TheRPGSite

Link is here. (http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/3019000/3019374/1/print/3019374.pdf)  I'm sure this has been discussed before, but let's rehash it.  One of the things that piqued my interest was the following bit:

QuoteGM: Mulls this over, because there’s a pit trap right where John is looking. But it’s dark, so “No, there are about a million cracks in the floor. You wouldn’t see a pit trap that easily, anyway.” [A different referee might absolutely decide that John sees the trap, since he’s looking in the right place for the right thing].

My reaction a few years ago would have been, "That's not fair!  How can the DM just decide whether he sees the trap or not?  This is terrible and bullshit."

My reaction now is considerably different.  I won't say this approach is superior to the "modern" method of playing, but I will say that it is intriguing.  I suspect the emphasis on strict rules for every situation arose from tournament-style play in which the DM serves as a rules arbiter.

Some other quotes on the matter:

QuoteYour job isn’t to remember and apply rules correctly, it’s to make up on-the-spot rulings and describe them colorfully.

QuoteLook at it this way. There’s a priceless Ming Vase sitting on a table in the middle of a room where combat rages on all sides, swords swinging, chairs flying, crossbow bolts whizzing through the air. There is, however, no rule covering the chance of some random event that might affect the priceless Ming Vase. I’m not sure I need to say more, but just in case, I will. If someone rolls a natural “1,” or a “3,” or even if nothing specifically happens to trigger it, it’s blatantly irresponsible of you not to start some chain of events involving the Ming vase.  A sword goes flying – the table underneath the vase is hit by the sword – the vase is swaying back and forth, ready to topple – can anyone catch it, perhaps making a long dive-and-slide across the floor? That’s gaming.  Is it unfair? Well, it’s certainly outside the existing rules. It’s your job to create events outside the standard sequence of “I roll to hit. They roll to hit. I roll to hit.”  In combat, bad rolls can spontaneously gene rate bad consequences (make sure you do this to both sides, not just the players). You don’t need a table to generate bad consequences – just make it up on the spot. Good rolls might get good consequences, such as disarming the foe, making him fall, smashing him against a wall for extra damage, pushing him backward, etc. Again, make it up on the spot. Remember the Ming Vase!

It's a shame I hadn't been exposed to this years ago.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;707662Link is here. (http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/3019000/3019374/1/print/3019374.pdf)  I'm sure this has been discussed before, but let's rehash it.  One of the things that piqued my interest was the following bit:

QuoteGM: Mulls this over, because there's a pit trap right where John is  looking. But it's dark, so "No, there are about a million cracks in the  floor. You wouldn't see a pit trap that easily, anyway." [A different  referee might absolutely decide that John sees the trap, since he's  looking in the right place for the right thing].

This is only a problem where the GM has not done his work beforehand.  My notes say for that pit trap, ...  Ah yes here it is.  "The PC must make a detect hidden door check if actively looking at the spot.  If no Dark vision or, bright light, no check possible."

That's how we do things downtown children.

Fairly and consistently applied rulings are the goal. The risk is obvious, but the reward isn't as much so without having experienced it under a quality referee.

Unfortunately, it is very easy for some folk to lose faith and refuse to take said risk after being burned by a poor referee.

Quote from: FickleGM;707678Fairly and consistently applied rulings are the goal. The risk is obvious, but the reward isn't as much so without having experienced it under a quality referee.

Unfortunately, it is very easy for some folk to lose faith and refuse to take said risk after being burned by a poor referee.

Thing is, I can't fathom playing an RPG with a referee I didn't trust to make sound judgements. I'd either GM myself, or not play.

One of the ugliest things about the modern approach to RPGs is the notion that players are entitled to have a GM who runs the game the way they like. It's particularly ugly when expressed by guys who have been playing for years. If you're an experienced enough player that you've memorize whole books full of rules and can build super powerful characters with the expectation to play them to high levels, you're experienced enough to step up and run the fucking game yourself if you don't like how your GM runs his game.

Exactly. I have no problem at all with players who demand that a game is run the way they want and go out and find said game. My problem is when they demand this out of the GM they have OR just bitch about their GM. Either shut up and play, find a different game or, as you said, run the fucking game.

Quote from: Haffrung;707691One of the ugliest things about the modern approach to RPGs is the notion that players are entitled to have a GM who runs the game the way they like.

That's why God invented baseball bats...

So we're doing this again, well this likely won't be the last time I have this conversation so I may as well start getting exceedingly efficient at it.

"Rulings"/MTP are certainly an important part of TTRPGs indeed the fact that they have anything you can imagine as an input is one of the great strengths of TTRPGs. However "Rulings"/MTP can produce any result you can imagine and that's kind of lame. Because of their adhoc nature and and high variability it's hard for PCs to make meaningful choices, it's like the Monty Hall problem only the goats are Schrodinger's goats and the GM get's to decide if they're alive or dead after you open the box. Now you can say that you personally like playing that sort of game, but you can't claim it encourages player skill because player decisions don't actually matter.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707726Now you can say that you personally like playing that sort of game, but you can't claim it encourages player skill because player decisions don't actually matter.

This proves that you know Jack and Shit about old school gaming, and Jack left town.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;707729This proves that you know Jack and Shit about old school gaming, and Jack left town.

Agreed. Heck, I can't see how a system that removes the ability of a GM to apply such rulings could even attempt to encourage player skill in any meaningful way.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707726So we're doing this again,  r.

No, you are choosing to do this again. The op doesn't require we go down this path again. KBy all means feel free, but we know where everyone stands on the issue and are familiar with the arguments on both sides. Personally, i would prefer to hear more from the OP on his evolution on this front.

Quote from: FickleGM;707731Heck, I can't see how a system that removes the ability of a GM to apply such rulings could even attempt to encourage player skill in any meaningful way.

That depends on whether or not you think 'up up down down left right left right b a b a select' is a player skill.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;707733No, you are choosing to do this again. The op doesn't require we go down this path again. KBy all means feel free, but we know where everyone stands on the issue and are familiar with the arguments on both sides. Personally, i would prefer to hear more from the OP on his evolution on this front.

Actually I'm unfamiliar with the arguments of the other side that's sort of why I'm here, to deepen my understanding of RPGs by engaging in discourse with people who don't share my views. Unfortunately discourse isn't what's happening here. I presented a reasoned argument, in return I got the tribalistic posturing of the intellectually bankrupt.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707726So we're doing this again, well this likely won't be the last time I have this conversation so I may as well start getting exceedingly efficient at it.

"Rulings"/MTP are certainly an important part of TTRPGs indeed the fact that they have anything you can imagine as an input is one of the great strengths of TTRPGs. However "Rulings"/MTP can produce any result you can imagine and that's kind of lame. Because of their adhoc nature and and high variability it's hard for PCs to make meaningful choices

No.  In my example the "pit trap" is of a certain construction that gives it  certain properties.  Just like something in real life.  You assume that there is an Acme Pit fall manufacturing company that produces these things and thus, PC's would know what to expect because of that uniformity throughout the game world.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707736Actually I'm unfamiliar with the arguments of the other side that's sort of why I'm here, to deepen my understanding of RPGs by engaging in discourse with people who don't share my views. Unfortunately discourse isn't what's happening here. I presented a reasoned argument, in return I got the tribalistic posturing of the intellectually bankrupt.

I might suggest that starting "discourse" by using the term Magical Tea Party isn't conducive to conversation.  Generally, you shouldn't start off conversations with terms that are generally used in a pejorative fashion if you're trying to have a productive conversation.

Just sayin'.

Quote from: robiswrong;707740I might suggest that starting "discourse" by using the term Magical Tea Party isn't conducive to conversation.  Generally, you shouldn't start off conversations with terms that are generally used in a pejorative fashion if you're trying to have a productive conversation.

Just sayin'.

Well, he KNOWS that.

Quote from: robiswrong;707740I might suggest that starting "discourse" by using the term Magical Tea Party isn't conducive to conversation.  Generally, you shouldn't start off conversations with terms that are generally used in a pejorative fashion if you're trying to have a productive conversation.

Just sayin'.

At least on TGD Magic Tea Party isn't considered a pejorative, you can totally find posts where people Frank sing the praises of Magic Tea Party. It's just that the positives of Magic Tea Party are so ubiquitously known that people there rarely feel they need to make a case for them.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707726However "Rulings"/MTP can produce any result you can imagine and that's kind of lame.

You raise valid points, but I'm going to disagree with this.  In theory, yes, ad hoc rulings could produce "any result you could imagine," but in practice, it doesn't.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;707733Personally, i would prefer to hear more from the OP on his evolution on this front.

I got burned out on 3e.  Too much page-flipping.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;707746I got burned out on 3e.  Too much page-flipping.

What systems have you been using lately?

I can appreciate where you are coming. I am cool playing games with more comprehensive and detailed rules, but can also enjoy approaches based more on rulings over rules. I think both provide different experiences, but each has its benefits. Glad to see you are open to trying an approach you previously disliked.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707726However "Rulings"/MTP can produce any result you can imagine and that's kind of lame. Because of their adhoc nature and and high variability it's hard for PCs to make meaningful choices, it's like the Monty Hall problem only the goats are Schrodinger's goats and the GM get's to decide if they're alive or dead after you open the box. Now you can say that you personally like playing that sort of game, but you can't claim it encourages player skill because player decisions don't actually matter.

Depends on what you mean by "player skill".  If by "player skill" you mean the ability to work out the math on the various options available to you, and use that to determine the mathematically most sound move?

Yeah, you're right.  Rulings over rules doesn't promote that at all.

Apart from that, outside of extreme degenerate cases, it works.  If you want to talk about extremely random GMs where there's no consistency, then you have to examine the opposite strawman, as well - the idea that without rulings, anything not explicitly laid out in the system is impossible.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;707734That depends on whether or not you think 'up up down down left right left right b a b a select' is a player skill.

iddqd

:banghead: :rant:

Quote from: robiswrong;707749If you want to talk about extremely random GMs where there's no consistency, then you have to examine the opposite strawman, as well - the idea that without rulings, anything not explicitly laid out in the system is impossible.

No I don't because that's not what's on the table. My proposition is actually the middle ground where player have things they can do within the rules and going outside the rules and into GM ruling territory is still possible. The position I'm arguing against is that having PC be able work within the rules at all is badwrong and anyone who thinks that should be a thing is the cancer killing TTRPGs.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707756The position I'm arguing against is that having PC be able work within the rules at all is badwrong and anyone who thinks that should be a thing is the cancer killing TTRPGs.

Show us these posts that advocate that a PC working within the rules is "badwrong".

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707736Actually I'm unfamiliar with the arguments of the other side that's sort of why I'm here, to deepen my understanding of RPGs by engaging in discourse with people who don't share my views. Unfortunately discourse isn't what's happening here. I presented a reasoned argument, in return I got the tribalistic posturing of the intellectually bankrupt.

Well, now that I understand how you go about deepening your understanding of RPGs, so much has suddenly become clear.

I do find it interesting that disagreeing with you is considered tribalistic posturing, but being intellectually bankrupt, I probably don't have the capacity to understand.

