DM YRRAH SINNED's Shattered Star Campaign (Inactive)

Game Master Dennis Harry

As said, we'll have to disagree.

You seem to see a huge difference between 'blank page' and 'coloring book' people.
I claim they are both extremes that are inferior compared to those who can do both.
Your Tripwire is a bad example, as well. There is no problem, ruleswise, in simply avoiding the trigger, if you know about it. That does not take a blank-page approach. If I know there's a pit, I don't have to step on it.
The challenge is in seeing the tripwire.
If everybody auto-succeeds in doing so, then that's a bad trap, is it not? It will be hidden, or placed in a way that makes it less obvious. Which is why, in Pathfinder, you roll a check to see if you notice it.

I dislike the "Trap Spotter" Rogue Talent as a 'Tax' for something that should be inherent and automatic in the first place. But yeah, I could be distracted and not notice the tripwire. That's life. Disarming it, that is, making sure whatever it is supposed to cause does not happen even if someone steps on the tripwire, is a different thing from simply avoiding the trigger.

So, yeah, the tripwire should have meaning. Otherwise, it simply is decoration. Much like a Fence supposed to keep wild animals away. Take 10 is a thing. You would auto-succeed in climbing most fences if you have the time to do so. Auto-Success is not a bad thing, and not everything requires rolls...surprisingly little does, effectively.

But much like your stereotypical coloring book people might get caught up in the little details, only ever seeing the possibilities offered by the mechanics at hand, there's the problem with the stereotypical blank page people being completely out of touch with what is going on by only focusing on the grand whole.
Just because the player knows how to make gunpowder does not mean their low intelligence bruiser who dropped out of school and grew up in a street gang knows how to make blackpowder(and without blowing himself up).
While the one 'cliche' only ever does what their character sheet says they can, the other cliche doesn't care about their character sheet and believe their character can do anything they can come up with.
You need a balance, you need people who can both focus on a smaller part of the whole, see the details, and keep the whole picture in mind at the same time.

Much like the game of Go. It doesn't help if you only look at the whole board, but fail to secure territory in local fights, nor does it help to win local fights, but lose track of the situation on the board as a whole. A balance is needed.

Ideally, a player has their blank page mindset, coming up with an idea of what they want to do, then filter it through the framework to see if that is something that has a in-game representation. If there is, then the rules attached to it should be used to determine outcome, rather than arbitrarily deciding the success or failure of one's actions on a whim. Because by skipping this step, it becomes meaningless what kind of character you built with the limited resources of ability points, skill points, etc... that are used to define which areas are important and define the person.
And by ignoring that, you enter a very slippery slope because by eroding some of the rules framework, the whole construct becomes unstable. And frankly, neither the system, nor the published adventures lend themselves well to complete free-form, so I'd rather not go there.

As said, your view and mileage may vary. I respect that. But to me, pure "blank pagers" are just as bad as pure "coloring book folks" because neither ever manages to see both the whole picture and the necessary details.

As said, your view and mileage may vary. I respect that. But to me, pure "blank pagers" are just as bad as pure "coloring book folks" because neither ever manages to see both the whole picture and the necessary details.

This isn't about what one sees or does. It is how one sees, like seeing through different colored lenses.

You need a balance,

You need balance for what? Gotta have a goal first, before you can start looking at what is needed. For example, I'm pretty sure a game of munchkin doesn't need your particular brand of balance.

rather than arbitrarily deciding the success or failure of one's actions on a whim.

And what is it called to say that stepping over a tripwire is an automatic success? It is so clearcut an action, that obviously succeeds, but can it really be called whim because the rules didn't explicitly cover it?

Because by skipping this step, it becomes meaningless what kind of character you built with the limited resources of ability points, skill points, etc...[-/-] And by ignoring that, you enter a very slippery slope because by eroding some of the rules framework, the whole construct becomes unstable.

You are making an assumption that the rules exist for some gamist like reason. If the rules exist solely for description and a bit of tension at appropriate moments, then no meaning is lost just because a situation didn't lend itself to tension or was in need of a better description.

You are a coloring book person. You are ascribing some high order importance to the rules as though they themselves are a primary part of the game rather than mere play aids, and then claiming that most any situation where a solution is used that doesn't use the rules, somehow entirely undermines their existance. That is because you are a coloring book person. It is how you look at the game, that for some probably shouldn't be called a game at all.

I would agree with Ran that generally the challenge of a trip wire is seeing it more than getting around it. But even in the real world, you wouldn't always be able to just step over it; who's to say there isn't a loose rock causing you trip? Or maybe there's a sudden loud noise nearby that distracts you and causes you to misplace your step. Or maybe you're just a clumsy person. Or maybe all that gear you're carrying gets in your way. There are a myriad of world reasons why stepping over the trip wire could fail. They're all very improbable or situational, so as a DM I would probably ignore them, but they do exist. If it were a situation where the probability of failure was higher, that, to me, is where a roll would come in to see what happens between these opposing forces.

The part where I start to get annoyed isn't when people want to use world logic to try to solve a problem; it's when they think their world logic explains why they should automatically get the outcome they wanted. The trip wire example is a little silly because the causes for failure I mentioned are fairly unlikely (unless perhaps your character has a low Dex and is in full plate or something), but I also think players tend to be biased in their thinking in that they're generally trying to come up with ways to succeed rather than ways they might fail. And attempting to balance ways you might succeed with ways you might fail is often what rules are trying to do. You want to kill the orc in front of you? Well hey, there's a rule on how to do that. You want to do this crazy, out-of-the-box thing? Well, there's no rule for it, so let me come up with an outcome or a rule/roll that I think makes sense.

Quote:

As said, your view and mileage may vary. I respect that. But to me, pure "blank pagers" are just as bad as pure "coloring book folks" because neither ever manages to see both the whole picture and the necessary details.

This isn't about what one sees or does. It is how one sees, like seeing through different colored lenses.

A simple matter of matter of perspective. That colored lens hides detail of it's own color, so by using a colored lens, you lose information while gaining a different view.

Quote:

You need a balance,

You need balance for what? Gotta have a goal first, before you can start looking at what is needed. For example, I'm pretty sure a game of munchkin doesn't need your particular brand of balance.

A balance as mentioned above. People stubbornly insisting on by-the-letter following of the rules are no fun. Neither are people who insist on completely handwaiving everything the rules contain. A middle-ground provides the balance needed to use the framework where it applies, and improvise or handwaive where it does not. The goal, then, is to find that middleground between having common grounds to operate on, based on setting, rules, and characters, and creativity to breath live into this world plus freedom to tell the characters story in an enjoyable way.

Quote:

rather than arbitrarily deciding the success or failure of one's actions on a whim.

And what is it called to say that stepping over a tripwire is an automatic success? It is so clearcut an action, that obviously succeeds, but can it really be called whim because the rules didn't explicitly cover it?

That is not a whim. It is explicitly covered. If you fail to see the tripwire, you fail to evade it. If you know the trigger is there, you can easily avoid it. There's no success involved. Same as making a campfire, you don't have to be afraid of accidently burning yourself to death. If you try to apply poison to a weapon? There is a failure chance if you are not used to poison use, and you could expose yourself to the poison.

Quote:

Because by skipping this step, it becomes meaningless what kind of character you built with the limited resources of ability points, skill points, etc...[-/-] And by ignoring that, you enter a very slippery slope because by eroding some of the rules framework, the whole construct becomes unstable.

You are making an assumption that the rules exist for some gamist like reason. If the rules exist solely for description and a bit of tension at appropriate moments, then no meaning is lost just because a situation didn't lend itself to tension or was in need of a better description.

You are a coloring book person. You are ascribing some high order importance to the rules as though they themselves are a primary part of the game rather than mere play aids, and then claiming that most any situation where a solution is used that doesn't use the rules, somehow entirely undermines their existance. That is because you are a coloring book person. It is how you look at the game, that for some probably shouldn't be called a game at all.

If you insist on calling me that, feel free. I can do both. As said, I enjoyed complete free-form games of various types, as well as middle-ground games that are rules-light.

instead of giving me labels that you seem to consider negatively.

I don't consider them negatively, I just don't feel you understand what I'm trying to say, which is rather normal, and that can get tiring, but how can I get better if I don't constantly practice?

