Quote from: rgrove0172;1025721Cant say the GM did a great job in this case but the attitude expressed in this post always cracks me up. Then idea that somehow the RAW are golden

I don't have this idea at all. In fact if you look at my post history you'll find me mocking people who boldly proclaim how they follow AD&D1e rules to the letter. I say: "Tell me about the initiative rules." They're muddled and contradict themselves, so nobody was ever able to follow them. But this is not true of the subdual damage rule.

We have two possible situations here,

1. the game goes wrong, and you were following the rules, and
2. the game goes wrong, and you were not following the rules.

In the first case, there is something wrong with the rules. In the second there is not. I am simply pointing out that in the case presented in the original post, it's not the rules' fault that something stupid happened, it's the DM.

Spon did not "roll too well" in his AD&D1e game where he tried to knock someone out and accidentally killed them. It's just that his DM didn't know about subdual rules.

Suggesting that you get to know the basic rules before adding 1,000 different things from other sources isn't suggesting that the person requires some sort of holy mastery of the text. It's just common sense: start with the basics, build up. You add things because they're not in the basic rules, but if you don't even know the basic rules, how do you know what needs to be added? \

For example, trying to knock someone out and finding you accidentally killed them, in a realistic-themed game that's fine, in a game you want to be like comics and movies, that's terrible. So then if the rules don't have them, maybe you'd add something like subdual damage. So the DM could spend hours and hours coming up with subdual rules, or just turn to page so-and-so and go, "oh, there we go."

Spon's DM didn't need extra rules, he needed to make better use of the rules he already had. But of course, he was 16, so what do we expect. After much back and forth we discovered the real issue: the DM didn't know the system they were running.

In these discussions I try to address the issue the original poster brought up. Actually talking about the topic of the conversation rather than rehashing some argument with some person who isn't even here is, I realise, a radical act. But there you go.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1025723As to the specifics of this thread a "Crit" should indicate you did whatever you were trying to do extremely well. THE END.

For you, maybe. But presuming to have the last word is a tall order coming from someone who didn't allow a player to get a good glimpse at a stalker name, because it would spoil the narrative surprise:).

QuoteOnly an idiot would interpret an amazingly positive roll of the dice as a negative result in the game. Thats what failure and specifically 'fumbles' are for.

Doing amazingly well=/=achieving exactly what you want.
Doing something ill-advised extremely well means you do it so well nobody could fail to notice. Or you do it so well there's no way back.
It's a simple concept, really. I never thought anyone could fail to understand it;).

QuoteI try to charm the guard and roll a crit = he does exactly what I hoped he would, not that he falls in love and now follows me around causing a major pain in my ass.

Why the fuck not? You think charming a guard, as opposed to fast-talking him, is a good idea?
Yeah, I beg to differ:D!
Granted, I'd probably be less likely to have him fall in love, and more likely to see you as an errant child in need of protection...but that's up to the setting and character details.

Quote from: AsenRG;1025931Doing amazingly well=/=achieving exactly what you want.
Doing something ill-advised extremely well means you do it so well nobody could fail to notice. Or you do it so well there's no way back.
It's a simple concept, really. I never thought anyone could fail to understand it;).

I understand this point of view, but I don't quite agree with it. Why does "rolling the best you can" equate with "doing something ill-advised really well"?
I'd understand it in a system which had a "complications" die, or a "succeed with a cost" result. So I wasn't bothered in my third example. But the first 2 are solid trad games, there is no "succeed with consequence" rule built into the system. The system "breaks" are:
(optional fumble ->) fail -> succeed ( -> optional crit)
If "charming the guard" isn't such a good idea, you make it more difficult. Or you tell the player that if they fail/fumble something bad will happen. You don't say - hey you rolled a crit, I'm going to punish you for being so lucky.

1 and 3 are unreasonable.  1 should result in a KO guard period.

3 should result in a disabled shuttle. After the engines are disabled though, the shuttle should either move with its current speed in space or be forced to the ground with gravity on a planet. If on a planet, the resulting crash may cause their deaths depending on height from the surface. But in space, it is completely unreasonable unless their present course and speed would cause them to smash into an asteroid, moon, planet, or sun, crash into a larger ship, etc.

