it matters that the character, and hence the player, doesn't have a good estimate of the odds when they are making there decision. And the player knowing that they can't really be certain of the exact odds that their action will be successful (or unsucessful) changes the game experience in a way that I find entertaining.

You might as well ask why bother having the player ever roll for anything. Instead you could just play a game where you let the player decide whether they succeed or fail and what that success or failure looks like without ever requiring a roll. I'm certain there are players who would like that. I don't happen to be one of them.

There is that leap of yours.  Zero to a hundred in a blink.

Why is your hyperbole so one sided?

Quote from: Sommerjon;818866...

You've gone from wanting clear rules to cover every action so the player doesn't need a GM, to the GM and the player ignoring the rules that are in the game so they can rely on whim and narrative description.

Why are you even posting in this thread?

Quote from: Bren;818869You've gone from wanting clear rules to cover every action so the player doesn't need a GM, to the GM and the player ignoring the rules that are in the game so they can rely on whim and narrative description.

Why are you even posting in this thread?

How heavy is that cross your trying to bear?

At this point you've entirely stopped making sense, Sommerjon, so I'm going to bow out of the conversation.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818853No I didn't.

Sure, I'll grant you that, in the specific example you've been using of Don declaring that his character failed to jump onto a table, you may not have explicitly changed the result of his action.

But you did reserve the right to change it when you said that you'd tell him if he went too far, and I'd be willing to bet that, as GM, you would have vetoed certain results even if you hadn't told him up front that you reserved the right to do so.

Don:  I leap into the air, do a triple-forward-flip, land on the table, and dance a jig among the assorted plates and glasses without disturbing any of them.
Sommerjon:  OK.

Or would you have changed the result of his action by saying, "No, your character isn't that graceful." instead of "OK"?

Quote from: Sommerjon;818853Player: I use the yellow widget
GM: remember you left the yellow widget at the latrine.
GM deciding the outcome?

I would call that "GM saying that the character can't even attempt the action", which is entirely appropriate if the established in-game facts indicate that the preconditions necessary to make the attempt (e.g., having the yellow widget at hand) have not been met.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818853Player: I use the right-handed smoke shifter
GM: Didn't you say your character only uses left handed smoke shifters?
GM deciding the outcome?

Not "GM deciding the outcome" because you didn't say the character couldn't use right-handed shifters and you left the option open to the player for his character to make an exception to his normal practice under the current circumstances.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818853Don's character had a Dex of 16.

Eh?  Someone with Dexterity in the 98th percentile (according to AnyDice, 98.15% of 3d6 rolls are 16 or less) also being a klutz seems like quite a stretch, IMO.

Didn't you start out in this thread by arguing that we need to determine all modifiers based on hard-and-fast rules, not based on the GM's subjective interpretation of the situation?  Doesn't that kind of conflict with "the rules say Dex 16 is pretty awesomely agile, but our subjective interpretation of this character is that he's a klutz anyhow"?  In post #51, you argued in favor of avoiding subjective interpretations for the sake of consistency between different GMs, but your interpretation of a Dex 16 character as clumsy is inconsistent with both the RAW and how that character would be interpreted by every single GM I have encountered, other than you.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818853I'm "okay" with any method.  I prefer other ways.

Surely you can see how statements such as...

Quote from: Sommerjon;818051A player mentioned that once to me about GM.  more along the lines of "I wish I could do something in game with the mofoin blessing of that dick."
Wasn't until I was driving home thinking about it and yes I see the point.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818215And your eyeballing intuition can just plain suck?
That could be why your players are unwilling to go off script.  They cling to that character sheet, because that you're not going to fuck up as bad.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818293Why the great mystery?  Why is it 'wrong' for a player, before asking for the blessing of the GM, to be able to calculate how hard a particular action will be?

Quote from: Sommerjon;818293Not really.  Look at RandallS bit about him jumping onto his table giving himself a 35-65% of success. If I am at his gaming table and point out that the light fixture wouldn't support his weight,  at his table questioning his authority is rules lawyering and you are kicked.  Never question his authority.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818293Dude I would never play in one of your games.  You have made it perfectly clear that your presence at the head of the table is an honor and privilege to the people sitting around it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818525Perhaps your players got tired of all the die rolling you made them do.  They figure since you like rolling dice so much, why not let you do it all?