This,

adapting to the system

and this,

[rules] are the basis of the framework...

and this,

those challenges depend on the rules to work.

are the things that make you a coloring book person. These quotes are a fundemental part of how you think, of the values and metrics by which you measure. Notice the complete lack of acceptance of rules being mere play aids. Your entire concept of playing d20 is built on the rules as a foundation, and narrative is something grown from that. A blamk page person has the reverse thinking, that the narrative is the foundation from which rules grow.

you simply assumed that due to the way you wrote it, it should autosucceed

I didn't actually assume this. What I figured was most likely was that I would roll a non-standard check and hopefully have a much better chance of dislodging or killing the stirge. As it was non-standard, I left it to the gm to decide what he was comfortable with in terms of resolving it.

The whole thing turns into a farce at that point where we're simply telling each other a story,

RPG, hello. That is in a way the design intent of d20. Including rules does not inherently change nor prohibit this.

and the GM has to go for arbitrary decisions himself to even challenge us in a meaningful way,

This only happens with godmodders (for whom the presence or absence of a system does not matter), or with people who see the game as something to "win." In fact, this problem is actually bigger in system games enforcing the rules. Take just about any MMO as an example. This effect is the reason you end up with PCs having a progression thag pretty much makes a difference of five levels results in very one-sided results, and a mere 10 lvls, results in a 100% same result everytime. This is from meeding to constantly up the ante.

but for a lot of games, [rules] are necessary to make things work in a fun way.

For true games, but despite the misnomer, d20 and several other systems are not designed to be games, they are instead, interactive experiences, an interactive form of a movie or book.

I don't consider them negatively, I just don't feel you understand what I'm trying to say, which is rather normal, and that can get tiring, but how can I get better if I don't constantly practice?

I did tell you I understand where you are coming from. I simply don't agree with your opinion. That does not mean I don't understand you, I simply have a different opinion. That, also, does not mean I cannot accept yours. All it means is I don't share it.

This,

Quote:

adapting to the system

and this,

Quote:

[rules] are the basis of the framework...

and this,

Quote:

those challenges depend on the rules to work.

are the things that make you a coloring book person. These quotes are a fundemental part of how you think, of the values and metrics by which you measure. Notice the complete lack of acceptance of rules being mere play aids. Your entire concept of playing d20 is built on the rules as a foundation, and narrative is something grown from that. A blamk page person has the reverse thinking, that the narrative is the foundation from which rules grow.

And that is where I disagree, because I am talking about the system, not about the person playing. And here I feel you have difficulty understanding what I am saying. There are systems more suited to narrative as a foundation, and systems more suited to rules playing a more important role.

Quote:

you simply assumed that due to the way you wrote it, it should autosucceed

I didn't actually assume this. What I figured was most likely was that I would roll a non-standard check and hopefully have a much better chance of dislodging or killing the stirge. As it was non-standard, I left it to the gm to decide what he was comfortable with in terms of resolving it.

So, basically what you are saying is that you were aware that there was a 'standard check' to use, but courtesy of using real-world logic, expected to get a "much better chance" in-game of success(or outright killing it).

Figured I'd just let the gm decide how to do it. The stirge can't move because it's plugged into, so it can't evade the wall, of course it couldn't evade the floor either yet the gm completely ignored the attempt, so who knows.

Personally, as a gm, I would say either the stirge is forced to let go to avoid the wall/floor or it takes some damage (i'd use an initiative check to see if it was fast enough to evade myself). But that is just me.
Think about it, a bug is latched onto your back so you slam your back into the floor. What happens? (there was even a stupid-humor movie that did it too.)

You did not assume, leaving the decision it to the GM, but at the same time offered advice on what you would do as GM.(which basically amounts to automatic success).

Quote:

The whole thing turns into a farce at that point where we're simply telling each other a story,

RPG, hello. That is in a way the design intent of d20. Including rules does not inherently change nor prohibit this.

The design intent of a game with a Dungeon Master/Game Master/Story Teller/whatever you want to call it, and a bunch of players is to experience a story together.

Quote:

and the GM has to go for arbitrary decisions himself to even challenge us in a meaningful way,

This only happens with godmodders (for whom the presence or absence of a system does not matter), or with people who see the game as something to "win." In fact, this problem is actually bigger in system games enforcing the rules. Take just about any MMO as an example. This effect is the reason you end up with PCs having a progression thag pretty much makes a difference of five levels results in very one-sided results, and a mere 10 lvls, results in a 100% same result everytime. This is from needing to constantly up the ante.

Not necessarily. It happens as soon as you have disagreeing views on something. If there is a challenge to be tackled, but one of us decides that it's easily done because the character can do this or that easily, but GM and or/other players think differently. Or if you find a FOOR or sequence breaking(oh, but I was invisible when I slit the big bad guys throat, he should die automatically). There's a tendency for players to want their characters to succeed at what they are doing. Did you provide an example yet where you arbitrarily failed at a challenge? That is, you could have succeeded but instead, and without rolling, decided that your character would fail? Psychologically and statistically speaking, the numbers would tend towards the characters succeeding more, especially in critical situations.

For true games, but despite the misnomer, d20 and several other systems are not designed to be games, they are instead, interactive experiences, an interactive form of a movie or book.

Yes. They are collaborative writing, a interactive experience, and a Sandbox. You can read a book by yourself, any way you want. Listen to music, turn down the lights, whatever.

Quote:

instead of giving me labels that you seem to consider negatively.

I don't consider them negatively, I just don't feel you understand what I'm trying to say

FWIW, your rhetoric in some of your previous posts also gives me the impression you think coloring book people are inferior to blank page people. But I assumed that wasn't your intended message, and it would make sense to interpret what I found negative as "I need to focus on these things because they're not understood."

Congrats. You've completed Part I.

Everyone head to Level 2!

Congrats. You've completed Part I.

Everyone head to Level 2!

Yay! Also, I'll need to dig through those past PM's before heading there. But I THINK Level 2 was a normal level.

because I am talking about the system, not about the person playing.

Which is exactly how I know you aren't understanding me. While a system may be better or worse for particular types, the system has nothing to do with this. In fact, you insist on trying to label systems as being coloring book style, when they aren't.

The difference between coloring book and blank page is generally unrelated to choice of system, or lack there-of.

by going outside the established system, you expected to have better chances at success.

But, I didn't expect a better chance of success because of going outside the system. I expected a better chance of success because that is what makes sense in the world milieu and narrative, and that action that had a better chance of success just happened to fall outside the system, and I don't think that falling outside the system is sufficient reason to avoid a particular tactical choice.

Among those is that pathfinder rules are not mere play aids, they are a foundation that the game is based on for the purpose of a understandable framework all players can relate to.

The fact that you can't see d20 as being mere play aids is because you are a coloring book person.

DnD was designed as play aids. Gygax himself wrote about this very issue, complaining about how people would play the rules and completely miss the entire point of the game.

While I'm more favorable to playing the rules than Gygax seemed to be, there is still that difference he was referring to. Coloring book folks are the ones that play the rules, quite contrary to Gygax's stated intent for the rules.

It also seems to me from reading the rules, that d20 did an excellent job of remaining true to that design philosophy.

Among those is that pathfinder rules are not mere play aids, they are a foundation that the game is based on for the purpose of a understandable framework all players can relate to.

The mistake here is thinking that it is an either-or scenario, and it isn't. I should also point out in the 3.x dmg (dungeon master's guide), all the dozens of places of the book telling GMs to specifically and explicitly to break the rules and adapt and adjust them to fit the narrative and character concepts. I haven't scoured the PF book nearly as closely but as PF is just a mod for 3.x, the issue still applies.

And quite frankly, if the book is telling you to fit the rules to the narrative concepts, then clearly, the rules are not designed to work solely as written in the way you describe. Not that anything is wrong with playing them how you want, but you can't legitimately argue about how the rules should be played if your argument contradicts the rules themselves.

but that the system used defines my playstyle because I adapt to it.

This is still coloring book style, because staying within the lines is basically looking to the system, or lack there-of, for how to play, rather than looking beyond the system to the fantasy.