2 is reasonable. Taking out a tire causes the vehicle to unbalance and then the driver needs to compensate for that, failure to do so causes out of control which could result in sliding, skidding, flipping, etc. that could result in death. The explosion part is unrealistic though.

Quote from: spon;1025990I understand this point of view, but I don't quite agree with it. Why does "rolling the best you can" equate with "doing something ill-advised really well"?
I'd understand it in a system which had a "complications" die, or a "succeed with a cost" result. So I wasn't bothered in my third example. But the first 2 are solid trad games, there is no "succeed with consequence" rule built into the system. The system "breaks" are:
(optional fumble ->) fail -> succeed ( -> optional crit)
If "charming the guard" isn't such a good idea, you make it more difficult. Or you tell the player that if they fail/fumble something bad will happen. You don't say - hey you rolled a crit, I'm going to punish you for being so lucky.

Well I might, but I would try to notice and avoid if I was undermining a player's expectation about roll results first.

In The Fantasy Trip, for example, the rule for taking prisoners by beating on them is that you do half-damage but not enough to kill your target, unless you roll double or triple damage or a crippling hit (all of which are small flat chances), in which case it does full damage and can kill. But it's up-front in the rules, so assuming players can let go of certain die rolls needing to mean certain things, it works pretty well.

Quote from: spon;1025990I understand this point of view, but I don't quite agree with it. Why does "rolling the best you can" equate with "doing something ill-advised really well"?

It's the player who picks the ill-advised approach. And it might still work (it's ill-advised not boneheaded, and the distinction matters:p)!
But sometimes, it might work with a complication...due to you being too good at it. Why? Because me, as a Referee, decided so!

BTW, this seldom comes up. In fact, had the player picked an approach that's not ill-advised, the critical would have worked in his or her favor (as it usually does).

QuoteI'd understand it in a system which had a "complications" die, or a "succeed with a cost" result. So I wasn't bothered in my third example. But the first 2 are solid trad games, there is no "succeed with consequence" rule built into the system. The system "breaks" are:
(optional fumble ->) fail -> succeed ( -> optional crit)
If "charming the guard" isn't such a good idea, you make it more difficult. Or you tell the player that if they fail/fumble something bad will happen. You don't say - hey you rolled a crit, I'm going to punish you for being so lucky.

You've got the "trad systems" bit backwards, AFAICT:).
In most trad systems, the roll determines solely how good your attempt was. It's the Ref that says what follows from this.
In conflict resolution systems, things would work as you say (bad results only on a bad roll, good results get you what you wanted even if your actual skill wasn't good enough - like, shooting in an archery contest to impress a princess, you might impress her without winning the contest).

Also, a fumble, to me, means "you fail, and something bad happens". An ill-advised action means "you might succeed or not, but you're much more likely to make your life complicated in addition to that possible success". That's what charming this guard means.
Had it been completely bone-headed, I'd have done as you suggested:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;1025931Doing amazingly well=/=achieving exactly what you want.
Doing something ill-advised extremely well means you do it so well nobody could fail to notice. Or you do it so well there's no way back.
It's a simple concept, really. I never thought anyone could fail to understand it;).

Why are you punishing players for a random effect that they don't control?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1026044Why are you punishing players for a random effect that they don't control?

Yeah, I'm pretty much Barbarian King of the Random Roll, but I'm with you on this one, kid.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026049Yeah, I'm pretty much Barbarian King of the Random Roll, but I'm with you on this one, kid.

Et tu, Generalis gloriosa:D?

OK, I respect you enough to answer that.
Because that's the same logic that says "why are you punishing the players for your roll on the encounter table, followed by a bad roll on the Reaction table". It's not like they had any input in this, right:)?
Therefore, it's better to always give them level-appropriate encounters...right;)?

Second, because the players could have influenced it. They only had to pick an approach I didn't consider "ill-advised". (And yes, Cupcake, I know what you're going to say: Yes, I decide which approach is ill-advised and which isn't. It's called "being a Referee").