I will say that I don't consider myself in their tribe. I don't like old school D&d...well, I don't actually like any flavor of D&D. I rarely come here and don't even recall when I last posted here (although today's bout of posting has been fun, so perhaps I will post more). With that said, I am left to believe that my inclusion (if I may be so arrogant as to believe you are including me) in this "tribe" can only mean it's made up of anyone who disagrees with your premise.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707756No I don't because that's not what's on the table. My proposition is actually the middle ground where player have things they can do within the rules and going outside the rules and into GM ruling territory is still possible. The position I'm arguing against is that having PC be able work within the rules at all is badwrong and anyone who thinks that should be a thing is the cancer killing TTRPGs.

Hi!
Per!
Bowl!
Eeeeee!

Quote from: FickleGM;707759I do find it interesting that disagreeing with you is considered tribalistic posturing, but being intellectually bankrupt, I probably don't have the capacity to understand.

So you believe the initial responses to my first post in this thread we're well reasoned counter arguments :?

I don't mind being disagreed with I welcome it in fact, but post's like

Quote from: Exploderwizard;707729This proves that you know Jack and Shit about old school gaming, and Jack left town.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;707734That depends on whether or not you think 'up up down down left right left right b a b a select' is a player skill.

aren't honest attempts at discourse, and they we're what I was responding to. If we want to get technical you didn't make an argument either, you made a statement in incredulity ;3

@goyf.

GMs can give the PCs a likelihood of a task working, even if they've just made the rule for it up.

You're explained before that no RPGset can be fully comprehensive (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem wasn't it?); so we're only arguing about how much fuzziness is acceptable. Designing specific rules inherently gives you diminishing returns per page count, so the 500-page book isn't necessarily that much better than the 200 page book. Its also harder for GMs/players to accurately utilize a larger ruleset - its more likely they'll miss a specific rule that applies. Its also more likely that the rules in a complex system will have a specific problem the designers didn't envisage or a direct contradiction. If that happens then the player is left guessing as to whether the DM is going to house-rule things, leaving them as much in the dark as if the rulebook pile didn't resemble the Encylopaedia Brittanica.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707762So you believe the initial responses to my first post in this thread we're well reasoned counter arguments :?

I don't mind being disagreed with I welcome it in fact, but post's like


aren't honest attempts at discourse, and they we're what I was responding to. If we want to get technical you didn't make an argument either, you made a statement in incredulity ;3

Seriously? You have a strange way of both inviting discourse and showing that you welcome being disagreed with.

Unfortunately, I'm still stuck on incredulity, it would appear.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707756No I don't because that's not what's on the table. My proposition is actually the middle ground where player have things they can do within the rules and going outside the rules and into GM ruling territory is still possible.

That's what Rulings vs Rules pretty much is. There's a basic framework of rules, and situations not covered by those rules the GM makes rulings on as they come up. It's not Calvinball, its just a philosophy that doesn't require 300 page gamebooks because a GM is assumed to have a modicum of common sense and imagination.


 

QuoteThe position I'm arguing against is that having PC be able work within the rules at all is badwrong and anyone who thinks that should be a thing is the cancer killing TTRPGs.

And that, otoh, is the strawman position

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;707763You're explained before that no RPGset can be fully comprehensive (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem wasn't it?); so we're only arguing about how much fuzziness is acceptable. Designing specific rules inherently gives you diminishing returns per page count, so the 500-page book isn't necessarily that much better than the 200 page book.

I believe I've said in the past that solution is to have more elegant rules, ones that cover more cases with less page count. I've been reading up on After Sundown lately and it's 224 pages including background fluff, and it's probably more comprehensive than some games that are twice it's length.

Edit

Quote from: TristramEvans;707776That's what Rulings vs Rules pretty much is. There's a basic framework of rules, and situations not covered by those rules the GM makes rulings on as they come up. It's not Calvinball, its just a philosophy that doesn't require 300 page gamebooks because a GM is assumed to have a modicum of common sense and imagination.

If this is true then the only thing we really disagree about is how much "rules framework" a game needs.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;707747What systems have you been using lately?

Savage Worlds.  

I like how gamerGoyf is ignoring my posts in this thread, looks like he wants to nitpick with the other posters.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;707780Savage Worlds.  

I like how gamerGoyf is ignoring my posts in this thread, looks like he wants to nitpick with the other posters.

You need to be more tribalistically gibberishtic with your posts.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707726... (a) However "Rulings"/MTP can produce any result you can imagine and that's kind of lame. Because of their adhoc nature and and high variability it's hard for PCs to make meaningful choices, ... (b) but you can't claim it encourages player skill because player decisions don't actually matter.

(a) - High variability of outcomes =/= limiting player choices. That is some serious conversation steering there. :-P GMs react to player choices. The GM should be making a reasonable or informed ruling based on various factors like setting, rules, previous actions, previous similar situations, etc. A particular PC may not appreciate a GM's rulings, but this does not mean the choice wasn't meaningful. This is clearly a perception issue. Just play. Stop worrying about "what will you decide GM person?" and simply play and react as you see appropriate.

Take your typical movie action scene. Our hero walks into the warehouse and is ambushed by ninjas. He starts kicking ass and ninjas die everywhere. He gets beat up. Does he stop mid-battle look at the screen and decry "who the fuck attacks one character with 20 ninjas?!?!? My choices have no meaning!!!"? Unless it's a comedy, probably not. Most of this "my choices have no meaning" nonsense comes from players who want to play a POWER FANTASY that centers around them. This is why baby-Jesus invented video games. Seriously. When the GM describes something happening, do something. React. In character. Stop worrying about stupid shit and play the fucking game.

(b) - Huh? How did you draw the lines here? I'm baffled.

Say our intrepid hero (a green wet-behind-the-ears never-played-before newbie) walks into a store with only three things for sale. Three unmarked boxes on a single shelf. They all look identical. The shop keeper asks "what box would you like to buy?" He decides on the middle one. He leaves the store, opens his purchase and flames erupt from the box, killing the poor character.

Next week, that same person finds the same store with a new character. What will he do? Maybe ask 20 questions? Perhaps talk to the shop keeper to find out why they are only selling 3 things? Ask the shop keep to open the boxes? I mean, a good player won't use OOC knowledge, but as far as "player skill" goes, it's pretty reasonable to assume that the player learned something from the previous experience. Now that he understands not to take anything for granted, maybe he'll "engage" more? Maybe not treat the game like some simple choose-your-own-adventure? Why would an experienced player have responded to this differently than our newbie?

The player has a myriad number of options. If he chose not to buy a box, something different would have happened. Hitting the local tavern to drum up rumors about the strange shop may have yielded some clues. Each choice they make could have myriad outcomes. What if he took the box to his wife as a present? :-) Lots of options. Lots of outcomes.

Unless you are suggesting that all adventures have some ill fated premise where no matter what he chooses he's getting a flame in the face? I certainly don't run games like that...

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707777If this is true then the only thing we really disagree about is how much "rules framework" a game needs.

Indeed, which is a matter of preference only. I'm perfectly fine GMing a game of Risus, the rules of which I have printed in thier entirety on a coffee mug. Other GMs may not feel comfortable or confident w/o the support of a system like Hero. There's no objectively correct answer to this though, and to a certain extent comes down to experience and age I think.

Quote from: trechriron;707782Most of this "my choices have no meaning" nonsense comes from players who want to play a POWER FANTASY that centers around them. This is why baby-Jesus invented video games. Seriously.

That would have made milk shoot out my nose... if I'd been drinking milk... which, thankfully, I was not.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707777I believe I've said in the past that solution is to have more elegant rules, ones that cover more cases with less page count. I've been reading up on After Sundown lately and it's 224 pages including background fluff, and it's probably more comprehensive than some games that are twice it's length.

I can't comment on After Sundown specifically (you should probably review it or something if you think its great). In general I would expect a rule that handles A, B, and C is going to cover all three in less detail or less accurately (worse results) than a rule that just covers A.

Quote from: trechriron;707782Unless you are suggesting that all adventures have some ill fated premise where no matter what he chooses he's getting a flame in the face? I certainly don't run games like that...

This is my argument

a) in order for "player skill" to be a thing "meaningful choices" have to be enabled. Or in other words what players chose to do has to directly lead to successes or failures.

b) in rulings heavy games meaningful choices are impossible because

c) the parameters of success and failure are determined on the spot by the GM in response to player declarations.

The analogy I usually use for this is the Monty Hall problem, if Monty get's to decide if the door contains a car or goat after you pick it then that decision obviously wasn't meaningful. That's how ruling based resolution works because your success or failure is more the result of how much the GM likes your decision than the decision itself.

That's only true IF the GM's decisions vary widely from the reality of the situation and there's no mechanism to determine success or failure in place such as a dice roll. Meaning the problem is effectively, bad GMs. Which isn't a rules issue.

Quote from: Haffrung;707691Thing is, I can't fathom playing an RPG with a referee I didn't trust to make sound judgements. I'd either GM myself, or not play.

One of the ugliest things about the modern approach to RPGs is the notion that players are entitled to have a GM who runs the game the way they like. It's particularly ugly when expressed by guys who have been playing for years. If you're an experienced enough player that you've memorize whole books full of rules and can build super powerful characters with the expectation to play them to high levels, you're experienced enough to step up and run the fucking game yourself if you don't like how your GM runs his game.

it was always thus.

I played a game when I was 16 or so and the GM started by running some you are all captured and put in prison thing, after 10 minutes it was an obvious railroad so I played through the session politely and next week started up my own game in the same club that played the way I likes my games run.  

I didn't like the way he was playing I expect a GM to play games the way I like or I will leave.

If you don't the way a GM runs a game you keep playing and shut up or you gripe about it or you leave.

Nothing has changed from the start of the hobby. There are many different RPGs because people didn't like the game that was being run. There were monty haul games , meatgrinders, railroads, sandboxes, cookie cutter takes on Lord of the Rings and all sort of crap it was always thus.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707793"meaningful choices" have to be enabled

Is there a precise rigorous mathematical definition of "meaningful choice"?

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707793The analogy I usually use for this is the Monty Hall problem, if Monty get's to decide if the door contains a car or goat after you pick it then that decision obviously wasn't meaningful. That's how ruling based resolution works because your success or failure is more the result of how much the GM likes your decision than the decision itself.

The secret to ad libbing , both rules and content, is that you decide what is behind each door before you tell the players there are any doors.

In general if you have a core mechanic. d20 + modifiers v target number, or dice pool or whatever then its easy to make a ruling that falls into the structure of the rules and it will be just as valid as a rule that the designer had written down in the rule book.

PC jumps for a chandalier attempting to swing out and then leap through the rose window and down into the lilly pond outside. Skillwise the PC has Acrobatics +1. So we decide that that is very difficult manuver, we decide this as a ruling there is no list that will tell us how to rule for this example.  So before the PC roles we tell them he needs a total of 17 on 2d10 + skill. He roll 8 +1 for a total of nine... we decide that means he misses the chandalier and takes damage for a 20 foot fall onto the floor of the main hall.
In a game with only AD&D secondary skills we decide the PC's sailor background will give him some skill on swinging on ropes and like, hey its a swashbuckling kind of a game, so without a skill system we deciede that its a d20 + dex but as its very difficult he will need 18 on a d20 (without the sailor skill we would have made it a natural 20 only) he rolls a 9 +s 2 for 16 Dex, and ... we decide he falls to the ground etc ... rolled a 12 and we decided he managed to grab the chandalier and ends the turn swinging from it ...