Ink and paper is used to convey a story to you when you read, but do you see only ink and paper? Or do you see beyond that ink to see the sights described, hear the words being spoken, and smells the cinnamon of that bun the character is eating?

If you can't see past the ink and paper, then what point is there to reading the story?

The same applies to this. The blank page folks are likewise seeing past the system. The system gets forgotten as it conveys things to the player, much like how english gets forgotten by the reader.

Unless you have trouble understanding english, then the words themselves become practically invisible as you soak up their meaning. It is similar to hearing vs listening. When you listen, you hear the meaning of the words being spoken, but you don't really hear the words themselves unless a word seems out of place, unfamiliar, or otherwise not used as you are used to.

An rpg is the same to a blank page person. They see the world, without really seeing the system, despite using the system, just like how they talk/write in english without giving much thought to the grammar, word choice, pronunciation, arrangement, etc of words.

A coloring book player however, is focused, metaphorically, on the language used, the grammar, and word choice, while the substance the words are conveying gets left in the background by comparison. It is like hearing someone's words, but being so focused on how they misused various terms or had poor grammar, that one ignores the point those words were trying to convey.

So, basically what you are saying is that you were aware that there was a 'standard check' to use, but courtesy of using real-world logic, expected to get a "much better chance" in-game of success(or outright killing it).

So what you're saying is that if you are faced with an attacker, you would attack head on rather than trying to gain every advantage possible such as using the environment or drawing them out into view of a police officer?

Also, calling McGyver a complete moron because he solved problems with what was available in order to solve them quicker than waiting around letting a problem get worse, so it can be done "by the book?"

It isn't so much about being aware of standard checks and ignoring them, it is about putting myself in the shoes of the character so much that I'm looking at the world for solutions to my problems rather than looking at the system.

It doesn't matter to me what the system has available as "standard checks." What matters is what my character has available in the world milieu. That means when I am looking for solutions, I'm looking at the environment, I'm looking at predictable behavior of my enemies, the items laying around, etc.

I'm not looking at the system to tell me my options. I'm looking at the world to tell me my options.

That is the whole point. You look at the system for solutions, and given your distaste for my efforts, you actively work against looking at the world for solutions. That is being a coloring book person.

It is also that same behavior that has GMs completely ignoring all those paragraphs in the dmg about breaking the rules to fit the narrative.

There's a tendency for players to want their characters to succeed at what they are doing. Did you provide an example yet where you arbitrarily failed at a challenge? That is, you could have succeeded but instead, and without rolling, decided that your character would fail?

Deciding that a character should fail is something to do when you are trying to tell a story rather than experience a story (a difference you seem to understand, sort of). Part of the point of playing is to find a solution that works. The point isn't about arbitrarily deciding to succeed or even to bypass the roll, even though sometimes the point leads to bypassing the roll.

And I have done things because of character that most wouldn't. For example, I had a character that decided to leave the party, not because I wanted to stop playing that character but because the that was what the character would do. It fit the character and narrative.

The point is to think in terms of the world, and there-fore, sometimes you will think of a solution that naturally has a better chance of success than the standard. And there is nothing wrong with that when the rules are play aids. It only becomes a problem for those who are grounded in the system rather than the narrative, as they see it as a game and want all possible solutions to be "balanced" in a mechanical sense. Such balance however is not plausible, nor "realistic," nor natural.

In other words: if the narrative defines what happens by default and without exception, rather than system-based rules, then why not go with a narrative-based system over one like Pathfinder?

This is actually an easy answer, the system serves to aid communication about the world and characters, maintain consistency, add tension and uncertainty, act as a baseline for syncing up expectations about characters and the world (not expectations about possibility, but rather things like strength. How strong is a character. With d20, a single number tells everyone basically the same thing about how strong one is, as opposed to purely descriptive words, such as "very strong" which are more vague and thus results in different players, or worse, the player and gm, having different ideas about what a "very strong" character can lift.), etc.

These things are excellent reasons to use a system like d20, and yet none of them require the rules to be strictly adhered to, because these reasons are all about the rules as a baseline, as points of reference, not as limitations.

The restrictions that do exist are also merely baseline reference and not strict. They are there for two reasons, A) because it is supposed to represent a certain world milieu and there are limitations, such as how high someone can jump, and B) to help everyone stay on a similar power level, and by this I mean that it helps keep you from mixing Hercules with Hades and a mere farm boy all in one party where each player expects the others to be at the same level. By having those restrictions and limitations established, it sets a reference that allows players to all be at the same level. And even that doesn't require the limitations to be enforced, so long as everyone knows and is okay with it, such as when everyone is doing it because the GM gave everyone an extra starting feat, or someone started 4 levels behind everyone else.

That arbitrary sort of freedom where things happen or don't happen simple on the basis of what a player feels fits his narrative only works as long as the players all have the exact same views.

Which is, as I've said before, one of the core purposes of the system. To sync up everyone's perspectives.

The moment another players narrative clashes with one's own views and understanding of the game world, there would be either tension, conflict, or, worst, loss of interest in the other characters story.

I don't have this happen all that often, and usually when it does crop up, it is cases like this where players don't what me to do something that makes sense, for no reason other than that the rules don't explicitly allow it. Though there have been other weird cases, such as the group that thought I should know how to identify potions because I was the arcane caster and the fact that I couldn't identify potions, got me labeled as "not a team player." They never stated the requirement and seemed to think that it was "obvious" as a requirement.

I always do HP the same way: EITHER roll and accept the results OR 1/2+1.

Quote:

because I am talking about the system, not about the person playing.

Which is exactly how I know you aren't understanding me. While a system may be better or worse for particular types, the system has nothing to do with this. In fact, you insist on trying to label systems as being coloring book style, when they aren't.

The difference between coloring book and blank page is generally unrelated to choice of system, or lack there-of.

...while a system may be better or worse for particular types...

Quote:

by going outside the established system, you expected to have better chances at success.

But, I didn't expect a better chance of success because of going outside the system. I expected a better chance of success because that is what makes sense in the world milieu and narrative, and that action that had a better chance of success just happened to fall outside the system, and I don't think that falling outside the system is sufficient reason to avoid a particular tactical choice.

The action did not fall outside the system. You tried to force it to let go and/or deal damage to it. Grapple-Checks, attacks with improvised weapons, bull-rushing against an obstacle. There's plenty of play-aids that you could have applied to the situation.

Quote:

Among those is that pathfinder rules are not mere play aids, they are a foundation that the game is based on for the purpose of a understandable framework all players can relate to.

The fact that you can't see d20 as being mere play aids is because you are a coloring book person.

DnD was designed as play aids. Gygax himself wrote about this very issue, complaining about how people would play the rules and completely miss the entire point of the game.

While I'm more favorable to playing the rules than Gygax seemed to be, there is still that difference he was referring to. Coloring book folks are the ones that play the rules, quite contrary to Gygax's stated intent for the rules.

It also seems to me from reading the rules, that d20 did an excellent job of remaining true to that design philosophy.

You bring up Gygax a lot. Why do you think we do roll dice? By all means, they had a chance to make this a diceless game system. They decided to introduce a random factor by rolling for various aspects of the game.

Also, you are, once again, mislabelling me. No idea why you keep doing that. D20 always was a rules-based system. You have a number of parameters that help define who you are, and what you can do. Simple example spellcasting. Unless you have the right class, you cannot do it. That is an important aspect of setting narrative.

A 'play aid', to me, is something that is not an essential part of the system necessary to work. Free-Form games have 'play aids'. e.g. Misspent Youth is, in my opinion, a play aid. It provides plenty of rules too, but you can pretty much disregard a lot of them and keep things fluent, only referencing them in a bind.
A middle ground are a lot of the world-of-darkness-systems, where lots of things can be winged, and the general focus is often on the narrative.(also because most of the systems are not...particularily balanced once the rolling starts.)
With D20, there's too many aspects interlocking, too many concepts dependent on other parts of the framework. Hence why I said, you can FORCE D20 to act as a clean slate, and operate on it with a 'blank page' mentality, but the system is not well-suited to it. So yeah, I plain stated you can see it as a play aid. I simply can't see why you would choose a rules-heavy system based on d20 as system of choice to do so. Again: I did not say it was impossible, I simply said there's way better systems for that out there.