Quote from: Sommerjon;818802I realized there was whole swaths of games I was running or in that were negated by a single shitty die roll.

...might give the impression that you are not OK with styles of gaming other than that which you prefer.

Quote from: nDervish;818899Sure, I'll grant you that, in the specific example you've been using of Don declaring that his character failed to jump onto a table, you may not have explicitly changed the result of his action.

But you did reserve the right to change it when you said that you'd tell him if he went too far, and I'd be willing to bet that, as GM, you would have vetoed certain results even if you hadn't told him up front that you reserved the right to do so.

Don:  I leap into the air, do a triple-forward-flip, land on the table, and dance a jig among the assorted plates and glasses without disturbing any of them.
Sommerjon:  OK.

Or would you have changed the result of his action by saying, "No, your character isn't that graceful." instead of "OK"?

I did say I reserve the right to veto.
Me: Don't ask me, do it. I'll give you a heads up if your trying to do too much.
This is a dual meaning phrase.  Around a 70/30 split more often than not
70 split: Action lasting longer then time allows for
30 split: Taking too many 'liberties' with the game.

Per your question.  Depends.

Quote from: nDervish;818899Eh?  Someone with Dexterity in the 98th percentile (according to AnyDice, 98.15% of 3d6 rolls are 16 or less) also being a klutz seems like quite a stretch, IMO.

Depends on if a group is able to "rulings not rules" the game. Odd that a player is not allowed to give himself a negative even if he has a higher stat.

Quote from: nDervish;818899Didn't you start out in this thread by arguing that we need to determine all modifiers based on hard-and-fast rules, not based on the GM's subjective interpretation of the situation?  Doesn't that kind of conflict with "the rules say Dex 16 is pretty awesomely agile, but our subjective interpretation of this character is that he's a klutz anyhow"?  In post #51, you argued in favor of avoiding subjective interpretations for the sake of consistency between different GMs, but your interpretation of a Dex 16 character as clumsy is inconsistent with both the RAW and how that character would be interpreted by every single GM I have encountered, other than you.

I said what some players wanted.  Something I have heard multiple times over the years.  It wasn't about how I play.

For me it goes back to Warthur's Solutions
SOLUTION 2:
You explicitly provide set difficulties for actions and disallow GM-applied penalties or bonuses to actions. At which point you lose the ability to incorporate favourable or unfavourable circumstances into the simulation and your game just lost a degree of verisimilitude.

What verisimilitude did the players lose when they are not privy to the true modifiers for their action?

Quote from: nDervish;818899Surely you can see how statements such as...

...might give the impression that you are not OK with styles of gaming other than that which you prefer.

I'm okay with playing just about any ruleset.
Gaming is better than no gaming.  I might even get something useful out of something I thought was 'bad gaming'

Quote from: Sommerjon;818941I said what some players wanted.  Something I have heard multiple times over the years.  It wasn't about how I play.

One big fat troll. As I had come to suspect. Go back under your bridge.

Quote from: Bren;818943One big fat troll. As I had come to suspect. Go back under your bridge.

Hey dumbfuck,  go back and look.

This is where your precious traditional gaming falls apart particularly when verisimilitude is used
Warthur's Solutions
SOLUTION 2:
You explicitly provide set difficulties for actions and disallow GM-applied penalties or bonuses to actions. At which point you lose the ability to incorporate favourable or unfavourable circumstances into the simulation and your game just lost a degree of verisimilitude.

What verisimilitude did the players lose when they are not privy to the true modifiers for their action?

The players didn't lose verisimilitude they never had any.  Verisimilitude wasn't lost Gm control was weakened.
This solution gives players actual choice, but you lose your precious control over every. single. action. taken. by. the. players.

Most normal people aren't game designers and thus don't feel comfortable 'breaking the rules' no matter how many times they are told they are free to do so.

Classic D&D makes this easy. At least for most of us with a heavy background in the hobby, modding D&D is second nature. Even for rookies, you can experiment with one element without breaking something else. But a game like Exalted? Hahahaha no.

Add bitchy players into the mix who run online to whine every time you make a judgment call and no wonder gm's feel shackled and afraid to do anything but adhere to RAW.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818941I did say I reserve the right to veto.
Me: Don't ask me, do it. I'll give you a heads up if your trying to do too much.

Ah, ok, good, you do agree that you reserve veto rights.  (I'd commented on that statement being such a reservation a couple times previously, but wasn't sure whether you agreed with that assessment or not.)