This isn't rocket science.
The mistake would be getting the guy to roll and then letting him try to explain how his acrobatics skill or sailor background should help , and then letting them argue over the relative difficulty. At the point where you are trying to explain the result of the roll after its made and you haven't set clear parameters you are likely to be swayed by player charisma, how much you like the idea etc etc

So as with all good ad-libbing be 2 steps ahead of the players

I didn't grow up playing old school DnD, or fantasy games for that matter, but the conventions explained in the Old School Primer is how I learned to play the games I did play back in the day.

It was a bit of culture shock when I first met other gamers who had to have rules for everything. If the game designer didn't figuratively use finger puppets to explain everything that a decent GM with common sense could figure out and rule on, then the game was "broken."

I generally only hear people say that who started playing games in the 2000s. It's probably a generational thing, as older games weren't preoccupied with rules, while newer games are. People are comfortable around what they are familiar with.

Part of the generational thing seems to be just the power levels people seem to want in their games. If everyone is Just A Guy we have some idea what should be reasonably possible. When the characters start being superheroes or demigods, you need more guidelines since people's expectations don't match up anymore (cf. all the arguments about tripping gelatinous cubes or grabbing swarms in 4E).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;707802Part of the generational thing seems to be just the power levels people seem to want in their games. If everyone is Just A Guy we have some idea what should be reasonably possible. When the characters start being superheroes or demigods, you need more guidelines since people's expectations don't match up anymore (cf. all the arguments about tripping gelatinous cubes or grabbing swarms in 4E).

Again not generational it was always thus.
Some people want to play Dave and Fred exploring the local caverns some want to play Lord David and St Frederick exploring the outer planes of existance.

We all know tales from D&D lore of old where players have Balrog PCs or Vampire PCs .... some people want more power justthe way of it.

Yeah "an idea of what's reasonably possible" has pretty much always been a problem. Wizards and Dragons don't exist in reality so it's hard to say what's "reasonably possible" for them.

Heck speaking to the power level thing, D&Ds level scaling has basically always been far more bananas then most people assume. In AD&D you're 8th level fighter is a superhero, that's literally the official title for a fighter of his level. Then he can potentially level up 20 more times.

I'm not a big fan of a 1, or a 96+ in a percentile rollunder game, having the GM take control of my character and have them pull some monumental blunder. A zero-sum failure seems a bad enough punishment for an event that has a 5% chance of happening (meaning a good chance of happening at least once a session to every player at the table). No, I didn't cut myself with my own fucking sword. I failed to deal damage to the goblin, who now has the opportunity to cut me.

Just to keep it simple, I'd have the player on point roll to detect the pit trap. If he detects it, he sees it.

Under oldschool, i'd use the same chances as detecting secret doors, i.e. most players will find the pit trap with a roll of 1 on a d6, thieves, elves, and dwarves would spot in with a roll of 1-2d6.

Under 3e it would be a normal difficulty requiring a DC 20 Search check. Intelligence Attribute bonuses and Search skills modifiers apply. Elves get +2, Half-elves get +1, and Dwarves get a +2 racial modifier if the pit is cut into stone.

If the guy on point spots the trap, then the whole crew gets an opportunity to disarm it (if the point guy decides to warn the rest of the party), otherwise the point guy triggers (and is caught) in the trap... and falls into the pit.

Quote from: everloss;707800It was a bit of culture shock when I first met other gamers who had to have rules for everything. If the game designer didn't figuratively use finger puppets to explain everything that a decent GM with common sense could figure out and rule on, then the game was "broken."

I generally only hear people say that who started playing games in the 2000s. It's probably a generational thing, as older games weren't preoccupied with rules, while newer games are. People are comfortable around what they are familiar with.

I don't know if this is strictly a generational thing.

Back in the day, I knew a few individuals who griped frequently about this sort of thing.  For the most part, they stopped playing D&D and other tabletop rpg games altogether.  I don't know what other hobbies they moved on to subsequently.

That's why you carry a spear, or a ten foot pole. If the GM screams, "you don't KNOW there's a trap there! You haven't even rolled," that's when you jab the spot from a safe distance.

If the pitfall trap suddenly turns into a pressure plate that summons balors, you know it's time to find a new GM.

Quote from: jibbajibba;707805Again not generational it was always thus.
Some people want to play Dave and Fred exploring the local caverns some want to play Lord David and St Frederick exploring the outer planes of existance.

We all know tales from D&D lore of old where players have Balrog PCs or Vampire PCs .... some people want more power justthe way of it.

Fine, I'll admit munchkins have existed since forever.
My point is though...that if you have Regeneration as a fighter 2nd level utility power or your rogue can crossbow everyone within 30ft as a standard action its much trickier to judge what a character can or can't do.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707813Yeah "an idea of what's reasonably possible" has pretty much always been a problem. Wizards and Dragons don't exist in reality so it's hard to say what's "reasonably possible" for them.

Heck speaking to the power level thing, D&Ds level scaling has basically always been far more bananas then most people assume. In AD&D you're 8th level fighter is a superhero, that's literally the official title for a fighter of his level. Then he can potentially level up 20 more times.

Wizards have always have fairly detailed rules for that reason.
The level titles date back to Chainmail, but past 9th level its only +3 hit points per level and some minor perks (e.g. better to-hit and saves), and at a huge cost in XP.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707813Yeah "an idea of what's reasonably possible" has pretty much always been a problem. Wizards and Dragons don't exist in reality so it's hard to say what's "reasonably possible" for them.

That's why from the start RPGs have had magic systems and stats for Dragons. I'm confused, are you mixing up RnR with freestyle play?

QuoteHeck speaking to the power level thing, D&Ds level scaling has basically always been far more bananas then most people assume. In AD&D you're 8th level fighter is a superhero, that's literally the official title for a fighter of his level. Then he can potentially level up 20 more times.

"Superhero" meaning Conan or Batman though, not Green Lantern. And it's literally just a title. Are there any actual rules that make the character at 8th level more excessively powerful in that edition than any other?

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707756The position I'm arguing against is that having PC be able work within the rules at all is badwrong and anyone who thinks that should be a thing is the cancer killing TTRPGs.

Yeah, back in Symbolic Logic 101, they call that a "straw man argument."  Look it up.  This kind of perpetual bullshit is one of the many reasons you're on a lot of Ignore lists.

Back to making sense ...

I've mulled over Haffrung's "One of the ugliest things about the modern approach to RPGs is the notion that players are entitled to have a GM who runs the game the way they like" statement, and I couldn't disagree more.  I think this is a beautiful thing.  Players ARE entitled to play with GMs who run the games they like, the same way that GMs are entitled to run the games they like, and have players at their table who buy into them.  

I play RPGs as a hobby.  This is my leisure, fun time.  I am not a public utility, I already do enough community service through helping with the regional Community Meals program.  I am required to cater to no one, I very much don't believe in "Bad gaming is better than no gaming," and I decline to put up with a game on either end of the dice which pisses me off.

That being said, yeah, put me down as being on the side of "Old School = low entropy is total bullshit."  I have a quote for you.

QuoteThis volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the "Monty Hall" DM's.  Perhaps now some of the 'giveaway' campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are.  This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters.  When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th level Lord seriously?

That's from the foreword to the original Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes.  At the time Tim Kask wrote that foreword, D&D had been in print less than two years.

Of course, we know what happened; it wasn't that the high-power campaigns all said "Omigawd, we've been so horribly wrong!" and threw their magic item bins away.  It's that they started to brag around their gaming tables "Dude, like, man, last session we went to ASGARD, and we ran into ODIN, and we like smacked that guy UP and made him beg for his life on his knees!!!"

[/COLOR]

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707756No I don't because that's not what's on the table. My proposition is actually the middle ground where player have things they can do within the rules and going outside the rules and into GM ruling territory is still possible. The position I'm arguing against is that having PC be able work within the rules at all is badwrong and anyone who thinks that should be a thing is the cancer killing TTRPGs.

Players do have things they can do within the rules, even in old school gaming.

Last night I DMed an OD&D session. The players had defeated some cultists and were searching their hideout caves. The dwarf had the ability to detect unusual stonework and so found the iron box of treasure under the altar. The elf was great at detecting secret doors and found the one made from a fake piece of wall just by moving past it.

Likewise a normal stuck door will open on a 1-2 on a d6, and so on. These are actual game rules that grant players certain chances to do things. The players used the abilities that they had and no badwrongfun was had.

The lack of a lot of pre-defined moves is also an incentive for players do to clever fun stuff that they might not consider if they are constantly staring at a list of semi-reliable menu options.

Earlier in the adventure the dwarf and elf had released some captives and sent them out with a hireling to escort them home. They then searched the small temple cave with the altar. The elf walked straight toward the altar, seeing the glow of gems encrusted and somehow walked straight over a floor trap without triggering it. After pocketing two candelabras he made his way back toward the dwarf and triggered the trap!

A cage fell and trapped the elf while sounding the alarm. Both adventurers heard the sound of approaching footsteps so the dwarf ducked behind the altar and hid. The cultists came in cackling with delight at capturing an elf. The elf taunted the cultist cleric into a rage (all done via actual dialogue). 2 of the cultists went to check on the prisoners while the cleric and his other 2 cronies decided to teach the insolent elf a lesson. One cultist went to the wall by the entrance and tripped the counterweight raising the cage. Initiative was rolled and the fight began. The dwarf peeked and saw what was happening. He called for the elf to fall back, which he did. The evil cleric advanced on the elf swinging his mace.  The dwarf then rushed out and went for the trap trigger. I assigned the trigger an AC of 7. The dwarf hit it solidly and brought the cage down trapping the evil cleric.:)

Just because the game doesn't make use of a slew of pre-defined mechanical options doesn't mean there aren't things the players can do using the rules.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707793This is my argument

a) in order for "player skill" to be a thing "meaningful choices" have to be enabled. Or in other words what players chose to do has to directly lead to successes or failures.

b) in rulings heavy games meaningful choices are impossible because

c) the parameters of success and failure are determined on the spot by the GM in response to player declarations.

The analogy I usually use for this is the Monty Hall problem, if Monty get's to decide if the door contains a car or goat after you pick it then that decision obviously wasn't meaningful. That's how ruling based resolution works because your success or failure is more the result of how much the GM likes your decision than the decision itself.

Meaningful choice has depth beyond immediate success or failure in the campaign world. Often such choices are not binary in nature. Its not like every decision point is a right or wrong answer.

The DM who hasn't decided the possible outcomes of a player choice before the player decides is engaging in illusionism to some degree. If the DM decides that event X is going to happen IF trigger Y is tripped then player action that doesn't hit trigger Y should prevent event X. Deciding after the players have avoided trigger Y that event X is happening anyway is robbing the players of meaningful choice.

Your claim seems to be built on the assumption that any DM running an old school game is engaging in rampant illusionism. If that were the case, many of us would find ourselves without players.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;707901Players do have things they can do within the rules, even in old school gaming.

Last night I DMed an OD&D session. The players had defeated some cultists and were searching their hideout caves. The dwarf had the ability to detect unusual stonework and so found the iron box of treasure under the altar. The elf was great at detecting secret doors and found the one made from a fake piece of wall just by moving past it.

Likewise a normal stuck door will open on a 1-2 on a d6, and so on. These are actual game rules that grant players certain chances to do things. The players used the abilities that they had and no badwrongfun was had.