Quote:

Among those is that pathfinder rules are not mere play aids, they are a foundation that the game is based on for the purpose of a understandable framework all players can relate to.

The mistake here is thinking that it is an either-or scenario, and it isn't. I should also point out in the 3.x dmg (dungeon master's guide), all the dozens of places of the book telling GMs to specifically and explicitly to break the rules and adapt and adjust them to fit the narrative and character concepts. I haven't scoured the PF book nearly as closely but as PF is just a mod for 3.x, the issue still applies.

And quite frankly, if the book is telling you to fit the rules to the narrative concepts, then clearly, the rules are not designed to work solely as written in the way you describe. Not that anything is wrong with playing them how you want, but you can't legitimately argue about how the rules should be played if your argument contradicts the rules themselves.

Oh, that's the reason for a popular variant of Rule 0. "The Game Master is always right." That's not to allow the GM to override players, that's to let the GM override the Rules.

This is still coloring book style, because staying within the lines is basically looking to the system, or lack there-of, for how to play, rather than looking beyond the system to the fantasy.

Ink and paper is used to convey a story to you when you read, but do you see only ink and paper? Or do you see beyond that ink to see the sights described, hear the words being spoken, and smells the cinnamon of that bun the character is eating?
If you can't see past the ink and paper, then what point is there to reading the story?
The same applies to this. The blank page folks are likewise seeing past the system. The system gets forgotten as it conveys things to the player, much like how english gets forgotten by the reader.
Unless you have trouble understanding english, then the words themselves become practically invisible as you soak up their meaning. It is similar to hearing vs listening. When you listen, you hear the meaning of the words being spoken, but you don't really hear the words themselves unless a word seems out of place, unfamiliar, or otherwise not used as you are used to.
An rpg is the same to a blank page person. They see the world, without really seeing the system, despite using the system, just like how they talk/write in english without giving much thought to the grammar, word choice, pronunciation, arrangement, etc of words.
A coloring book player however, is focused, metaphorically, on the language used, the grammar, and word choice, while the substance the words are conveying gets left in the background by comparison. It is like hearing someone's words, but being so focused on how they misused various terms or had poor grammar, that one ignores the point those words were trying to convey.

You may remember I actually wrote this:

So what you're saying is that if you are faced with an attacker, you would attack head on rather than trying to gain every advantage possible such as using the environment or drawing them out into view of a police officer?

Also, calling McGyver a complete moron because he solved problems with what was available in order to solve them quicker than waiting around letting a problem get worse, so it can be done "by the book?"
It isn't so much about being aware of standard checks and ignoring them, it is about putting myself in the shoes of the character so much that I'm looking at the world for solutions to my problems rather than looking at the system.
It doesn't matter to me what the system has available as "standard checks." What matters is what my character has available in the world milieu. That means when I am looking for solutions, I'm looking at the environment, I'm looking at predictable behavior of my enemies, the items laying around, etc.
I'm not looking at the system to tell me my options. I'm looking at the world to tell me my options.
That is the whole point. You look at the system for solutions, and given your distaste for my efforts, you actively work against looking at the world for solutions. That is being a coloring book person.
It is also that same behavior that has GMs completely ignoring all those paragraphs in the dmg about breaking the rules to fit the narrative.

No, see, you don't understand. It's perfectly fine to look to the world to tell you your options. Then you decide on a course of action, and see what tools the game provides to get there.

Deciding that a character should fail is something to do when you are trying to tell a story rather than experience a story (a difference you seem to understand, sort of). Part of the point of playing is to find a solution that works. The point isn't about arbitrarily deciding to succeed or even to bypass the roll, even though sometimes the point leads to bypassing the roll.

And I have done things because of character that most wouldn't. For example, I had a character that decided to leave the party, not because I wanted to stop playing that character but because the that was what the character would do. It fit the character and narrative.
The point is to think in terms of the world, and there-fore, sometimes you will think of a solution that naturally has a better chance of success than the standard. And there is nothing wrong with that when the rules are play aids. It only becomes a problem for those who are grounded in the system rather than the narrative, as they see it as a game and want all possible solutions to be "balanced" in a mechanical sense. Such balance however is not plausible, nor "realistic," nor natural.

The problem is that the decision of 'naturally better chance of success' is arbitry. It is not founded on anything except subjective interpretation, and lacks a common point of reference. Balance does not need to be 'natural', the whole concept of HP is abstract. But there is a problem at the moment when the mechanical imbalance affects in-game events to the point where challenges become pointless.

This is actually an easy answer, the system serves to aid communication about the world and characters, maintain consistency, add tension and uncertainty, act as a baseline for syncing up expectations about characters and the world (not expectations about possibility, but rather things like strength. How strong is a character. With d20, a single number tells everyone basically the same thing about how strong one is, as opposed to purely descriptive words, such as "very strong" which are more vague and thus results in different players, or worse, the player and gm, having different ideas about what a "very strong" character can lift.), etc.

These things are excellent reasons to use a system like d20, and yet none of them require the rules to be strictly adhered to, because these reasons are all about the rules as a baseline, as points of reference, not as limitations.
The restrictions that do exist are also merely baseline reference and not strict. They are there for two reasons, A) because it is supposed to represent a certain world milieu and there are limitations, such as how high someone can jump, and B) to help everyone stay on a similar power level, and by this I mean that it helps keep you from mixing Hercules with Hades and a mere farm boy all in one party where each player expects the others to be at the same level. By having those restrictions and limitations established, it sets a reference that allows players to all be at the same level. And even that doesn't require the limitations to be enforced, so long as everyone knows and is okay with it, such as when everyone is doing it because the GM gave everyone an extra starting feat, or someone started 4 levels behind everyone else.

Your answer shows that you have basic understanding of why a rules framework exists. But the question I made was: why would you use a system with elaborate interlocking rules and mechanics, like pathfinder, over one more narrative-based? Other systems also have representations such as Strenght, but lend themselves more to a blank-page-playstyle. To stick with an example from above, World of Darkness 'Werewolves'-setting could, to an outside person, seem right up your alley. But you decided to play Pathfinder, despite not liking the core defining features of the rules system it is based on, namely a plentitude of interlocking mechanics and rules.

Which is, as I've said before, one of the core purposes of the system. To sync up everyone's perspectives.

But then, how does it work if you disregard the systems ability to sync up perspectives? Which is exactly what happens when you ignore rules to improvise?

I don't have this happen all that often, and usually when it does crop up, it is cases like this where players don't what me to do something that makes sense, for no reason other than that the rules don't explicitly allow it. Though there have been other weird cases, such as the group that thought I should know how to identify potions because I was the arcane caster and the fact that I couldn't identify potions, got me labeled as "not a team player." They never stated the requirement and seemed to think that it was "obvious" as a requirement.

@Potions: Weird. I don't see Spellcraft as a requirement for Caster types, either. Bookish types, maybe, but I'd want it on those anyway. As for "no other reason than the rules don't explicitly allow it", also weird. Unless the rules explicitly disallow it, everything should be possible.

Fighter(Phalanx Soldier) 2/Unchained Rogue(Rake) 2
HP(going to play it save, there, and go with average): 6+2(Con) = 8
Bab +1
Fortitude +1, Reflex +1
Favored Class Bonus: +1 CMD vs Trip/Disarm
Evasion
Stand Firm(Bravery replacement): +1 CMD on bull rush, drag, overrun, and trip attempts. This bonus also applies on saves against trample attacks.
Fighter Bonus Feat: Just out of Reach
Rogue Talent: Distracting Attack

Skills(8 base + 2 int + 2 back):
+1 Acrobatics
+1 Diplomacy
+1 Escape Artist
+1 Intimidate
+1 KN(Dungeoneering)
+1 Perception
+1 Sense Motive
+1 Stealth
+1 Use Magic Device
+1 Perform(Act)

+1(Background) KN(Geography)
+1(Background) KN(History)

Granite gives a cheer as he gain more HP! Huzzah!