I presume, then, that you also agree that, by reserving veto rights, you are also maintaining "control over every. single. action. taken. by. the. players.", since you will veto any action you disagree with.

I submit that arbitrary GM-applied modifiers, even if used capriciously or maliciously, represent a lower level of "control over every. single. action. taken. by. the. players." than the use of absolute veto powers, given that if I say "roll at -3 to jump on the table in the way you described", then there is still a chance that the character could succeed with a good enough roll, while if you say "no, you can't jump on the table in the way you described", then the character's action is automatically either negated or fails, with no chance of success.

Quote from: Sommerjon;818941What verisimilitude did the players lose when they are not privy to the true modifiers for their action?

None.  For multiple reasons:

1) If I try to jump onto a table in real life, I do not know what the modifier to do so is.  I know whether it seems "easy" or "difficult", but I do not know that I have a 37.46832% chance of success.  Verisimilitude, therefore, demands only that players know roughly how "easy" or "difficult" something seems, not necessarily that they know exact modifiers or chances of success.

2) If a player wants to know what the exact modifiers would be, he can ask and I've known very few, if any, GMs who would not tell the player the modifiers for all factors which the character is aware of.  In other words, the player can be privy to the exact modifiers if he cares enough to ask.  This is, IMO, no more arduous a requirement than if the player had to look up the modifiers in the rules or, worse, if he had to memorize all potential modifiers to know what they are.

3) I have not seen anyone here arguing in favor of "hidden" modifiers except in the specific case of modifiers resulting from factors which the character is not aware of either.  e.g., The character knows that the table's height, etc. would give him a -3 to jump onto it, so the player is told about that, but the character doesn't know that someone has cast a Slipperiness spell on the tabletop, so the player will need to "make a proficiency throw of 20+ each round or fall down." (Text quoted directly from the ACKS Player's Companion, p.141 - i.e., a codified rule, not a GM judgment call.)  Not being told about something you wouldn't know if you were actually in the situation does not harm verisimilitude; on the contrary, I would argue that verisimilitude is harmed if you are told about things you would not be aware of if the situation were real.

Quote from: Bren;818943One big fat troll. As I had come to suspect. Go back under your bridge.

There's no there there. He's just been yanking all of your chains for pages now. It's been his shtick here for years. But we all got to learn it for ourselves.

Quote from: Opaopajr;819035There's no there there. He's just been yanking all of your chains for pages now. It's been his shtick here for years. But we all got to learn it for ourselves.

I started out with the assumption that Sommerjon was one of those people who erroneously, but honestly think completeness is possible in an RPG.

Quote from: Sommerjon;819007This solution gives players actual choice, but you lose your precious control over every. single. action. taken. by. the. players.

So what happens in your games when as GM you direct your attention to player 4 only to find that they've gone off and done a hundred different things (some of which completely rewrite your gameworld) whilst you were dealing with players 1-3?

Quote from: nDervish;819032Ah, ok, good, you do agree that you reserve veto rights.  (I'd commented on that statement being such a reservation a couple times previously, but wasn't sure whether you agreed with that assessment or not.)

I presume, then, that you also agree that, by reserving veto rights, you are also maintaining "control over every. single. action. taken. by. the. players.", since you will veto any action you disagree with.

No I don't veto every action I disagree with.
I veto actions that go beyond the scope of that instance of action.
"You're trying to do too much in too short of a time"

Quote from: nDervish;819032I submit that arbitrary GM-applied modifiers, even if used capriciously or maliciously, represent a lower level of "control over every. single. action. taken. by. the. players." than the use of absolute veto powers, given that if I say "roll at -3 to jump on the table in the way you described", then there is still a chance that the character could succeed with a good enough roll, while if you say "no, you can't jump on the table in the way you described", then the character's action is automatically either negated or fails, with no chance of success.

You're comparing different elements thinking they are the same.

Question.
You have a guy, named Don, that you've been gaming with for years. DOn has two d20s that he uses.  He uses one for combat only(says it's his lucky die) the other is used for everything else.  He then decides for the next campaign he will be switching the roles of his dice.  When combat happens in this new campaign and his turn comes up he states what he will be doing and as he goes for his dice you say "Not with your lucky die" and he goes "oh yeah" and picks up the other die.