Third, because for some reason, I always see players trying to justify a less-than-appropriate approach that they have much higher stats for. Wonder how that happens...but well, in that case, I think making the additional negative result trigger if you "roll too well", is fully appropriate.

And for some reason, nobody who's ever played with me had ever complained about that particular approach. Only people who have never seen me running a game are persuaded it totally spoils my games.
Funny how that happens, too;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1026077Because that's the same logic that says "why are you punishing the players for your roll on the encounter table, followed by a bad roll on the Reaction table". It's not like they had any input in this, right:)?

To me it's more like saying  - roll a d20 and I'll consult the treasure table, the higher you roll, the better.
I rolled a 20
Oh, sorry, you rolled too well, have a magic item but it's cursed.

That's how it seems to me. Obviously not to you, but to each his own.

Cheers
Spon

Quote from: AsenRG;1026077Third, because for some reason, I always see players trying to justify a less-than-appropriate approach that they have much higher stats for. Wonder how that happens...but well, in that case, I think making the additional negative result trigger if you "roll too well", is fully appropriate.

On the other hand, I completely agree with this. But if I was GM, I'd probably hint that theirs wasn't the safest approach. ("You want to shoot the lock off the door with a bazooka? Ok ... you do realise it's a standard wooden front door, yes?")

Quote from: spon;1026084To me it's more like saying  - roll a d20 and I'll consult the treasure table, the higher you roll, the better.
I rolled a 20
Oh, sorry, you rolled too well, have a magic item but it's cursed.

That's how it seems to me. Obviously not to you, but to each his own.

Cheers
Spon

Do you also see a problem with blackjack, then? I mean, 21 is best, 25 sucks:)

Again, I see no problem with a "random magic weapon table" where 19 and 20 are the worse rolls.To me, that amounts to "roll as close to 18 as you can, but try to keep it under 18, with exactly equal to 18 means you move to legendary artefact sub-table".
Personally, I prefer blackjack-style mechanics. I also like Pendragon, which works as stated above, better than D&D, where higher is always better;).

Quote from: spon;1026085On the other hand, I completely agree with this. But if I was GM, I'd probably hint that theirs wasn't the safest approach. ("You want to shoot the lock off the door with a bazooka? Ok ... you do realise it's a standard wooden front door, yes?")

Sorry, but hinting doesn't always work.
"The door is wooden and that's overkill" is fine and straightforward.
"The signature you're imitating is the signature of the baron you killed the previous night, because you stole the documents from his desk, and these are his castle's guards (who would know the signature, or else the fake order wouldn't have worked) because you're in the frigging castle for a second night in a row, and you put today's date on the document", however? Then it's not my job to warn the players that what they're doing is, as I choose to put it, ill-advised. I just asked about each of those one by one, and told you the guards look vigilant, because hey. the baron was offed last night.

Had she at least made an average roll, the signature might have been illegible enough for the guards not to notice. But she had to roll 6+ successes, meaning a chef-d'oeuvre. And I asked her how clear she wanted the copied signature to be, and yes, she said she wants it as good a copy as possible.
And no, that wasn't even a roll on "forgery skill", where it would have made sense to warn the player the forgery sucks. It was a roll on the "painting" hobby skill.
Then there comes a point where my duty as Referee is to make the guards sucker-punch the wannabe ninja, while pretending to go along with the fake document:D!

1) Clearly (hopefully?) ... there is no material issue with the chances of results being mixed high/low if there is nothing in the math of the way the roll is done that assigns good/intentional results to high or low numbers. But there would be as soon as you did something that would make positive factors (like character ability level) increase the chance of negative outcomes, unless it's something like strength and the roll is for how much force you use, and there's no way around it being a problem to use too much force ... but in that case, the player should be able to say how much of their strength they use.

2) There's also an illusionary non-material issue with the whole "the player is trying to roll high (or low)" but some of the results are backwards thing, if there are no factors influencing the roll and it's a single-die roll. But even so, that upsets players because they tend to like the understanding of what their roll numbers should mean, and they like the illusion that they are doing something meaningful by rolling and reading the die themselves.