+8 HP (5 + 3 Con)
+1 BAB
+1 Ref/Will
+1 1st level spell per day
Favored Class: +0.5 divine trait rank => Divine Portfolio 1 (Lore mystery with Lore Keeper [Dex] revelation)

New Spells Known
0) Mage Hand
1) Summon Monster 1

Domain: Protection (Defense)

Skills
Adventuring
+1 Acrobatics
+1 Climb
+1 Perception
+1 Sense Motive
+1 Spellcraft
+1 Arcana, Dungeon, Local
+1 UMD

Background
+1 Kn(Geography)
+1 Linguistics (goblin)

Just a heads up that I'm going to be packing/traveling Sunday and Monday, so I probably won't be able to post on those days. Bot me as necessary.

As far ad I can tell, we are waiting on Ran, as Zhai's action depends on his reaction, and his action probably will set the stage for what happens next.

@All games: My apologies for the unannounced absence.
As many others, I had been visiting family during the christmas holidays.
I figured I would have some time to post in the evenings - alas, I only had my work laptop with me, and due to neglicence on my part(I don't really actually restart it all that often...hibernate FTW) my certification for the VPN-Tunnel that is enforced on all internet access was not up-to-date. Result being that I had no access to the WWW despite W-Lan availability.
I could, and should, probably have written such an update from my phone, and posted it to all my games, but honestly, I've been too lazy for that - not really a big fan of writing much without a keyboard. So, apologies for that. I came back home today, and will try and catch up with all games as soon as possible/over the next 48 hours.

...while a system may be better or worse for particular types...

...generally unrelated to choice of system...
Yes, I suppose you are right. I don't understand you.

Lol. In choosing a vehicle to buy, are you going to worry about a single trip you take? There are differences between an suv and a pick up, and what side the driver seat is on doesn't really matter to the functioning of them or whether they are better for you, but you might prefer one side or the other depending on what side of the atlantic you are on even though it doesn't really matter in a practical sense. If you need to carry some cargo, both can do the job, but depending on how much you need the suv might need more trips.

You attempted to use 'world logic'

Absolutely. That is the difference between roleplaying and stotytelling. I visualize the problem as though I am the character, then figure out how I can overcome the obstacle or if I might leave the obstacle alone.

If I had a giant bug on my back, I'd try squashing it against a wall/floor because it really would be easier than trying to grab it.

How you want to handle the mechanics of me trying to squash it rather than grab it is opinion, as it isn't exactly defined within the rules. Though, as it would be easier if it were real, the mechanics should reflect that.

Yet somehow, you claim that NOT using rules or rolls is somehow more true to their legacy? In my eyes, both extremes are bad.

They aren't extremes because it isn't a scale. What do you look at to decide on a course of action? There are a number of things, but they don't fall on a scale. You can base your decision on mechanics, or on what would make for an exciting story, or you can base it on what you might do if it were real. You can look at things as a game, or a story, or as a world you are in.

For anything but the mechanics, the rules are secondary. There purpose is not to tell you what or how, they simply aid communication (i.e. "very strong" could mean a weightlifter, or it could mean the Hulk. The rules give a more defined vocabulary), and can aid in description, and can add uncertainty which leads to tension. The system also takes success and failure out of the gm's hands, which lessens by a lot the problem of favoritism (be it intentional or not).

To that end, a casually simulationist system like d20 (which is not rules heavy by any means), can be a benefit.

What I am actively working against is using 'the world' and 'world logic' to bypass character shortcomings or low chances of success as a standard modus operandi.

In the real world, intellect is the god stat because it gives you the ability to find a way around your own shortcomings. As for chances of success, if the mechanics don't improve your chances for an action that would have higher chances if it were real, then that is a problem, a problem for the gm to arbitrate, not the player.

I'm not trying to bypass the system's low chances, I'm trying to bypass the low chances of the in-world actions by taking an action that should have higher chances based on the world milieu itself.

If you don't agree that it should have higher chances, then that is a difference of opinion, hence why the gm is an arbiter.

Just because lots of people like running straight into combat like fruitcakes doesn't mean the system should make that the best way mechanically to win.

But there is a problem at the moment when the mechanical imbalance affects in-game events to the point where challenges become pointless.

Exactly, which is the point where you stray from the rules.

And quite frankly, just because something was intended to have a challenging skill check to move on doesn't mean that a good idea to bypass it should be denied.

For example, a spiked pit trap, well, all the players should know at first is that there is a false floor, and rather than disabling the trap, laying a board over it to walk across is a perfectly valid solution that certainly should not require a check.

The point is that if we 'defuse' all problems, challenges, and issues by 'bypassing' them with real-world logic and checks heavily in our favor, then the only thing you achieve is to force the GM to do more work by making things more difficult for us

If logic works, then it should. If thinking outside the box would work, then it should work. That is the point behind playing pbp and not a crpg.

Besides, as a player thinks outside the box, and the gm handles it, the gm builds up ideas to use. For example, if pit traps keep getting bypassed by boards, then how about a pit trap that ignites any wood touching the floor, that then requires a new solution. And therefore, however much the players might think outside the box, there will be an ever increasing set of ideas for the gm to use against the players in turn, and it is very highly unlikely to avoid any need for rolling for long.

that is not a game, it's forced interactive fiction

As far as I'm concerned, a roleplaying game is not a game in the same sense that chess or settlers of cataan are games, but rather a game in the sense as in Games Theory field of science.

Interactive fiction is exactly what I'm here for. What I'm constantly on the search for as it seems to be getting rarer every day. Too many new players that think of things like a crpg on paper and can't wrap their head around anything else.

why would you use a system with elaborate interlocking rules and mechanics, like pathfinder, over one more narrative-based?

Because narrative based games are not interactive fiction, they are storytelling games.

D20 is about being casually simulationist. The interlocking systems are simply an emergent behavior from the fact that a real world is interlocking and of course, the simplification of rules often calls for unifying mechanics.

insisting on not using those

I didn't insist on what to use or not use. I personally would those mechanics for it, but I certainly wasn't sure what the gm would have chosen.

chance of success and the outcome are within expected parameters

According to what metric? For me, the metric for expected parameters is the narrative milieu, not the system.

That's called flavoring things

Flavoring things is pointless if the outcome is not dependent on the flavor.

If you just want to play dice with flavor on the backseat, why use a system? Why not just roll 3d6 for everything and hope for the best?

Lol. In choosing a vehicle to buy, are you going to worry about a single trip you take? There are differences between an suv and a pick up, and what side the driver seat is on doesn't really matter to the functioning of them or whether they are better for you, but you might prefer one side or the other depending on what side of the atlantic you are on even though it doesn't really matter in a practical sense. If you need to carry some cargo, both can do the job, but depending on how much you need the suv might need more trips.

That was not the question asked. I asked if you consider that it is a people-inherent attribute, or a system-attached one.

Absolutely. That is the difference between roleplaying and stotytelling. I visualize the problem as though I am the character, then figure out how I can overcome the obstacle or if I might leave the obstacle alone.

If I had a giant bug on my back, I'd try squashing it against a wall/floor because it really would be easier than trying to grab it.

How you want to handle the mechanics of me trying to squash it rather than grab it is opinion, as it isn't exactly defined within the rules. Though, as it would be easier if it were real, the mechanics should reflect that.

So, you are of the opinion that, by going with visualization of the problem in-character, it is absolutely reasonable that a single casting of true strike can totally allow a called shot to the eye penetrating into the skull, instantly killing the target?

They aren't extremes because it isn't a scale. What do you look at to decide on a course of action? There are a number of things, but they don't fall on a scale. You can base your decision on mechanics, or on what would make for an exciting story, or you can base it on what you might do if it were real. You can look at things as a game, or a story, or as a world you are in.

For anything but the mechanics, the rules are secondary. There purpose is not to tell you what or how, they simply aid communication (i.e. "very strong" could mean a weightlifter, or it could mean the Hulk. The rules give a more defined vocabulary), and can aid in description, and can add uncertainty which leads to tension. The system also takes success and failure out of the gm's hands, which lessens by a lot the problem of favoritism (be it intentional or not).

To that end, a casually simulationist system like d20 (which is not rules heavy by any means), can be a benefit.

Oh, I am aware that there are more rules heavy systems, but by comparison, pathfinder is definitely not on the lightweight end of the spectrum.

