So in other words, you aren't even capable of understanding the conflict in the first place, but you've nonetheless nattered on through almost 200 posts now just to be a disagreeable jackass, because you have some kind of weird personal issue around GMs.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;360367I'm sorry, I don't really recognize genre as being at all synonymous with immersion or suspension of disbelief. "Genre emulation" always struck me as a really weird idea, and isn't something I grok.

Honestly, I find the idea of playing in the Star Wars universe kind of weird, anyway; I'm not really a fan of trying to play in settings we see in film or read about in books, because the very nature of the game is almost certain to not jive well - at least in a few situations - with the universe as presented in the original medium.

When I play in SW d20, I think of it as playing a d20 game that happens to be set in the SW universe, not as a SW game using d20 mechanics. That's an important distinction, and maybe my approach is different than the one you're coming from.

And this explains part of the big disconnect here...

The players I have in a Star Wars game do not want to game because of the rules mechanics, they want to play a Star Wars game in order to play in the setting of the Star Wars universe. I've run Star Wars games using both the WEG d6 and the WotC d20 rules, the rules were not as important to the Players as much as the setting was.

That you find rules more important than setting makes your stance in this thread musch more understandable to me, however I have not encountered that same stance to be the majority of Players that I have had in my setting-specific games.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;360350So you're telling me that you would interpret your ruling as only applying to situations where a live individual was on top of it, and not exploiting that ruling to devise other situations wherein someone was in contact with and/or near enough to an explosive device to warrant double damage?

That seems absurd. But then again, perhaps that's not what you meant.

Again: if the PCs can sneak an explosive in somewhere that an NPC would end up being in contact with it when it went off, I'd give them the benefit of a plan executed well (so long as they are, in fact, capable of executing it well and make the right rolls).

I think a part of the problem is the conception of "rolling for damage" in the first place, followed closely by hit points. For a long career of playing GURPS, for example, it has always bugged me that unless you roll REALLY high with some weapons, you can't penetrate certain armor types. I decided that a better way to deal with damage in a game (firearm damage, at least) would be to have weapons do a fixed amount of damage, then modify that based on a hit location and any armor protection. It only makes sense - if you fire a .45 ACP round at the same target and hit in the same place its going to do the same amount of damage every time, instead of being some range of 2-12 for example.

So, in effect, the damage system in GURPS takes me out of the RP aspect somewhat. Same in D&D with hit points, but to a lesser extent because that's just how the game is meant to be played - always has been - and GURPS is a more "realistic" system.

Taking this back to the grenade example, if you take a case of grenades and objectivly measure the damage done when you set them off (say, next to the carcass of a pig - fresh pig for each grenade) and compare the damage, it should be essentially the same for the entire batch, barring any duds. So there should be no "2d8+2" grenades, there should be "18 points of damage" grenades, modified by proximity and armor. If you unarmored and have 10 hit points, you will die, period. If you are further away or have better armor, you can walk away, possibly, but there is no randomness to the damage dealt by the weapon.

I think the above suggestions would take a lot of the die rolling out of combat, and therefore help remove some of the disconnect, no matter the system being used. IMO, of course.

Quote from: jeff37923;360364Sure. By following the RAW for d20 Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook you end up with situations whose results do not emulate the genre, in this case a character surviving smothering a grenade without some extraordinary extenuating circumstances has more in common with the superhero genre than the Star Wars universe.

Is that specific enough, or do you want an example that would allow you to dissemble more?

I don't have the rulebook in question.  However, I think this is a bit deceptive - because I feel that as GM it would be my job to describe the circumstances.  

In an abstract damage system like D20, it is easy to have completely unbelievable results.  That is, I just have to describe every bit of damage as being a full-on direct hit with no extenuating circumstances.  If a character falls from a height, say, then I describe him falling straight and landing on his head - and then he dusts himself off and walks away.  That sounds stupid.  However, as GM I can describe there being a flagpole or trees being there to break his fall or other circumstances, and him limping away painfully.  