The lack of a lot of pre-defined moves is also an incentive for players do to clever fun stuff that they might not consider if they are constantly staring at a list of semi-reliable menu options.

Earlier in the adventure the dwarf and elf had released some captives and sent them out with a hireling to escort them home. They then searched the small temple cave with the altar. The elf walked straight toward the altar, seeing the glow of gems encrusted and somehow walked straight over a floor trap without triggering it. After pocketing two candelabras he made his way back toward the dwarf and triggered the trap!

A cage fell and trapped the elf while sounding the alarm. Both adventurers heard the sound of approaching footsteps so the dwarf ducked behind the altar and hid. The cultists came in cackling with delight at capturing an elf. The elf taunted the cultist cleric into a rage (all done via actual dialogue). 2 of the cultists went to check on the prisoners while the cleric and his other 2 cronies decided to teach the insolent elf a lesson. One cultist went to the wall by the entrance and tripped the counterweight raising the cage. Initiative was rolled and the fight began. The dwarf peeked and saw what was happening. He called for the elf to fall back, which he did. The evil cleric advanced on the elf swinging his mace.  The dwarf then rushed out and went for the trap trigger. I assigned the trigger an AC of 7. The dwarf hit it solidly and brought the cage down trapping the evil cleric.:)

Just because the game doesn't make use of a slew of pre-defined mechanical options doesn't mean there aren't things the players can do using the rules.



Meaningful choice has depth beyond immediate success or failure in the campaign world. Often such choices are not binary in nature. Its not like every decision point is a right or wrong answer.

The DM who hasn't decided the possible outcomes of a player choice before the player decides is engaging in illusionism to some degree. If the DM decides that event X is going to happen IF trigger Y is tripped then player action that doesn't hit trigger Y should prevent event X. Deciding after the players have avoided trigger Y that event X is happening anyway is robbing the players of meaningful choice.

Your claim seems to be built on the assumption that any DM running an old school game is engaging in rampant illusionism. If that were the case, many of us would find ourselves without players.

OMG!!!

Did you let the Dwarf Hide@ without the hide skill!?!

Badwrong!

Just because there was a stone altar there, and anyone can get behind it....

You cheating GM!!!




Sounds like a great game!

Quote from: everloss;707800I didn't grow up playing old school DnD, or fantasy games for that matter, but the conventions explained in the Old School Primer is how I learned to play the games I did play back in the day.

It was a bit of culture shock when I first met other gamers who had to have rules for everything. If the game designer didn't figuratively use finger puppets to explain everything that a decent GM with common sense could figure out and rule on, then the game was "broken."

I generally only hear people say that who started playing games in the 2000s. It's probably a generational thing, as older games weren't preoccupied with rules, while newer games are. People are comfortable around what they are familiar with.

It is a generational thing because it is an educational thing.  As an employer it has been almost impossible to find young people to hire that can REALLY read & write, since ~1995.  If I don't have reminders flashed onto their computer screen every 5 minutes telling them to breathe I'd lose 20% of my staff daily.

Quote from: jibbajibba;707795it was always thus.

I don't recall systems being designed in the 80s to address player distrust of GMs. The solution to a game you didn't like was, as you said, starting your own game or playing with someone else. But judging by discussions on forums these days, and comments by designers themselves, the solution today is to design systems that give less latitude to the GM in order to make players happy. That's a fundamentally different approach to the idea that each table is different because each GM is different.

Quote from: Arduin;707923It is a generational thing because it is an educational thing.  As an employer it has been almost impossible to find young people to hire that can REALLY read & write, since ~1995.  If I don't have reminders flashed onto their computer screen every 5 minutes telling them to breathe I'd lose 20% of my staff daily.

Is this dependent on the education institutions that such young people have went through?

Whether a community college, ivy league, high ranking technical university (ie. MIT, Caltech, etc ...), private or state university, etc ...

Or is this independent of the educational institution(s) attended?

Quote from: Haffrung;707925I don't recall systems being designed in the 80s to address player distrust of GMs. The solution to a game you didn't like was, as you said, starting your own game or playing with someone else. But judging by discussions on forums these days, and comments by designers themselves, the solution today is to design systems that give less latitude to the GM in order to make players happy. That's a fundamentally different approach to the idea that each table is different because each GM is different.

Any game intended to be a fun social activity driven by the imagination of the participants that begins with the premise that the participants first goal is to shit on everyone else is doomed to fail.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707726Now you can say that you personally like playing that sort of game, but you can't claim it encourages player skill because player decisions don't actually matter.

It works consistently when the foundation of the referee decision is to describe and adjudicate as if the players were really there. If you marked down that the locale is a temperate forest glade and describe it as such the players will know that they won't find a cactus. Just as if they are at a desert oasis they are not going to find a sugar maple.

At some point the referee notes are not adequate to cover some detail the player wants to know or use. At which point you assign some random chance that it will be there. For example a rock of a given size or a branch of a given size.

Quote from: Haffrung;707925I don't recall systems being designed in the 80s to address player distrust of GMs. The solution to a game you didn't like was, as you said, starting your own game or playing with someone else. But judging by discussions on forums these days, and comments by designers themselves, the solution today is to design systems that give less latitude to the GM in order to make players happy. That's a fundamentally different approach to the idea that each table is different because each GM is different.

True. That latter school of RPG design can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: ggroy;707926Is this dependent on the education institutions such young people have went through?

Whether a community college, ivy league, high ranking technical university (ie. MIT, Caltech, etc ...), private or state university, etc ...

Or is this independent of institution attended?

If they had obtained a private primary EDU we don't encounter these problems nearly as often.  Post secondary EDU seems to have little bearing on the matter (excepting purely technical acumen).  Although, I did not encounter this phenomenon with the two Service Academy Grads I hired...

So, the irreversible problem apparently stems from a wholly inadequate primary education.  The foundation, as it were, is made of sand.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;707901Players do have things they can do within the rules, even in old school gaming.

Last night I DMed an OD&D session. The players had defeated some cultists and were searching their hideout caves. The dwarf had the ability to detect unusual stonework and so found the iron box of treasure under the altar. The elf was great at detecting secret doors and found the one made from a fake piece of wall just by moving past it.

Likewise a normal stuck door will open on a 1-2 on a d6, and so on. These are actual game rules that grant players certain chances to do things. The players used the abilities that they had and no badwrongfun was had.

The lack of a lot of pre-defined moves is also an incentive for players do to clever fun stuff that they might not consider if they are constantly staring at a list of semi-reliable menu options.

Earlier in the adventure the dwarf and elf had released some captives and sent them out with a hireling to escort them home. They then searched the small temple cave with the altar. The elf walked straight toward the altar, seeing the glow of gems encrusted and somehow walked straight over a floor trap without triggering it. After pocketing two candelabras he made his way back toward the dwarf and triggered the trap!

A cage fell and trapped the elf while sounding the alarm. Both adventurers heard the sound of approaching footsteps so the dwarf ducked behind the altar and hid. The cultists came in cackling with delight at capturing an elf. The elf taunted the cultist cleric into a rage (all done via actual dialogue). 2 of the cultists went to check on the prisoners while the cleric and his other 2 cronies decided to teach the insolent elf a lesson. One cultist went to the wall by the entrance and tripped the counterweight raising the cage. Initiative was rolled and the fight began. The dwarf peeked and saw what was happening. He called for the elf to fall back, which he did. The evil cleric advanced on the elf swinging his mace.  The dwarf then rushed out and went for the trap trigger. I assigned the trigger an AC of 7. The dwarf hit it solidly and brought the cage down trapping the evil cleric.:)

Just because the game doesn't make use of a slew of pre-defined mechanical options doesn't mean there aren't things the players can do using the rules.



Meaningful choice has depth beyond immediate success or failure in the campaign world. Often such choices are not binary in nature. Its not like every decision point is a right or wrong answer.

The DM who hasn't decided the possible outcomes of a player choice before the player decides is engaging in illusionism to some degree. If the DM decides that event X is going to happen IF trigger Y is tripped then player action that doesn't hit trigger Y should prevent event X. Deciding after the players have avoided trigger Y that event X is happening anyway is robbing the players of meaningful choice.

Your claim seems to be built on the assumption that any DM running an old school game is engaging in rampant illusionism. If that were the case, many of us would find ourselves without players.

Quote from: Bill;707916OMG!!!

Did you let the Dwarf Hide@ without the hide skill!?!

Badwrong!

Just because there was a stone altar there, and anyone can get behind it....

You cheating GM!!!

Terrible GM badwrongfunning people with his MTP bullshit!!!

Quote from: Bill;707916Sounds like a great game!

It does. :D

Quote from: Arduin;707931If they had obtained a private primary EDU we don't encounter these problems nearly as often.  Post secondary EDU seems to have little bearing on the matter (excepting purely technical acumen).

When I use to be an ivory tower dweller, I noticed a gradual decline of the technical acumen of freshman students.

As time went on, it seemed like many freshman engineering majors were having more and more trouble with stuff that should have been covered in high school level math.  Stuff like basic geometry, trigonometry, manipulating equations, etc ...

For example, students were still writing stuff like (A+B)^2 = A^2 + B^2

Towards the end of my time in the ivory tower, there were students writing stuff like 1/2 + 1/3 = 1/5

:banghead:

Quote from: Arduin;707931If they had obtained a private primary EDU we don't encounter these problems nearly as often.  Post secondary EDU seems to have little bearing on the matter (excepting purely technical acumen).

So, the irreversible problem apparently stems from a wholly inadequate primary education. The foundation, as it were, is made of sand.

When I use to be an ivory tower dweller, I noticed a gradual decline of the technical acumen of freshman students.

As time went on, it seemed like many freshman engineering majors were having more and more trouble with stuff that should have been covered in high school level math.  Stuff like basic geometry, trigonometry, manipulating equations, etc ...

For example, students were still writing stuff like (A+B)^2 = A^2 + B^2

Towards the end of my time in the ivory tower, there were students writing stuff like 1/2 + 1/3 = 1/5

:banghead:

Quote from: ggroy;707938When I use to be an ivory tower dweller, I noticed a gradual decline of the technical acumen of freshman students.

As time went on, it seemed like many freshman engineering majors were having more and more trouble with stuff that should have been covered in high school level math.  Stuff like basic geometry, trigonometry, manipulating equations, etc ...

For example, students were still writing stuff like (A+B)^2 = A^2 + B^2

Towards the end of my time in the ivory tower, there were students writing stuff like 1/2 + 1/3 = 1/5

:banghead:

Yes, that gibes with the USA's crumbling ranking in Math/science vs. other countries.  It has been going down since the US Dept. of EDU was created.  I believe we are now ranked ~30th coupled with EDU spending ranked ~#2 worldwide.  Gov efficiency at its pinnacle.  :rotfl:

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707793This is my argument

a) in order for "player skill" to be a thing "meaningful choices" have to be enabled. Or in other words what players chose to do has to directly lead to successes or failures.

b) in rulings heavy games meaningful choices are impossible because

c) the parameters of success and failure are determined on the spot by the GM in response to player declarations.

The analogy I usually use for this is the Monty Hall problem, if Monty get's to decide if the door contains a car or goat after you pick it then that decision obviously wasn't meaningful. That's how ruling based resolution works because your success or failure is more the result of how much the GM likes your decision than the decision itself.