In the real world, intellect is the god stat because it gives you the ability to find a way around your own shortcomings. As for chances of success, if the mechanics don't improve your chances for an action that would have higher chances if it were real, then that is a problem, a problem for the gm to arbitrate, not the player.

I'm not trying to bypass the system's low chances, I'm trying to bypass the low chances of the in-world actions by taking an action that should have higher chances based on the world milieu itself.

If you don't agree that it should have higher chances, then that is a difference of opinion, hence why the gm is an arbiter.

Just because lots of people like running straight into combat like fruitcakes doesn't mean the system should make that the best way mechanically to win.

So, considering your own words...why would I ever use a in-world action providing a low chance of success? Rather than come up with a real-world one that is more likely to succeed?

Exactly, which is the point where you stray from the rules.

And quite frankly, just because something was intended to have a challenging skill check to move on doesn't mean that a good idea to bypass it should be denied.

For example, a spiked pit trap, well, all the players should know at first is that there is a false floor, and rather than disabling the trap, laying a board over it to walk across is a perfectly valid solution that certainly should not require a check.

Not remotely opposing that. That is a completely valid way of handling things. The rules don't disagree with that. The type of problem I see is when you try to accomplish something in-game that is covered but disregard the rules in place.

If logic works, then it should. If thinking outside the box would work, then it should work. That is the point behind playing pbp and not a crpg.

Besides, as a player thinks outside the box, and the gm handles it, the gm builds up ideas to use. For example, if pit traps keep getting bypassed by boards, then how about a pit trap that ignites any wood touching the floor, that then requires a new solution. And therefore, however much the players might think outside the box, there will be an ever increasing set of ideas for the gm to use against the players in turn, and it is very highly unlikely to avoid any need for rolling for long.

That would require a heavy suspension of disbelief. Oh, it's the year of the fiery boar, thats why all people now use incinerating pit traps. Even those completely unrelated to your main quest, the maintainence crews of ancient tombs, and those people in other planes of existance.

As far as I'm concerned, a roleplaying game is not a game in the same sense that chess or settlers of cataan are games, but rather a game in the sense as in Games Theory field of science.

Interactive fiction is exactly what I'm here for. What I'm constantly on the search for as it seems to be getting rarer every day. Too many new players that think of things like a crpg on paper and can't wrap their head around anything else.

But a roleplaying game IS still a game. And should adhere to the defining points of that genre. It is not roleplaying fiction.

Interactive fiction is a medium I deeply wish to avoid, after reading one-too-many variants that essentially became a circle jerk of people trying to read each other a story about their super-awesome epic totally different characters. Don't get me wrong. It can be a powerful medium, it can be awesome to participate in it, but by my experience, it's something not used with a sufficient level of responsibility by most participants. I am by no means implying that you or other players in this game would hog spotlights, abuse freeform, break borders etc. - simply saying that I decided to only participate in that form of expression with people I know and trust to be capable of doing it in a responsible and proper way. Not any more random strangers online. No offense meant, but a burnt child dreads the fire, as the idiom goes.

According to what metric? For me, the metric for expected parameters is the narrative milieu, not the system.

But you only have one to work with, unless you assume the responses of the narrative milieu. So in the interest of streamlining, it makes sense to assume the expected parameters that way and make the narrative milieu adapt, instead of needing the extra feedback round needed to make the system adapt to the milieu.

Flavoring things is pointless if the outcome is not dependent on the flavor.

If you just want to play dice with flavor on the backseat, why use a system? Why not just roll 3d6 for everything and hope for the best?

You could make a Jack-of-All-Trades in Shadowrun that would roll a certain amount of d6 for everything, then hope for the best. Heck, I think there was a Edge-based build that basically thrived on 'hope for the best'.

That was not the question asked. I asked if you consider that it is a people-inherent attribute, or a system-attached one.

Except you did ask this,

You say yourself that different systems support particular styles better, but at the same time claim that there is no difference between them.

What will it be? Is there a difference or is there no difference?

My response was to this primarily. You saw different statements and thought them contradictory because you didn't see the distinction I saw.

As far as the different types are concerned, I am very much worrying about the trip I want to take. Because you are not talking about SUV and Pick-Up here, we are talking a level of difference that says car and boat.

Except this is wrong, when it comes to roleplay, any system will do. Some would be horrible, or largely irrelevant, but rules-heavy vs rules light, or what kind of rules, doesn't deny or allow roleplay, so therefore, suv vs pickup because they all can drive on the road.

Are people unchangeable in your eyes, or systems fixed in their primary design aspects??

Neither, but people have a single frame of reference, a single world-view. That view can be narrow or broad, and that view can be expanded through experiences, or reduced through trauma, but it is still a single view. People don't wear world-views like masks, swapping them out based on what game they play, or what situation they are in.

A player who finds it troubling to be the evil will always have trouble playing evil in any game where being evil is apparent. Likewise, having a particular view on how the rules must be used doesn't change just because the rules change.

Someone like yourself finds rules lite storytelling games to be more suitable for narrative focus, because those are the rulesets that allow that kind of narrative flexibility while still following the rules in the exact same fashion as any other game. You follow those rules just the same as following the rules in d20. That is why you can play narrative and tactics based games. You aren't changing the way you see the rules, the rules are simply changing what you are allowed to do, and you shift tactics accordingly.

That is not the only way to look at the rules though.

So, you are of the opinion that, by going with visualization of the problem in-character, it is absolutely reasonable that a single casting of true strike can totally allow a called shot to the eye penetrating into the skull, instantly killing the target?

Why not? If the system allows called shots, and the result of getting a hit in the eye would be death according to the rules, then sure. It totally makes sense that a spell allowing you a near guaranteed hit on a moving, and actively evasive target the size of an eyeball should allow one to make such a called shot, and if you get an arrow right through the eye, the most likely outcome would be death (though I wouldn't call it a certainty, just a very very likely outcome).

Naturally, a world in which an archer can regularly and easily make such shots would develop a defense against such shots.

This is where my mentioning earlier about the gm working against the player's creativity comes into play. Early in the game, players aren't fighting against pros and masters with the height of military gear. Thus, as players get creative, anything they do that would naturally be the go to option in such cases, would very likely be something that has been thought of and used in that world for a long time before the pcs got there, and therefore, the more experienced folks who's work faces such creativity would naturally have developed techniques and methods against such creative solutions that the novices just haven't got to learning about yet.

Simply pulling out a random banhammer on a technique isn't the right way to handle it, nor should the gm worry overmuch about requiring things to be of a certain difficulty anyway. The whole concept of facing only encounters of equal level came about only because of people seeing the CR system as a straitjacket instead of a baseline for estimating difficulty. Prior to that players would face numerous low level encounters, and bosses would be higher level, and being a higher level character simply meant being able to handle more low level encounters before wearing your resources thin.

It is like in my setting, where thieves can easily break through locks with simplicity except for rare materials, therefore, locks are usually privacy locks, and the profession of being a guard is held in higher esteem and far more common as those cases where we use locks, they use guards instead. A change in how they do things stemming from how the use of magic alters how the world functions.

The point, also of the examples I made, was that there's certain restraints built into the framework. So the question is not asked mockingly. I am trying to understand how far you will go to disregard any form of game balance simply for things to make sense in your visualization.

Game balance is not a consideration at all for me, unless playing a traditional game, like chess, miniatures warfare, or Monopoly. There is no place for mechanical balance, in the form you seem to expect, in roleplaying.

Things must make sense in the narrative milieu, the rules simply provide tools to more easily communicate about that milieu, and take the role of fate/chance, and the few other things mentioned previously (like getting everyone on the same page about whether they are playing superheroes or not).

Oh, I am aware that there are more rules heavy systems, but by comparison, pathfinder is definitely not on the lightweight end of the spectrum.

That doesn't make it a heavy weight system. I personally put firmly in the mid-weight category.

disregarding the rules means any balance that exists is arbitrary

Gee, that sounds a bit like a real world to me. I'm not seeing any problem with that.

[sarcasm]Wonder if maybe that is why there are so many arguments about how the balance in DnD is horrible. [/sarcasm]

As I just said, I don't see any place for mechanical, game-like balance in a roleplay. That is not the purpose of the rules.