There are times when this breaks down - D&D hit points have always been rather inconsistent in that they talk about them representing luck, but they are often treated as representing physical damage.  However, that's more of a long-term issue.  For a given event like the grenade, I as GM can describe extraordinary circumstances that allow the character to survive.

Quote from: jeff37923;360364Sure. By following the RAW for d20 Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook you end up with situations whose results do not emulate the genre, in this case a character surviving smothering a grenade without some extraordinary extenuating circumstances has more in common with the superhero genre than the Star Wars universe.

That's a really good expression of the issue, IMO.
Coming up with a quick judgement that smothering the grenade would do twice the damage would seem completely fair to me, not adversarial, because outside of a superhero/cartoon game, if my character jumps on a grenade it's an act of self-sacrifice. Killing me would support my intention.
But I could easily be at the table with another player who wouldn't feel that way. He thinks he can pull off a 'cool move' within the rules and remain game-functional. Since his intention isn't self-sacrifice he might see the ruling as adversarial...
Both of us have an argument that our intention is within the setting's tropes.

So, should the ruling take the player's intention into account to support his roleplaying?

Quote from: jibbajibba;360277The idea that the game world physics need to be totally governed by the rules and that a system with light sabres and FTL drives is inherently illogical does not fly becuase these things are internally consistent with the Star Wars universe.

That's kind of the point, though. Star Wars grenades are internally consistent with the Star Wars universe. Star Wars grenades are inconsistent with our real world, but who cares? Lightsabers and FTL drives are inconsistent with our real world.

Quote from: jibbajibba;360277The idea that the game system is wrong for the sort of games that people who don't want PCs to jump on greanades is also wrong as the system is trying to emulate Star Wars and I bet that if Han Solo had ever jumped on a grenade and smothered it without a helmet, or a storm trooper breastplate then he would have died.

Of course he wouldn't die. He's a hero in a movie. No one is rolling dice when writing a script.

Seanchai

Quote from: two_fishes;360288The idea that rules are the physics of the gameworld is fundamentally retarded because rules inevitably fail to accurately model reality...

They absolutely fail to model our reality. But they're usually not attempting to do so. Usually, they're attempting to model a fictional reality.

Seanchai

Quote from: Simlasa;360388That's a really good expression of the issue, IMO.

Eh. Star Wars is, basically, a superheroic setting. You have folks who are tougher and more capable than the average person. They have access to abilities and equipment beyond the grasp of average mortals. They run around taking on squads of goons and the occasional Big Bad. They save the day.

Seanchai

Quote from: J Arcane;360370So in other words, you aren't even capable of understanding the conflict in the first place, but you've nonetheless nattered on through almost 200 posts now just to be a disagreeable jackass, because you have some kind of weird personal issue around GMs.

Oh, I'm aware of the idea of genre emulation, and understand it to some degree (some of the basic ideas). It just isn't something that makes sense to me. Hence why I said "grok" and not "understand."

Honestly, I don't think of genre emulation as a thing that people do. It doesn't occur to me.

Quote from: jeffThe players I have in a Star Wars game do not want to game because of the rules mechanics, they want to play a Star Wars game in order to play in the setting of the Star Wars universe. I've run Star Wars games using both the WEG d6 and the WotC d20 rules, the rules were not as important to the Players as much as the setting was.

That you find rules more important than setting makes your stance in this thread musch more understandable to me, however I have not encountered that same stance to be the majority of Players that I have had in my setting-specific games.

I do find setting important, but I think you might be right, I probably hold the rules to be more important, at least when I'm sitting at the table as a player.

In my opinion, mechanics should always reflect flavor. If you're going for the feel of SW, then you should be using a rule set that reflects that feel, rather than d20 with a few modifications (and I'm not familiar with WEG d6 SW, so I can't speak to that). I make my character decisions off of the rule set, because that is what I understand to be the physics we're working with; I rarely, if ever, take source material (like the films, in SW's case) into account. Perhaps as background knowledge, but certainly not anything like "genre."