Your argument is wrong because your premises are wrong.  You're under the impression that the players say they're doing something and then the GM yells "GOTCHA!  MEANINGFUL CHOICE NEGATED."  In reality, the GM isn't an adversary to be conquered and he's not out to get you.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;707949Your argument is wrong because your premises are wrong.  You're under the impression that the players say they're doing something and then the GM yells "GOTCHA!  MEANINGFUL CHOICE NEGATED."  In reality, the GM isn't an adversary to be conquered and he's not out to get you.

gamerGeisha must have been raised by an abusive GM.  Hence everyone he encounters is a "GM" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument)

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;707949Your argument is wrong because your premises are wrong.  You're under the impression that the players say they're doing something and then the GM yells "GOTCHA!  MEANINGFUL CHOICE NEGATED."  In reality, the GM isn't an adversary to be conquered and he's not out to get you.

If the GM hasn't made himself my adversary, then I shall exploit his weakness :cool:

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707793This is my argument

a) in order for "player skill" to be a thing "meaningful choices" have to be enabled. Or in other words what players chose to do has to directly lead to successes or failures.

b) in rulings heavy games meaningful choices are impossible because

c) the parameters of success and failure are determined on the spot by the GM in response to player declarations.

The analogy I usually use for this is the Monty Hall problem, if Monty get's to decide if the door contains a car or goat after you pick it then that decision obviously wasn't meaningful. That's how ruling based resolution works because your success or failure is more the result of how much the GM likes your decision than the decision itself.

How is that a ruling?

You're obviously mixing up RvR with Illusionism, as your example clearly demonstrates

Quote from: TristramEvans;707965How is that a ruling?

You're obviously mixing up RvR with Illusionism, as your example clearly demonstrates

Quite. The reasoning behind this stance seems to be that the game mechanics ought to nullify the setting. No matter what circumstances are in play, rule # 40 says I get to do this if I roll a 15 or better.

Engaging the setting isn't meaningful if there aren't any fast/hard target numbers that can be analyzed beforehand to generate a probable "best" course of action for any given situation . The switch is set to 0 or 1, failure or success. Anything else beyond this binary input/output is MTP bullshit.

It would almost be like playing a game of lets pretend if you can even comprehend the futility of that? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;707949Your argument is wrong because your premises are wrong.  You're under the impression that the players say they're doing something and then the GM yells "GOTCHA!  MEANINGFUL CHOICE NEGATED."  In reality, the GM isn't an adversary to be conquered and he's not out to get you.

In particular, gG is missing out the bit where the GM says "OK, you'll need to roll (blah) to do it though, sure you wanna go ahead?" and the player either accepts because they think it's a good risk or decline because they don't like the odds.

Quote from: Warthur;707992In particular, gG is missing out the bit where the GM says "OK, you'll need to roll (blah) to do it though, sure you wanna go ahead?" and the player either accepts because they think it's a good risk or decline because they don't like the odds.

You do realize the example that the OP linked too involves Schrodingers goats.

QuoteWe enter this example in the middle of combat.
GM: "You're up on the ten-foot high ledge, and down below, the goblin is about to attack
Frank the Cleric."
John the Roguish: "I grasp my sword, blade downward, and leap off the ledge, driving
the sword blade deep into the goblin's back using the weight of my body and the fall to
cause tons of extra damage."
GM: "Seriously?"
John the Roguish" "Yeah."
Frank the Cleric: "Oh, hell, here we go again."
GM: [decides that he'll give John a to-hit roll. Success will let him get extra damage, but
failure will cause some sort of disaster.] "You leap off the ledge. Roll to hit."
John: "I rolled a 2."
GM: "Okay, you trip as you jump off the ledge and you get tangled up with the sword.
You knock the goblin down to the ground, but you don't land on your feet either. You're
both sprawled on the floor. Also, you may have hit yourself when you landed on the
goblin. Roll to hit again."
John: "I rolled a 15."
GM: "You stab yourself in the leg. Roll damage."
Frank the Cleric: "Roll high."
John the Roguish: "Screw you, Frank. I roll a 2."
GM: "Two points of damage, then. You don't take any falling damage, because the
goblin broke your fall. You're on the ground and so is he. Frank's standing there with
his mace, completely confused by what just happened."
Frank the Cleric: "While the goblin's sprawled on the ground, I slay him with a mighty
blow of my mace."
GM: "Roll to hit."
John the Roguish: "I don't see why I should be down on the ground."
GM: "You rolled a 2, that's a crappy roll, you got tangled in your sword, and you're on
the ground. You would have done double damage if you hit."
John the Roguish: "Where's that in the books?"
GM: "It's not. I just made it up. Frank, roll to hit."

In this example the GM is inventing negative consequences after the roll has been made.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;708008In this example the GM is inventing negative consequences after the roll has been made.

It be foolish to so BEFOREHAND as it may not be needed.  Adjudicating after the action is more efficient and sane...

YMMV if you live in the Spin Bin.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;708008In this example the GM is inventing negative consequences after the roll has been made.

IMHO the only thing missing was that this:

GM: [decides that he'll give John a to-hit roll. Success will let him get extra damage, but
failure will cause some sort of disaster.]

wasn't made clear if it was communicated to the player. If the player goes for it knowing that he could be completely badass on a success or get hurt and look really foolish on a failure and STILL wants to try then more power to him.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707793This is my argument

a) in order for "player skill" to be a thing "meaningful choices" have to be enabled. Or in other words what players chose to do has to directly lead to successes or failures.

b) in rulings heavy games meaningful choices are impossible because

c) the parameters of success and failure are determined on the spot by the GM in response to player declarations.

The analogy I usually use for this is the Monty Hall problem, if Monty get's to decide if the door contains a car or goat after you pick it then that decision obviously wasn't meaningful. That's how ruling based resolution works because your success or failure is more the result of how much the GM likes your decision than the decision itself.

You are assuming a bad and or stupid gm.

Many gm's are quite capable of making a ruling based on common sense or what is most likely to occur, and not based on 'what the gm likes'


I can make a ruling that allows a pc to humiliate my villans just fine.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;708024IMHO the only thing missing was that this:

GM: [decides that he'll give John a to-hit roll. Success will let him get extra damage, but
failure will cause some sort of disaster.]

wasn't made clear if it was communicated to the player. If the player goes for it knowing that he could be completely badass on a success or get hurt and look really foolish on a failure and STILL wants to try then more power to him.

If the player wasn't bright enough to realize that his PC could get messed up doing that maneuver, how is the player still alive walking around in the real world?

Quote from: Arduin;708030If the player wasn't bright enough to realize that his PC could get messed up doing that maneuver, how is the player still alive walking around in the real world?

Perhaps he had been playing shitloads of Rastan and thought it would work? ;)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;708039Perhaps he had been playing shitloads of Rastan and thought it would work? ;)

As in the Rastan arcade video game from 1987?

Quote from: gamerGoyf;708008In this example the GM is inventing negative
consequences after the roll has been made.

Is your arrow of time reversed or something?

QuoteGM: [decides that he'll give John a to-hit roll. Success will let him get extra damage, but  failure will cause some sort of disaster.] "You leap off the ledge. Roll to hit."

The essential decision to impose "something bad"  occurred before the roll. The GM waited until he saw the roll to decide how bad it was. Also considering the exact circumstances as he didn't impose falling damage which has rules in classic D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;708024wasn't made clear if it was communicated to the player. If the player goes for it knowing that he could be completely badass on a success or get hurt and look really foolish on a failure and STILL wants to try then more power to him.

I find it better to do this all the time.

GM: “You’re up on the ten-foot high ledge, and down below, the goblin is about to attack  Frank the Cleric.”
John the Roguish: “I grasp my sword, blade downward, and leap off the ledge, driving the sword blade deep into the goblin’s back using the weight of my body and the fall to cause tons of extra damage.”
GM:[decides that he’ll give John a to-hit roll. Success will let him get extra damage, but failure will cause some sort of disaster.]
GM: “You can do that but if you miss disaster will result. The lower the roll the worse it will be. But if you are successful it will be double damage.”
John the Roguish: ”Well I only need a 9 to hit I do it.”
Frank the Cleric: “Oh, hell, here we go again.”
GM: “You leap off the ledge. Roll to hit.”

It is an important way of minimizing the complaints you get later in the example.

The most important method is to establish a good reputation as a fair referee.

Quote from: estar;708051I find it better to do this all the time.

GM: "You're up on the ten-foot high ledge, and down below, the goblin is about to attack  Frank the Cleric."
John the Roguish: "I grasp my sword, blade downward, and leap off the ledge, driving the sword blade deep into the goblin's back using the weight of my body and the fall to cause tons of extra damage."
GM:[decides that he'll give John a to-hit roll. Success will let him get extra damage, but failure will cause some sort of disaster.]
GM: "You can do that but if you miss disaster will result. The lower the roll the worse it will be. But if you are successful it will be double damage."
John the Roguish: "Well I only need a 9 to hit I do it."
Frank the Cleric: "Oh, hell, here we go again."
GM: "You leap off the ledge. Roll to hit."

It is an important way of minimizing the complaints you get later in the example.

The most important method is to establish a good reputation as a fair referee.

That would have worked well in a recent game I was dming. A player wanted his character to leap on the back of a Belbelith spider demon and hack at it, avoiding its legs. The player figured it could not attack someone on its back.

I let him leap and attack it, and because it can teleport he could not stay on its back, so nothing fancy was required.

Quote from: ggroy;708043As in the Rastan arcade video game from 1987?

That would be the one. Downward jumping attacks with flaming sword FTW!!! :D

Quote from: Bill;708028Many gm's are quite capable of making a ruling based on common sense or what is most likely to occur, and not based on 'what the gm likes'.

You're assuming there a vast and meaningful difference what the GM thinks is common sense and what the GM likes, that's usually not the case when you're dealing with real people.

Personally I prefer play the gaming to playing the Game Master.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;708121You're assuming there a vast and meaningful difference what the GM thinks is common sense and what the GM likes, that's usually not the case when you're dealing with real people.

Personally I prefer play the gaming to playing the Game Master.

Groups who expect common sense outcomes will call out a GM who is just going with what he likes.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;708121You're assuming there a vast and meaningful difference what the GM thinks is common sense and what the GM likes, that's usually not the case when you're dealing with real people.

Personally I prefer play the gaming to playing the Game Master.

You must have played with really terrible gms.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;708121You're assuming there a vast and meaningful difference what the GM thinks is common sense and what the GM likes, that's usually not the case when you're dealing with real people.

Personally I prefer play the gaming to playing the Game Master.

Actually, I believe the assumption made is that common sense is common.

While I have played with 1 (out of 25) GM whose grasp of common sense was...distorted, the other 24 GMs grasped common sense nicely.

Of course, I am under the impression that what you believe to be common sense is something other than that. This doesn't alter your message much, though, as outliers are more likely to be ruled upon in an inconsistent manner and many of the most important rulings when playing elves and wizards are likely to involve outlying activities.

At that point, a GM worth his salt is going to do his best to rule fairly and consistently. Of course, it is entirely within your rights to choose a system where the rules protect you.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;708008In this example the GM is inventing negative consequences after the roll has been made.

And?  Is it in any way an illogical consequence, one not following from the action the player took?

IOW, if you were to ask someone the possible results of doing that action, don't you think "screwing up the jump and falling down" would be on that list, and actually relatively high in terms of likelihood?  This isn't like the GM in question decided that on the way down the character tripped on the veil between worlds and summoned Cthulhu.