Spotlight balance is a concern, as it is a group activity, but even then there are players who prefer to have positions outside the spotlight.

Naturalistic balance is a major part of making a system relatable and therefore easier to use for all those non-gaming uses I keep saying are the reasons for using a mid-weight, non-storytelling system.

Only caring about the rules and disregarding the world turns the game into a interactive spreadsheet, and in effect, we are no longer talking about role playing.

Do you consider Halo, Call of Duty, or Settlers of Cataan to be roleplaying games? They have world and lore that are relflected in the game mechanics. I certainly don't know anyone who considers them roleplaying though. Clearly, relating the world to the game mechanics does not make a game a roleplaying game, even though it is certainly an essential element to many games.

And if that is true, then is it not also possible that you can have a not-a-roleplaying game with mechanics similar or even the same as those used by a roleplay? To say no is to say that a roleplay is entirely a mechanical construct, which is absolutely absurd. On the other hand, if it is possible to have a game that shares the mechanics of a roleplay without being a roleplay, then what makes something a roleplay must therefore be non-mechanical in nature, which also means, that you can have a focus on that non-mechanical aspect and use it with any number of different mechanics. And in that case, you have this competition of mechanics and this non-mechanical element. And that means, the mechanics can serve different purposes in a roleplay, as they are not what makes the roleplay a roleplay.

I am trying to make it clear that mechanics, even mid-weight mechanics can serve these other purposes without also serving the same purposes they serve in chess and similar.

You keep arguing that mechanics must serve a particular purpose or set of purposes, specifically like the purposes that they have in chess.

In other words, why would I ever fail at something, except if I choose to leave it up to luck, or decide to fail?

First, the gm is the arbiter and decides whether it shall be up to luck, but otherwise, there is no reason to.

In collaborative storytelling "games," you might do so, but that would be because the players are again not roleplaying, rather, they are trying to make an awesome story.

In a roleplay, the player has the same goal as the character in addition to enjoying their time. The player is there to succeed even if that means facing certain doom.

The player therefore, in a roleplay, is motivated to succeed, and see no problem with that.

Yes, the gm can be horrible at working with such players, and yes, it makes the gm's job a lot harder than simply arbitrating a squad tactics warfare game, hence wanting a system to make it easier. I really don't see a problem with that.

Finally, please elaborate on this part: I am not trying to bypass the systems low chances, I'm trying to bypass the low chances of the in-world actions by... - specifically, you do realize that they are mapped to one another for convenience?

The problem here is that you are assuming they are mapped perfectly. They aren't, and never will be. When there is a disjoint, you must then choose which to favor, the world milieu, or the mechanics.

Trying to make a system that is absolutely perfect in all cases all the time is simply unworkable, and even attempting it gets impractical very quickly. Thus, it is part of the gm's job to make a judgement call when that happens.

Imagine having a bug on your back, in the real world, would it not be easier to squash that bug against a wall or floor than trying to simply grab it with your hands? And even if you fail to squash it because it moved out of the way, that would still give you a chance to face it more favorably, buying you another chance to prevent it from grabbing on again. As a note, I don't see anything about the inclusion of magic that would change this.

Oh, and if it isn't on your back, I really can't imagine even a commoner being unable to shrug off, or even grab a cat-sized bug if it is isn't flying. It just isn't going to happen one on one. Such bugs would only be a threat, even to commoners, when attacking in groups, since the target would not be able to easily fend off many of them at once.

The grapple rules don't reflect that. The gm could certainly just use those rules with a circumstance bonus if they really wanted, but at the same time, the maneuver is far easier and doesn't require the kind of skill that truly grappling with an enemy soldier would require.

I personally don't see the grapple rules as reflecting the situation very well at all.

if you come up with a low chance for the in-world actions, that is because the system provides a low chance for that action...

The problem is that this is backwards, the system should give better chances for actions that would have better chances in-world.

When that doesn't happen, there is the gm.

in-game that is covered but disregard the rules in place

Just because there are grappling rules, doesn't mean the grappling rules reflect the in-world milieu even semi-accurately anywhere near all the time.

It wasn't disregarding the rules, it was recognizing that the rules were not well reflective of the situation.

The problem arises when you pre-determine the success of actions

I didn't predetermine the success of the action. There were two likely outcomes, and anything else was very unlikely, though possible, but even then I did not assume any kind of specific result. I stated what I was trying to do, which to squeeze the bug, in hopes of one of the two likely outcomes. Chances of succeeding were up to the gm.

All that aside, if the GM comes up with a seemingly arbitrary reason why something suddenly stops working that worked fine so far, that would seem like very bad sportsmanship on their part.

I covered this earlier, but isn't bad sportsmanship when applied appropriately, like facing bad guys later on that have "proper" military gear designed to protect against common ways of easily killing a soldier.

There is no reason for the street urchin to be any more difficult to kill than in the real world, which is to say absurdly easy for anyone who has enough training/experience to go toe to toe with any soldier above an untrained conscript.

essentially became a circle jerk of people trying to read each other a story about their super-awesome epic totally different characters.

What you describe is not roleplaying, it is collaborative storytelling, which isn't my cup of tea either, and certainly is not roleplaying (though it is often intermixed with roleplaying).

Difference is asking "what do you do," vs asking "what would be awesome, cool, or otherwise make for a great story?"

The point of roleplaying is not to experience the story happening to you through a proxy character, not to write a story.

but by my experience, it's something not used with a sufficient level of responsibility by most participants

I mostly agree with this, though I think the reason stems mostly from people not understanding the difference. Having the ability to be more than an animal is an inherent ability of humans, but that doesn't mean that ability gets used very often, especially during play. There are still lots of things about humans that humans don't want to face or believe. I.E, the Milgram experiment results. I believe this experience of yours (which matches mine, hence being constantly on the search for something better than crpg on paper) is the result of some of these uncomfortable truths about human psychology.

Teach people to see those truths, and they gain the power to rise above them and the problems they cause.

needing the extra feedback round needed to make the system adapt to the milieu

That feedback only becomes a problem when you are trying to get enough of it for codifying something into the system. Otherwise, call a gm ruling and move on. For the sake of keeping things simple and easy to use, relying a bit on the gm making rulings, and simply making the system easy for the gm to make sensible rulings is really the best way to go, though that could be considered an opinion.

Either way, I really don't like what I call invisible walls, which is when you see something that should be allowed, but are then told isn't allowed for reasons that have no meaning or place within the world milieu. just like when you play Call of Duty and streets get blocked off by invisible walls.

You drop prone to crush the bug, it lets go of the grapple to avoid the attack, you stand back up, and as attack of opportunity(it is still in your square) it re-attaches.

Why assume I'll stand back up and not just take total defense or something?

when you clumsily try to crush it

You don't know it was a clumsy attempt, not until the dice are rolled. That is one of things dice tell us.

momentary disorientation

What momentary disorientation? I never got that from slamming people into floors (haven't had a chance to try a wall, but I can't imagine it being any different than a floor).

Besides, one thing about real world that doesn't seem to find it's way into game systems is readying actions in a chain triggered by your own self. I.E. forcing bug to let go and being ready to grab at it as it shifts out of the way, or staying facing the bug and attempting to block it's follow up approach.

In the real world, this is what real warriors do. Like one master swordsman said, "you should be able to think about going to work the next day and still fight effectively." This is achieved by having responses prepared and ready without needing to think about them, thus even being dazed or disoriented would work.

If you want a world that is alive

This can't be achieved via rules simple enough for us to create and use in a reasonable time-frame, hence the reliance on a gm to make the world alive.

Okay, I'm just not going to have time fof all of this, from here out, I'm cherry picking a select few to respond to. If you got a couple high priority ones you really want that don't get answered, bring them up later, but how about we limit ourselves a little bit. I just can't respond to that much stuff in only 6 hours.

I'm out of time.

I have little enough time and a full enough schedule as well.
I suggest merging 1+2 in your answer.
Can probably drop 8, possibly 11.
Not sure if 5, 6, 7 can go somewhere or we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
Would definitely like a response on 10 and 3.