Does this in any way help everyone here who seems to be having a real. difficult. time. with what I had described before?

Quote from: nDervish;819032None.  For multiple reasons:

The players didn't lose verisimilitude they never had any.

Quote from: nDervish;8190321) If I try to jump onto a table in real life, I do not know what the modifier to do so is.  I know whether it seems "easy" or "difficult", but I do not know that I have a 37.46832% chance of success.  Verisimilitude, therefore, demands only that players know roughly how "easy" or "difficult" something seems, not necessarily that they know exact modifiers or chances of success.

I guess it depends on where you think you sit at on the RP and G spectrum.

Quote from: nDervish;8190322) If a player wants to know what the exact modifiers would be, he can ask and I've known very few, if any, GMs who would not tell the player the modifiers for all factors which the character is aware of.  In other words, the player can be privy to the exact modifiers if he cares enough to ask.  This is, IMO, no more arduous a requirement than if the player had to look up the modifiers in the rules or, worse, if he had to memorize all potential modifiers to know what they are.

Which relates back to;  what percentage of die rolls per session are having hidden modifiers?
For me going back and looking through my notes I realized there wasn't that many.  So why were the players having to play 20 questions to get the modifiers for or why do they have to ask?

Quote from: nDervish;8190323) I have not seen anyone here arguing in favor of "hidden" modifiers except in the specific case of modifiers resulting from factors which the character is not aware of either.  e.g., The character knows that the table's height, etc. would give him a -3 to jump onto it, so the player is told about that, but the character doesn't know that someone has cast a Slipperiness spell on the tabletop, so the player will need to "make a proficiency throw of 20+ each round or fall down." (Text quoted directly from the ACKS Player's Companion, p.141 - i.e., a codified rule, not a GM judgment call.)  Not being told about something you wouldn't know if you were actually in the situation does not harm verisimilitude; on the contrary, I would argue that verisimilitude is harmed if you are told about things you would not be aware of if the situation were real.

Is the Slipperiness spell invisible?
What I found was GMs having hidden modifiers that shouldn't be.

Quote from: Bren;819052I started out with the assumption that Sommerjon was one of those people who erroneously, but honestly think completeness is possible in an RPG.

Still see you are confused.

Quote from: Warthur;819058So what happens in your games when as GM you direct your attention to player 4 only to find that they've gone off and done a hundred different things (some of which completely rewrite your gameworld) whilst you were dealing with players 1-3?

I wouldn't give him my notes?

Quote from: Sommerjon;819364Still see you are confused.

Not at all. (http://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/88628-Troll-Spray.png)

Quote from: Sommerjon;819007your precious traditional gaming

Quote from: Sommerjon;819007your precious control over every. single. action. taken. by. the. players

Jesus Wept.

Quote from: Sommerjon;819364I guess it depends on where you think you sit at on the RP and G spectrum.

Where would you say you sit relative to the rest of us?

QuoteWhich relates back to;  what percentage of die rolls per session are having hidden modifiers?
For me going back and looking through my notes I realized there wasn't that many.  So why were the players having to play 20 questions to get the modifiers for or why do they have to ask?

They have to ask because you don't know ahead of time what they're going to attempt, so you can't provide them with an exhaustive list of all the modifiers relevant in a particular situation.

QuoteIs the Slipperiness spell invisible?
What I found was GMs having hidden modifiers that shouldn't be.

Let's assume that it is for the purpose of this conversation.

QuoteI wouldn't give him my notes?

Why should that stop them doing what they want to do?

Quote from: Warthur;819471Where would you say you sit relative to the rest of us?

Personally?
From the posts here, Closer to the RP side.
I do still play in games that are heavy into the Game side.

Quote from: Warthur;819471They have to ask because you don't know ahead of time what they're going to attempt, so you can't provide them with an exhaustive list of all the modifiers relevant in a particular situation.

Unless you are playing with complete strangers, predicting what your buddys  will do has never been hard, for me anyways.

Quote from: Warthur;819471Let's assume that it is for the purpose of this conversation.

They would "make a proficiency throw of 20+ each round or fall down."?

Quote from: Warthur;819471Why should that stop them doing what they want to do?

Time?
Player 4 couldn't have gone off and done a hundred different things (some of which completely rewrites the gameworld), going from player 1 to 2 to 3 doesn't give player 4 all of their time to go and muck things up it is all happening at the same time.