Again, the only way this in any way is harmful to a player's decision making power is if you define the ability to make 'meaningful decisions' as the ability to mathematically determine the optimal result.

I do agree, that the GM probably should have told the player how he was going to rule it before rolling.  But I don't think it's terrible in any way.

Quote from: Bill;708128You must have played with really terrible gms.

Yep.  I mean, I've played with bad GMs before.  I think we all have.  But the vast majority were OK people who were more than reasonable and used common sense.  And if they weren't, then someone else decided to GM instead.

I really don't get people who act like they are trapped with a shitty GM.  You have complete control as a member of that group to fix that.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;708121You're assuming there a vast and meaningful difference what the GM thinks is common sense and what the GM likes, that's usually not the case when you're dealing with real people.

Personally I prefer play the gaming to playing the Game Master.

Common sense will be shared by the group thus the "common". If the group is at odds constantly with the GM as to the definition of common sense the magic 8 ball says someone else will be running the game soon.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707726Now you can say that you personally like playing that sort of game, but you can't claim it encourages player skill because player decisions don't actually matter.

Missed this bit.
Generally a rule will give more 'reliable' results that a rule of course...if anything the results may be too knowable to the PCs i.e. metagameable.

However, I think what's being valued isn't necessarily 'player skill' so much as 'player engagement'. The theory being that players who are dealing with the game world as if they're characters in it, are engaging with the session on a deeper level than if they're mentally cross-referencing rules and processing numbers.

As another example of this, I was recently running the Undermountain dungeon using Savage Worlds, rather than the original AD&D. In retrospect I think one of the things that made it tiresome is that instead of getting the PCs to explain how they intend to examine room features or the like they were just making Notice checks, the rule (calling for a die roll) reducing some of the action to just die rolls, whereas making a ruling on whether they find things would needs more player description of what they're doing.

In any case, rulings vs. rules isn't quite as clearcut as people who prefer rulings doing so because they want to use illusionism or Oberoni Fallacy how great their favourite game system is. A reduction in consistency isn't necessarily that much because GMs do use data other than just rules to come up with an adjudication, but its a side effect rather than the intended effect.
A good part of it however is really debate over rules-lite vs. rules-heavy preference - a Your Mileage May Vary preference, rather than anything that can be objectively wrong- and another part of it is playstyle preference as to whether an RPG session is primarily thought of as just a game or more about exploring a virtual world.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;707662My reaction a few years ago would have been, "That's not fair!  How can the DM just decide whether he sees the trap or not?  This is terrible and bullshit."

The Old School Primer is a cancer. It is literally one of the worst pieces of gaming advice I have ever read. It is not only wrong most of the time, it manages to be wrong in a completely caustic fashion that obscures actual truth. It is particularly notable for the absolute stupidity of false equivalency, which I discuss at length here (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/3924/roleplaying-games/rules-vs-rulings).

As far as the passage in question is concerned: When a player states their intention to take a particular action, the GM must decide whether that action is:

a) Impossible;
b) Possible, but not certain; or
c) Trivial

A rulebook or the GM's previous rulings may provide guidance in making that decision, but it's ultimately an judgment call that every GM must make every single time an action is proposed. (In some cases, the GM makes that judgment call before play begins: For example, in assigning a given armor class to a goblin he is making a judgment call about the possibility or impossibility or triviality of damaging that goblin.)

The reason why the Old School Primer is so incredibly bad is that it compares a GM making a ruling that something is possible but not certain (and therefore makes a ruling about how to use the mechanics of the game to adjudicate the possibility) to a GM making a ruling that something is impossible and/or trivial (and therefore does not have to use the mechanics of the game to adjudicate the outcome). It then claims that the former is uniquely "new school" while the latter is uniquely "old school". But this, of course, is complete and utter bullshit.

Quote from: Haffrung;707925I don't recall systems being designed in the 80s to address player distrust of GMs. The solution to a game you didn't like was, as you said, starting your own game or playing with someone else. But judging by discussions on forums these days, and comments by designers themselves, the solution today is to design systems that give less latitude to the GM in order to make players happy. That's a fundamentally different approach to the idea that each table is different because each GM is different.

But when you go of and start your own game with your houserules that eliminate 'those sort of games' you are doing exactly the same thing. The only difference is that now those rules get written down and published,

Quote from: gamerGoyf;708121You're assuming there a vast and meaningful difference what the GM thinks is common sense and what the GM likes, that's usually not the case when you're dealing with real people.

Personally I prefer play the gaming to playing the Game Master.

So, do you think game designers are androids or something? I mean, why place implicit trust in a system designed by gamers but not gamers actually gaming?

The phrase "player skill" is something I find confusing. I'd associate skill with a game like chess, or videogames; specifically, games with a "win" condition.

Now, this is in line with what I understand as the primary gaming culture of the oft-referenced in this thread Gaming Den forums; namely, the concept of playing to the game, wherein role playing is seen as a secondary concern at best compared to the idea of crafting a superior (fighting) character mechanically and attempting to "win" against the scenario, with antagonism represented et al by the GM.

This type of gaming, "Pretty Pony Show", is an alternative approach to RPGs that I largely don't see the point of, as the goals are better/more efficiently accomplished by videogames. I see very little relation between it and the RPGs Ive played nor what I understand about the origins of the hobby (if anything it seems a regression back towards wargaming, as far as the goals and purpose of play. This is emphasized by, bar none, every reference to and consideration regarding PCs referring to combat. 'Balance' is about combat ability, 'skill' is about the winning of combats, etc.

As someone who thinks the point of role-playing games is, well, role-playing, this seems unnecessarily limiting. It's not that I disapprove, people can get thier jollies however they like and it doesn't affect me an iota, but it often makes communication nigh impossible. Effectively, it seems to be a different hobby than the one Ive been involved with for a third of a century or so.

Quote from: TristramEvans;708245This type of gaming, "Pretty Pony Show", is an alternative approach to RPGs that I largely don't see the point of, as the goals are better/more efficiently accomplished by videogames.

Or, like, sports?

Yeah, RPGs have got to be the mushiest possible ground for someone to prove their competitive mettle. Except for, maybe, therapeutic painting or interpretive dance. Yoga, I don't know. I don't get it either.

All of my characters want to "win". It's a basic instinct of anything that lives and self-replicates. They want to take any step they can that will increase their chance of survival and prosperity.

Not all of them define "victory" in the same way. Different people want different things, are motivated by different things. That's where roleplaying comes in.

The problem seems to be that Goyf seems to be both convinced and fixated on the idea that the DM in those examples is Schrodinger Monty Haulling the player. To the point of totally ignoring all evidence that the DM is not.

Now I personally do not agree with some of the examples in the article in question because they do not seem to take into account the degree of failure? A failed low roll of 2 seems to be a disaster even if it had been off by only 1?
That bugs me as it seems to show a lack of thought on the DM, or at least the writers part. Which is at odds with the article's whole idea of the DM thinking things through.

It's a very simple concept: the mechanical rules are not the sole relevant context in the game. Further, the needs of campaign and setting consistency will at times override the mechanics through rulings as the GM's judgment determines. Basically the games approve of GMs favoring certain contexts over others during overlap when it is deemed cohesively necessary.

This assumes trusting your GM to not cobble together some whimsical nightmare where all contexts are bankrupt of their own internal logic, let alone overlap. You cannot supplant all other RPG contexts with primacy to the mechanical one out of fear of being untethered into utter chaos. At some point there has to be a leap of faith with your fellow participants. Rules will never replace trust.

In the end folks it boils down to this. 1974 OD&D has at best a dozen or so hard fast rules for combat. If you want to run a campaign using this rules, what other techniques you have other than rulings?

"Oh but use a more modern system! Some would say. But that is missing the point which is that the group wants to play OD&D.

"Oh but it is going to suck because everything is at the whim of the referee!"

Yes that the consquence of OD&D. But many focus too much on the bad ones and forget that that there are good referee who are fair and  use common sense.

For the Old School Primer was instrumental in learning to run a fun OD&D campaign. I had mastered GURPS and other detailed RPGS and wanted to master the original game. The Primer help immensely but I can also say that it is a particular style that will not be suited for everybody. And for myself I greatly enjoy OD&D but I still run GURPS, Harnmaster, and other games of similar detail. And I don't plan to quit any time soon.

Quote from: Imp;708246Yeah, RPGs have got to be the mushiest possible ground for someone to prove their competitive mettle. Except for, maybe, therapeutic painting or interpretive dance. Yoga, I don't know. I don't get it either.

Competitive interpretive dance, hmm. Now that wrestling has been sidelined in the Olympics there's a chance to advocate this into the realm of sport. Breakdancer v. voguist v. pop locker v. glowstick ninja... all fighting for the gold. Solid gold. This idea needs an online petition!
:cool:

Quote from: Opaopajr;708275Competitive interpretive dance, hmm. Now that wrestling has been sidelined in the Olympics there's a chance to advocate this into the realm of sport. Breakdancer v. voguist v. pop locker v. glowstick ninja... all fighting for the gold. Solid gold. This idea needs an online petition!
:cool:

You could also make it a form of combat for rpg play a la Zoolander.

" They're Breakdance Fighting!"

:rotfl:

(adding Herbie Hancock to list of combat music artists)

Quote from: Haffrung;707691Thing is, I can't fathom playing an RPG with a referee I didn't trust to make sound judgements. I'd either GM myself, or not play.

Sweet Crom's hairy NUTSACK, yes!!!!!  If you don't trust the referee, DON'T PLAY WITH THE FUCKER!

That, plus "What happened when you, or the referee, were 14 does not constitute a need to change the rules of D&D" would blissfully eliminate about 90% of what's said on the Intarwebs about rpgs.

Quote from: TristramEvans;708245The phrase "player skill" is something I find confusing. I'd associate skill with a game like chess, or videogames; specifically, games with a "win" condition.

Now, this is in line with what I understand as the primary gaming culture of the oft-referenced in this thread Gaming Den forums; namely, the concept of playing to the game, wherein role playing is seen as a secondary concern at best compared to the idea of crafting a superior (fighting) character mechanically and attempting to "win" against the scenario, with antagonism represented et al by the GM.

That's a very narrow and thoroughly fuckwitted definition of player skill they gave you.

A big part of "player skill" was actually "being experienced in CHAINMAIL."  Of course you all had spears, and once in close melee the first rank switched to swords while the second rank fought with spears.

Another big part of "player skill" was listen and think.  There is a carved gargoyle head with a small lever inside the mouth.  What do you do?

Or "you run into the room full of gems.  You're standing in gems up to your ankles."

"I yell and scream and throw gems up in the air.  I'm rich."

"Yeah, it's more gems than you've ever seen.  You're standing in gems up to your shins."

Real example.  The player drowned in the gem-covered quicksand, ignoring "You're standing in gems up to your knees... your thighs... your hips... your waist..."

Listen, pay fucking attention, and THINK.  That's "player skill."

Quote from: Old Geezer;708282Listen, pay fucking attention, and THINK.  That's "player skill."

Sadly this kind of player skill is in decline. Some of the blame can fall on modern rpg design but not all of it.

Many modern rpgs are designed to mitigate (or eliminate) the effect of the actual ability of the player on the outcome of the game. This begins with the idea that every fucking bit of gameplay that means anything is mechanized with die rolls. This has the long term effect of training players to ignore what is happening until die rolls are called for.