3) Also there is a possibility that a GM is doing something screwy (intentionally or not) by rolling dice without a solid idea what the results will mean, and then making up the interpretation in the moment, possibly creating a fiat "you're screwed despite your roll" situation, which is what it looks like when you think you should roll high and then you do and the GM says that it has a horrible result. Some GMs don't think through their mechanics, or are actually just being control-freaks forcing results. Some others may have actually thought through the results but given the players the wrong impression of what the roll numbers would mean.

Quote from: AsenRG;1026077Second, because the players could have influenced it. They only had to pick an approach I didn't consider "ill-advised". (And yes, Cupcake, I know what you're going to say: Yes, I decide which approach is ill-advised and which isn't. It's called "being a Referee").

Third, because for some reason, I always see players trying to justify a less-than-appropriate approach that they have much higher stats for. Wonder how that happens...but well, in that case, I think making the additional negative result trigger if you "roll too well", is fully appropriate.

QuoteSorry, but hinting doesn't always work.
"The door is wooden and that's overkill" is fine and straightforward.
"The signature you're imitating is the signature of the baron you killed the previous night, because you stole the documents from his desk, and these are his castle's guards (who would know the signature, or else the fake order wouldn't have worked) because you're in the frigging castle for a second night in a row, and you put today's date on the document", however? Then it's not my job to warn the players that what they're doing is, as I choose to put it, ill-advised. I just asked about each of those one by one, and told you the guards look vigilant, because hey. the baron was offed last night.

Had she at least made an average roll, the signature might have been illegible enough for the guards not to notice. But she had to roll 6+ successes, meaning a chef-d'oeuvre. And I asked her how clear she wanted the copied signature to be, and yes, she said she wants it as good a copy as possible.
And no, that wasn't even a roll on "forgery skill", where it would have made sense to warn the player the forgery sucks. It was a roll on the "painting" hobby skill.

This seems to be conflating some portion of players choosing to do foolish endeavors in the first place with how the roll mechanism is supposed to work. The two seem to be equally valid but completely separate concerns.

Quote from: AsenRG;1026095Do you also see a problem with blackjack, then? I mean, 21 is best, 25 sucks:)

Again, I see no problem with a "random magic weapon table" where 19 and 20 are the worse rolls.To me, that amounts to "roll as close to 18 as you can, but try to keep it under 18, with exactly equal to 18 means you move to legendary artefact sub-table".

Right, but in both those cases, you are using a mechanic that is not defined as "highest is best." Nor would anyone mistake a 25 in blackjack as a critical success. Random generator results (dice, cards, or otherwise) do not have to have an ordinal direction, and "really bad" absolutely can be right next to "really good" or anywhere else. What I believe the thread consensus is discussing, on the other hand, is something pre-described by the agreed-upon resolution mechanic to be a 'critical success,' to end in a result less optimal than a standard success.

Quote from: AsenRG;1026077Et tu, Generalis gloriosa:D?

OK, I respect you enough to answer that.
Because that's the same logic that says "why are you punishing the players for your roll on the encounter table, followed by a bad roll on the Reaction table". It's not like they had any input in this, right:)?
Therefore, it's better to always give them level-appropriate encounters...right;)?

Second, because the players could have influenced it. They only had to pick an approach I didn't consider "ill-advised". (And yes, Cupcake, I know what you're going to say: Yes, I decide which approach is ill-advised and which isn't. It's called "being a Referee").

Third, because for some reason, I always see players trying to justify a less-than-appropriate approach that they have much higher stats for. Wonder how that happens...but well, in that case, I think making the additional negative result trigger if you "roll too well", is fully appropriate.

And for some reason, nobody who's ever played with me had ever complained about that particular approach. Only people who have never seen me running a game are persuaded it totally spoils my games.
Funny how that happens, too;).

All this has nothing to do with players rolling 'too high'.  There's no logic in this statement.  What does having players rolling 'too high' when you roll too low or whatever?

Apparently you didn't understand my question.