Quote from: WarthurAgain: if the PCs can sneak an explosive in somewhere that an NPC would end up being in contact with it when it went off, I'd give them the benefit of a plan executed well (so long as they are, in fact, capable of executing it well and make the right rolls).

With proper timing, since they apparently don't go off right away, you could hold onto the grenade after activating it, then throw it such that it explodes about the time it's coming into physical contact with someone.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;360359As Kyle already stated, his stance as a GM hasn't lost him any players yet (at least not any players he cares to recall).

To be fair, it might have lost us one.

However, he was German, and new to the country. I think he found us all a bit vulgar and confrontational - but we're Australian, that's us. Also he was homosexual, and made his characters homosexual. We didn't care, which seemed to be a problem for him. His character backgrounds were always of the character suffering for his sexuality, in the two gameworlds we played in nobody cares so there's no drama there. I even had a bisexual NPC attracted to his gay PC and bring him chicken soup when he was sick.

I think there was not enough thespy angst for him. But it could have been "shut the fuck up and roll the dice," hard to say. Probably it was a combination of things.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaKyle, I'll give you the cap to this thread -- systems get in the way of roleplaying, and the GM is the arbiter to grease the connection between the two.

Works for me!

Quote from: jeff37923The players I have in a Star Wars game do not want to game because of the rules mechanics, they want to play a Star Wars game in order to play in the setting of the Star Wars universe.

Yes! Like I always say:

• people
• snacks
• setting
• system

in that order.

Quote from: werekoalaI think a part of the problem is the conception of "rolling for damage" in the first place, followed closely by hit points. [...]

I think the above suggestions would take a lot of the die rolling out of combat, and therefore help remove some of the disconnect, no matter the system being used.

Yes but rolling dice is fun. Players like to roll dice, even if it leads to some "WTF?!" moments. Because sometimes it's WTF-Stupid, but sometimes it's WTF-Awesome. Players will not give up the Stupid if they have to miss the Awesome.

Also, many of us feel that Stupid is sometimes Awesome.

I capitalised some of those words so I must be right.

Quote from: Seanchai;360404That's kind of the point, though. Star Wars grenades are internally consistent with the Star Wars universe. Star Wars grenades are inconsistent with our real world, but who cares? Lightsabers and FTL drives are inconsistent with our real world.

Of course he wouldn't die. He's a hero in a movie. No one is rolling dice when writing a script.

Seanchai

Sorry I must have expressed myself badly as you didn't get the point. In the film if Han Solo had fallen on a grenade and not died it would have broken the narative contract between the movie and the viewer. In effect it would have failed to emulate the genre. A game would be guilty of the same thing.

Quote from: jibbajibba;360410Sorry I must have expressed myself badly as you didn't get the point. In the film if Han Solo had fallen on a grenade and not died it would have broken the narative contract between the movie and the viewer. In effect it would have failed to emulate the genre. A game would be guilty of the same thing.

I dunno. What genre was being emulated ? I mean the whole Death Star chase where Solo chases the Storm Troopers into a deadend and they turn around, he shoots one of them (at close range) turns round and runs away....I mean if he can survive that....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Seanchai;360404That's kind of the point, though. Star Wars grenades are internally consistent with the Star Wars universe. Star Wars grenades are inconsistent with our real world, but who cares?

Seanchai

I find it astounding that this is being said by the same guy who tried to support his arguement earlier upthread with links to real world articles about people surviving grenade blasts (even if they died later).

Quote from: GnomeWorks;360407In my opinion, mechanics should always reflect flavor. If you're going for the feel of SW, then you should be using a rule set that reflects that feel, rather than d20 with a few modifications (and I'm not familiar with WEG d6 SW, so I can't speak to that).

Actually, the grenade incident was one of a few that brought me to the realization that the d20 Star Wars systems didn't emulate the Star Wars setting to my liking, and so I ditched that game system and went back to WEG d6 Star Wars.