The game world and what is taking place therein is "boring" until there is something to roll for because nothing of consequence can happen without making those rolls.

All of this horseshit is in the name of ensuring the the abilities of the character, and not the player determine success in the game.

Its a pretty good reason why players are so fond of fiddling with their phones or tablets instead of paying attention to the game because there IS no payoff to paying attention when EVERYTHING is going to boil down to "so what do I need to roll". Just focus in on those moments when you can have an actual impact on the game and watch Youtube the rest of the time.

This is why I prefer games that support both rulings, and the opportunity for player engagement and cleverness to have a significant effect on the outcome of a game.

Quote from: Old Geezer;708282That's a very narrow and thoroughly fuckwitted definition of player skill they gave you.

A big part of "player skill" was actually "being experienced in CHAINMAIL."  Of course you all had spears, and once in close melee the first rank switched to swords while the second rank fought with spears.

Another big part of "player skill" was listen and think.  There is a carved gargoyle head with a small lever inside the mouth.  What do you do?

Or "you run into the room full of gems.  You're standing in gems up to your ankles."

"I yell and scream and throw gems up in the air.  I'm rich."

"Yeah, it's more gems than you've ever seen.  You're standing in gems up to your shins."

Real example.  The player drowned in the gem-covered quicksand, ignoring "You're standing in gems up to your knees... your thighs... your hips... your waist..."

Listen, pay fucking attention, and THINK.  That's "player skill."

Indeed, though Im not sure skill is even necessary to describe it. I'd call that "player sense" myself, or simply being clever.

Quote from: TristramEvans;708334Indeed, though Im not sure skill is even necessary to describe it. I'd call that "player sense" myself, or simply being clever.

"Think like the DM" used to be a valid strategy in RPGs.

"I know Dave loves Grimtooths Traps and has been reading through it recently. So this place is likely loaded to the gills with insanely deadly deathtraps." It was.

"Jan just learned archery. Bet all those damn kobolds we heard are around here are armed with short bows today and we all get perforated..." They were. We did...

Quote from: Exploderwizard;708299Sadly this kind of player skill is in decline. Some of the blame can fall on modern rpg design but not all of it.

Many modern rpgs are designed to mitigate (or eliminate) the effect of the actual ability of the player on the outcome of the game. This begins with the idea that every fucking bit of gameplay that means anything is mechanized with die rolls. This has the long term effect of training players to ignore what is happening until die rolls are called for.

The game world and what is taking place therein is "boring" until there is something to roll for because nothing of consequence can happen without making those rolls.

All of this horseshit is in the name of ensuring the the abilities of the character, and not the player determine success in the game.

Its a pretty good reason why players are so fond of fiddling with their phones or tablets instead of paying attention to the game because there IS no payoff to paying attention when EVERYTHING is going to boil down to "so what do I need to roll". Just focus in on those moments when you can have an actual impact on the game and watch Youtube the rest of the time.

This is why I prefer games that support both rulings, and the opportunity for player engagement and cleverness to have a significant effect on the outcome of a game.

I agree with this analysis. I was very struck with the point made in the old school primer about how traps are dealt with in different editions. In 3e or 4e you have stuff like 'check for traps, OK you rolled 25, you find a poison needle next to the clatch on the chest'. In older editions, particularly prior to the introduction of the thief and his F/RT % chance, you have stuff like 'here is a full description of the chest, tell me exactly what you do, safe discovery of the needle is contingent on you telling me how you search'. Those are two fundamentally different ways of approaching a game.

Quote from: soviet;708448In older editions,
particularly prior to the introduction of the thief and his F/RT % chance,

As a point of reference in OD&D Greyhawk Supplement I, there was only Remove Traps ability for Thieves. There was no Find Traps which was handled the same as before. By describing what you are looking for.

This is not commonly known and one of the main reason why Matt Finch wrote about it in the Primer.

From Page 4.

QuoteBasic abilities are:
— open locks by picking or foiling magical closures
— remove small trap devices (such as poisoned needles)
— listen for noise behind closed doors
— move with great stealth
— filtch items and pick pockets
— hide in shadows
— strike silently from behind
— climb nearly sheer surfaces, upwards or downwards

Quote from: estar;708466As a point of reference in OD&D Greyhawk Supplement I, there was only Remove Traps ability for Thieves. There was no Find Traps which was handled the same as before. By describing what you are looking for.

This is not commonly and one of the main reason why Matt Finch wrote about it in the Primer.

It is an important distinction. In OD&D dwarves  have a chance to detect certain kinds of traps with a die roll.

Most characters need to engage in what the entitled players refer to as " pixel bitching" to discover hidden features about the environment. I prefer to call it engaging with the setting instead of the rules.

Seeing as how the game was designed to be about exploring the setting, reducing all of gameplay to a pass/fail die roll seems to be a whole lot more boring than pixel bitching IMHO.

Quote from: estar;708466As a point of reference in OD&D Greyhawk Supplement I, there was only Remove Traps ability for Thieves. There was no Find Traps which was handled the same as before. By describing what you are looking for.

This is not commonly and one of the main reason why Matt Finch wrote about it in the Primer.

From Page 4.

Ah! That's interesting, thanks.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;708467Most characters need to engage in what the entitled players refer to as " pixel bitching" to discover hidden features about the environment. I prefer to call it engaging with the setting instead of the rules.

A big influence on the whole "what are you aware of in your environment" issue is my experience playing NERO boffer LARP for 15 years.

1) By and large if you were looking for traps you found them. It didn't take 10 minutes per 10 feet but being cautious did add time.

2) When you failed to notice a trap you are personally distracted. Mostly because most of it was hurry up and wait. You get distracted, don't check and fucking trip over a unnoticed wire or pressure plate.

3) Rarely you just being a dumb-ass and arrogant. The most common situation was "Fuck it" and flip open the lid of the chest. BAM! Trap goes off.

4) However most of the "injuries" resulting from traps are from trying to disarm the damn things. Which in NERO was consider a physical activity. Granted the "traps" we dealt with were not the lethal D&D variety. Mostly they were various gadgets with a clear physical action that was considered the trigger. Stuff like marbles in a cup, trip wire buzzers, etc, etc. A couple years in, the trap hounds* had come up with some very ingenious mechanisms that could easily be setup but were a challenge to disarm.

Since then I incorporated my LARP experience into my rulings on traps. The result is that Traps are still a challenge, still something to watch out for, but not as tedious as the traditional approach.

*Trap Hounds, there was a type of player who lived to disarm a trap. The more complicated the better. I remember one encounter that was setup where a small cabin in the area used to run module adventures was packed with dozens of trap mechanism. The center of which was set a chest with some pretty valuable treasure.

When the first party tried, and failed to deal with it, nearly every Trap Hound at the event heard about and they were attracted to like a bear to honey. One did manage to disarm everything.

Quote from: Old Geezer;708282That's a very narrow and thoroughly fuckwitted definition of player skill they gave you.

A big part of "player skill" was actually "being experienced in CHAINMAIL."  Of course you all had spears, and once in close melee the first rank switched to swords while the second rank fought with spears.

Another big part of "player skill" was listen and think.  There is a carved gargoyle head with a small lever inside the mouth.  What do you do?

Or "you run into the room full of gems.  You're standing in gems up to your ankles."

"I yell and scream and throw gems up in the air.  I'm rich."

"Yeah, it's more gems than you've ever seen.  You're standing in gems up to your shins."

Real example.  The player drowned in the gem-covered quicksand, ignoring "You're standing in gems up to your knees... your thighs... your hips... your waist..."

Listen, pay fucking attention, and THINK.  That's "player skill."

I listened, paid attention to what you wrote and think, there has to be some stuff you have left out.

Gem-covered quicksand?  Is that quicksand with a layer of gems on top of it?
 If yes, how are the gems staying on top of the quicksand without sinking?  Ignoring that part, was the player informed that he was getting wet from sinking or was the group already wet from something else?

Quote from: estar;708475A big influence on the whole "what are you aware of in your environment" issue is my experience playing NERO boffer LARP for 15 years.

1) By and large if you were looking for traps you found them. It didn't take 10 minutes per 10 feet but being cautious did add time.

2) When you failed to notice a trap you are personally distracted. Mostly because most of it was hurry up and wait. You get distracted, don't check and fucking trip over a unnoticed wire or pressure plate.

3) Rarely you just being a dumb-ass and arrogant. The most common situation was "Fuck it" and flip open the lid of the chest. BAM! Trap goes off.

4) However most of the "injuries" resulting from traps are from trying to disarm the damn things. Which in NERO was consider a physical activity. Granted the "traps" we dealt with were not the lethal D&D variety. Mostly they were various gadgets with a clear physical action that was considered the trigger. Stuff like marbles in a cup, trip wire buzzers, etc, etc. A couple years in, the trap hounds* had come up with some very ingenious mechanisms that could easily be setup but were a challenge to disarm.

Since then I incorporated my LARP experience into my rulings on traps. The result is that Traps are still a challenge, still something to watch out for, but not as tedious as the traditional approach.

*Trap Hounds, there was a type of player who lived to disarm a trap. The more complicated the better. I remember one encounter that was setup where a small cabin in the area used to run module adventures was packed with dozens of trap mechanism. The center of which was set a chest with some pretty valuable treasure.

When the first party tried, and failed to deal with it, nearly every Trap Hound at the event heard about and they were attracted to like a bear to honey. One did manage to disarm everything.

Interesting take. I used to LARP in Darkon and there was much more combat than trap disarming.

I would say the approach to disarming a trap in a game would be more casual than in an actual life or death situation (for the character).

Quote from: Sommerjon;708476I listened, paid attention to what you wrote and think, there has to be some stuff you have left out.

Gem-covered quicksand?  Is that quicksand with a layer of gems on top of it?
 If yes, how are the gems staying on top of the quicksand without sinking?  Ignoring that part, was the player informed that he was getting wet from sinking or was the group already wet from something else?

I caught this as a pit so deep full of gems that the player sunk into it and suffocated before any other members of the party were aware the player was even in trouble. Just another reason splitting up the party, or letting one player get too far ahead on point.... is a baaaaad idea for party integrity.

In a scenario like this, as a GM, I would go into real time with the sinking player. He has, at most four minutes from the time he is chest deep in gems and realizes he is in trouble, until the time he dies. For three of those minutes, he/she will be completely immersed in gems, so any shouting or noise making will be muffled and unheard by any other party members more than 30' distant from the sinking player. During the last minute the player has to make a ST each round vs. Wisdom to keep from panicing and being unable to take any action at all during the round. Each successive round after the first in the last minute, a cumulative -1 penalty is imposed for the saving throw as the player is out of air and struggles to breath.

Quote from: estar;708475A big influence on the whole "what are you aware of in your environment" issue is my experience playing NERO boffer LARP for 15 years.

Most LARP traps though arent specifically designed to blend into the scenery or made by master trapsmiths. Though the picking or disarming mechanisms for LARP traps can be really interesting. Though I have not seen yet a newer LARP and suspect that the actual hiding of them has advanced some.

If some stereotyped situation comes up often enough, people tend to make up a rule for it.

"Level 1 to 3 hits against Mail and Shield 30% of the time, and a sword does 1d8 points of damage," is a familiar example. It's just a lot more convenient than the GM needing to reinvent everything from scratch every single combat round!

Even if something doesn't come up that much, but people are interested in getting into details, they may come up with some pretty extensive rules.

It doesn't follow that the same full set of methods must be applied all the time. We might, for instance, reserve hit location rules for important duels and use a general damage system for routine monster-bashing.

Even if the rules set is the size of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, situations are bound to come up that are not covered. Having more from which to extrapolate is generally helpful. Feeling obliged to look up and cross reference a lot of material is not helpful when keeping the game moving would be more conducive to fun!

A good GM knows when the Mark I Eyeball gives a better return on investment than rules-lawyering. Part of how one learns this is by listening to the players. A lot of problems I see people complaining about online seem to stem from people just not talking with each other.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;708467Most characters need to engage in what the entitled players refer to as " pixel bitching" to discover hidden features about the environment. I prefer to call it engaging with the setting instead of the rules.

"pixel bitching" originally meant that the graphical clues in a computer game were too low res and muddy to actually pick out what to click on, so you were forced to fall back on 'move cursor one pixel over, click, nope, repeat'.

Maybe some entitled players use "pixel bitching" to cover having to actually engage their brain in order to find a trap, but I would use it to describe a trap/puzzle that is "solved" by wearing a green hat, standing on one leg, singing a dirty limerick about a hedgehog, while levitating a butter churn with tenser's magic disk... none of this having been actually hinted at in game.

If PCs take the time to look for traps, I make it very likely they will find the trap. Here's why:

1. What the PCs do once they find a possible trap is often quite interesting and fun. Usually more fun than, "an arrow trap springs for 2D6 damage".

2.  I use Wandering Monsters and Timed Mission so if PCs spend time on a trap, there are consequences so PCs have to decide how careful they want to be versus how fast they want to deal with a dangerous zone.

Another metaphor besides "pixel bitching" would be Crap Parser Syndrome. Back in the early days of computer games, a lot of people put out text adventures with frustratingly limited -- sometimes absurdly so! -- flexibility in accepting commands. You'd know just what you wanted to do, but had to figure out what arcane phrasing was necessary (or that the program simply wouldn't let you do that thing).

Sometimes GMs can make communication similarly frustrating.

I think the most credible complaints about "pixel bitching" are those directed at GMs who come up with one solution and one solution alone to a problem that is pitched at the players, and shoot down any alternate solutions - even if there's absolutely no in-world reason why the alternatives the players thought up shouldn't work.

Quote from: GameDaddy;708565I caught this as a pit so deep full of gems that the player sunk into it and suffocated before any other members of the party were aware the player was even in trouble. Just another reason splitting up the party, or letting one player get too far ahead on point.... is a baaaaad idea for party integrity.

I think the point is that some things are going to be harder to perceive via listening to the GM than if you were actually there; a GM has to make reasonable allowances or you end up with PCs killing themselves by ramming into walls because they thought the door was North when its really West.

Quote from: Warthur;708582I think the most credible complaints about "pixel bitching" are those directed at GMs who come up with one solution and one solution alone to a problem that is pitched at the players, and shoot down any alternate solutions - even if there's absolutely no in-world reason why the alternatives the players thought up shouldn't work.

Sierra Syndrome...

Quote from: therealjcm;708572Maybe some entitled players use "pixel bitching" to cover having to actually engage their brain in order to find a trap, but I would use it to describe a trap/puzzle that is "solved" by wearing a green hat, standing on one leg, singing a dirty limerick about a hedgehog, while levitating a butter churn with tenser's magic disk... none of this having been actually hinted at in game.

:rotfl:

What an entertaining image.

The term gets slug around these days if the player has to actual describe what area of the room his character is searching instead of saying " I search the room taking 20".

Quote from: Omega;708570Most LARP traps though arent specifically designed to blend into the scenery or made by master trapsmiths. Though the picking or disarming mechanisms for LARP traps can be really interesting. Though I have not seen yet a newer LARP and suspect that the actual hiding of them has advanced some.

My experience was from the 90s. At the Pittsburgh NERO chapter and several other Northeast NERO chapters there were a handful of people who were noted for creating and hiding challenging traps that were also safe.

Aside from the being hidden part, NERO traps don't share much with real world counterparts. The main take away it NOTE what you DO about the traps. That part is unique to NERO Larp. The main take away is how people act when confronted with trapped filled mazes on a continual basis while adventuring with a small group.

In real life any trap filled dungeon will be subject to an expedition similar to how the Egyptian or Mesopotamian ruins were dealt with. You secure the area, setup up camp, and dig out the "dungeon".

This actually happened once in my campaign. The players went into the Tomb of Horrors by themselves. Managed to deal with with the demi-lich and realized the main treasure wasn't the pile of coins and items. But the area itself which was made of mithril and adamninite  However much of the dungeon was still "active" trap wise". So they contacted a friendly dwarven clan and made a deal to dig it out and to dismantle the dungeon. While the player's loyal troops guarded the area.

Quote from: GameDaddy;708565I caught this as a pit so deep full of gems that the player sunk into it and suffocated before any other members of the party were aware the player was even in trouble. Just another reason splitting up the party, or letting one player get too far ahead on point.... is a baaaaad idea for party integrity.

You attach that special word to this,
Magic

Then all is well.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;708585I think the point is that some things are going to be harder to perceive via listening to the GM than if you were actually there; a GM has to make reasonable allowances or you end up with PCs killing themselves by ramming into walls because they thought the door was North when its really West.

THIS is where a GM really has to pay attention and help the players and understand the artificial limits placed on the player therefore.  That and the gaps between the players knowledge and the PC's.  Example:  The city person who is playing a Ranger.  The GM can't let them make mistakes that a Ranger never would.

I don't use traps all that often, but when I do, I bait the trap with Dos Equis.

Stay observant, my friends.

Quote from: Bill;708781I don't use traps all that often, but when I do, I bait the trap with Dos Equis.

Stay observant, my friends.

Good idea. That's about all that beer is good for.  ;)

Quote from: Bill;708781I don't use traps all that often, but when I do, I bait the trap with Dos Equis.

Stay observant, my friends.

I use them very rarely.  Usually when the group comes across the trap, it has already been triggered long ago.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;708664The term gets slug around these days if the player has to actual describe what area of the room his character is searching instead of saying " I search the room taking 20".

That is probably what most people mean by it. But in the adventure games community the term came from it had nothing to do with player laziness and everything to do with poor presentation and nonsensical solutions.

Quote from: ggroy;707821I don't know if this is strictly a generational thing.

Back in the day, I knew a few individuals who griped frequently about this sort of thing.  For the most part, they stopped playing D&D and other tabletop rpg games altogether.  I don't know what other hobbies they moved on to subsequently.

Fair enough. A bad GM can ruin any game for anyone. I tried 2nd edition DnD with two seperate "bad" GMs. So I quit playing DnD altogether until 3 years ago.

We had a good demonstration of 'pixelbitching' in the other night's Pathfinder game as the cleric spent 5 minutes trying to find the exact square on the grid where he could do a Healing Surge and hit everyone but miss the elemental we were fighting. It was obvious there was some position where this would happen so I asked the GM, 'Can't we just say he found the spot, got the spell off and continue?'. His answer was, 'No, that's one of the downsides to using miniatures.'

Didn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Quote from: Arduin;708740THIS is where a GM really has to pay attention and help the players and understand the artificial limits placed on the player therefore.  That and the gaps between the players knowledge and the PC's.  Example:  The city person who is playing a Ranger.  The GM can't let them make mistakes that a Ranger never would.

I'm up for this. Remember though, that what the Ranger knows may, or may not, be shared with the rest of the party, depending on the relationships of all the other player characters with the Ranger.

...Also, any good GM will be able to adequately describe the scenario for the players, so that the players have at least some ideas how to best utilize the skills, spells, and talents of their character.

If all the players were in the same room as the luckless dude being swallowed by the magical pool of gems, then they could at least throw him a rope or something to slow his rate of sinking.

Likewise on the magic. There would likely be some evidence that this was no ordinary pool of gems, and the party magic-users should be wont to try various spells, such as dispel magic, anti-magic barrier, etc... to cancel the effects of the "magically enchanted" gems, especially if the mundane actions such as rope throwing, and grabbing the player, aren't working properly.

That Ranger example came up a while back while I was playing a Pathfinder Ranger. We had a mission to kill a giant bear that had been terrorizing the area.
In real life I've never hunted anything. My wilderness skills are zilch. I grew up in small town in the desert.

The GM however is an avid hunter.

It all ended up being a comedy of errors, including nearly being killed by our own traps. Lots of laughs, I enjoyed myself, But I certainly didn't feel as if my PC was all that effective... except for the bits where he used feats/skills and rolled well on the dice.
Afterward the GM told us what HE would have done... which was an option we players had discussed but decided it seemed like a bad idea.

I don't feel like the GM did a bad job. But it did leave me wandering how it could have gone better.

The player/character divide when it comes to knowledge and skills isn't that cut & dried. I agree that people are generally happier if they get to benefit from character knowledge that they, the players, don't have. But there are undoubtedly occasions when a player would rather make do with their own knowledge, e.g. as an exercise or display of acumen, or because it feels more immediate/immersive. One area for me would be that if I'm playing a commander of troops, I'd rather do my own strategy & tactics. Other people might not, preferring a "military leadership" roll and an abstract battle system.

The hazard in those cases is that the "weekend warrior" or "nature expert" might not really know as much as they think, or have a basically unresolvable difference of opinion with the GM about some esoteric but crucial detail.

Quote from: Arduin;708740THIS is where a GM really has to pay attention and help the players and understand the artificial limits placed on the player therefore.  That and the gaps between the players knowledge and the PC's.  Example:  The city person who is playing a Ranger.  The GM can't let them make mistakes that a Ranger never would.

Exactly.  I'm a veteran camper.  Few of my players have been outdoorsmen.  If I've got a bunch of folks with Survival-13, they know where not to camp, how to pitch for prevailing winds, how to spot good water, how to find game trails, how to start a fire in wet weather, all the basics, without me screwing with them.  They say, "We're looking to find the best possible camp in our next half-hour's worth of march," I give it to them.

That's like a GM playing "gotcha!" At some point with player v. PC knowledge divide the GM is responsible to make sure the player is informed enough to make sensible decisions (or at least it is delegated away to assumed competency). Sure the player has a part in asking questions too, but gross discrepancies -- like adding hemlock and death cap mushrooms to their own evening garden salad -- should be a conscientious player choice.

Quote from: Opaopajr;709688That's like a GM playing "gotcha!" At some point with player v. PC knowledge divide the GM is responsible to make sure the player is informed enough to make sensible decisions (or at least it is delegated away to assumed competency). Sure the player has a part in asking questions too, but gross discrepancies -- like adding hemlock and death cap mushrooms to their own evening garden salad -- should be a conscientious player choice.

You have to remember that the GM is the players only interface to the world. Either you assume the pcs are aware of stuff accordingto their skills or you explain it all to the players.

Every gm can't be perfect all the time.

Its easy to find flaws if you look; a gm can't be an expert in all fields.

So I think experience as a gm and flexability are key.

If a player corrects me about something I am clueless about, I find that helpful,and I adjust.

Adversarial crap is the kiss of death.

Yes, if the trust is there, players are a great resource for knowledge. And like everything, the saturation of detail is only as relevant as to keep things moving.