Ran, it wasn't certainty that made me act, it was risk analysis. If I assume it is cursed and I'm wrong, you get a set of possible results A. On the other hand, if I assume is fine and I'm wrong, you get result range B.

So then I ckmpare A to B, and find that B is very likely to very much worse than A.

Think about it, if I succeeded in making yoh let go, then we took some precautions, and the trinket was fine, then all we did was be overcautious. But given that it is cursed, and ghings happened in such that I couldn't take it away from you (same result as assuming ig is fine), well, we'll get firsthand look at how bad that gets. Good luck on your will saves.

But that disregards probability and escalation.

Because for your comparison between result sets A and B, you also have to consider how high their probability is - thats part of risk analysis.
In which case my point was that disregarding result set A as 'no impact', meaning only result set B matters and dictates the course of action, disregards all social conventions.
Which brings us to escalation: You state "drop the necklace", I ask why, and you start screaming at me and try to take it away by force?
Calmly explaining might be one thing, but jumping straight into action, without giving me a chance to even think about your point?
Just blindly trust and comply with your demands hoping for the best, or defend myself?

For all I know, YOU could be under magical control/charmed(or straight out controlled - hey, Natalya is unconscious. Magic Jar?) so we're back to the start.
If you are charmed/controlled/trying to take possession for another reason, result set A of 'something bad happens if i drop it'
If not and you are all good and normal, result set B of 'nothing happens if I drop it'...
the alternative? C: Not dropping it and holding on...which avoids the coin flip of A and B and makes sure nothing bad happens.

That said, the necklace itself told me that it is MY price. So yeah, I'll defend my precious. Obviously.

The entire point was to not let you think about it, cause it being cursed means that by the time you get to think about, it is already too late.

And Oh, I know how to prove it too.

Oh, I'll roll with that :)

Point, of course, remains, that we will want to bring it back to Heidmarch Manor, and cannot guarantee whoever carries it is not affected.
So it may still be for the best to head over there soon before I change my mind about returning to Sheila, regardless of outcome- *smiles*

So...I suppose we can go ahead to meeting with Sheila? Or was there more?

@Granite: Do take good care of my amulet! I'll be wanting that back. I do, in fact, want it back. Technically, I would have preferred to carry it back. Since, you know, it's MINE now.
But the only thing that would have caused would have been some non-lethal in-fighting when Zhai jumps me on the assumption I'm possessed :p

@Zhai: Just out of curiosity, where DID you intend to go with that?
Should we have left the trinket here in the slums and returned only with Natalya?
Because looking back:

It seems likely that Natalya has absconded with this item she’s discovered. And this is where you enter, my friends. I want to know what it was that Natalya and the Sczarni found. In fact, I’m more interested in that than in what happened to Natalya herself. For now, I’d like to keep all of this quiet—if you can find out what happened to Natalya without letting a lot of people know she was also working for me as an informant, that would be preferable—that’s a big part of why I’m coming to you, as new members of the Pathfinder Society, with this task. You don’t yet have a reputation in Magnimar, and as such, the lowlifes and criminals you are likely to encounter may be more likely to talk.

So... go out there and look for Natalya. Find out what happened to her, and to this item she and her gang discovered. If you can secure the item, all the better—bring it back to me and I’ll have a reward of 500 gold pieces for you. And if you can bring Natalya back alive for me to speak to, I’ll double that!”

I'm pretty certain we were supposed to bring it with us...if it is this amulet, and the reason why she absconded.

Aren't you assuming that you can give it away?

Also, given the concern and possibility, I'd think that Granite would get a bonus on his save.

Also, if you actually can give it away, that'd make it a lesser effect, more charm than dominate, which would be far less concerning, and less likely for Granite to try murdering us when our backs are turned.

To answer your question though,
We are not under a time crunch, I would've left it on the floor as we secured the location and debriefed Natalyia, if she cooperated at the point, which she very well may have done considering.

Then we could spent some time figuring out how to safely transport it. At the very least, whoever tried carrying it coud do so without direct contact, and be ready for the trinket's effect, which would hopefully give them a better chance to hold against the item's effect. More so, everybody else could be ready and develop a plan to cover the possibility of the item's effect on the bearer, especially if Natalyia talked and further convinced folks that it was cursed.

Why would I assume that? There was nothing that suggested I would be incapable of doing so or that I should pursue a certain course of action. I was simply unwilling to comply with demands shouted at me.

If I stayed in-character, I would have outright refused you simply on the basis that I don't take orders given in such a context, and held on to the trinket. But that would have been just as antagonistic as your attempts to get me to follow those orders. So, I'm bending in the interest of moving on.
Because frankly, I grew tired of the scene. If you insist it's not me who carries it, let Granite, be happy and move on. (The alternative is that I'll start hustling back to Sheila using my Spear to trip people trying to interfere with that, then wait there after handing it over. You want to do that, sure. But I won't stay around and discuss longer because aside from being convinced that it should be mine(and frankly, that's reasonable after the great work I did stopping her) I feel perfectly fine and simply wish to resolve this arc.)

And saves don't really work that way, of getting a bonus if you see it coming. Even if they did, that would by far not have guaranteed success.

@Leave on floor, find some contactless transport, figure out stuff...based on the random unproven idea that it could be cursed in some way? After the person you accused of being under the items sway repeatedly insisted on bringing it directly to the person you are trying to take it to?
While OOC I concur that something IS fishy with the Amulet, I am very much looking forward to seeing you pursue a course of action with that same dedication and complete disregard for other opinions in a situation when you know you are wrong as a player, but your character doesn't.

To elaborate on that: that's my 'problem' with the handling here... Even if you assume the trinket to be cursed with certainty, there was nothing to hint at the fact Ran might be affected, except him not following your orders, which he would not do either way. He even repeatedly stated wanting to move on to Sheila.
I don't see the logic of why I must be affected in your scenario.

Assuming that IC, Granite thought the item really was cursed and that Ran was under its influence, unless he thought Ran was lying about being willing to take it to Sheila, he still wouldn't see it as a problem. Sheila along with her position in the Pathfinder society probably means that she's a lot more capable of dealing with a cursed item than we are, and Ran thus far hasn't done anything to suggest either he or us are in immediate danger if we don't remove the curse right now at this moment instead of waiting the short period of time to get back to Sheila. And for all we know, taking away the cursed item from the person may not actually free them from the curse's influence. And for all we know, the longer someone is under the amulet's influence, the stronger the affect gets. So while Ran may be willing to hand over the amulet now, if we wait to try to find a "safe" way of handling it, it might gain a stronger influence over him and make him want to take it back or (in my opinion worse) make him refuse to take the amulet to Sheila. My point being that we really have very little information compared to all the possibilities out there for what form a curse might take, and I'd rather just take it to Sheila to see if she can trivially tell us rather than sit around and see if we can deduce exactly what's going on ourselves.

So basically, regardless of whether or not he believes the item is cursed, Granite still thinks the best course of action is to get the item to Sheila. So my vote is fast-forward to the manor/Pathfinder lodge/wherever we're meeting her unless the hand-off to Granite would somehow prevent us from doing that.

I'll have an update I/C in the next day or two, thanks for your patience folks.

FYI, I believe we have lost our Ratfolk, I think I'd like to just roll with 3 of you and perhaps run Ikit and a DMPC or a shared PC, thoughts?

Personally Ran, I think the whole thing has gone ridiculous. I expected a roll of one sort or another to make you drop the thing, then you basically made it sound like you defending against a child going "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!" and also seemed to think Zhai was trying to take it rather than make you drop it, and with no moderating influence on us the players, the attempts to carry on in character stray further away from sensible.

I mostly blame the medium. In person, I'd have been able to correct your misconceptions about Zhai's attitude before you even finished the sentence and done so with minimal game impact, and I'd have been able to ask about the check when the gm didn't quickly ask for it. None of which works in pbp.

For example, by the time it is apparent the gm isn't asking for a check (why the heck not btw?), the scene has moved on just from players and going "Wait a moment, this ain't right," adds days if not a week or so before we get to move on, and this game is slow enough without making it worse ooc.

I'm not really familiar with the concept of a shared PC, but I assume it's a character that the PCs share control over? If so, I would suggest we not do that; I'm worried it would cause even more arguing as we debate what the shared PC should do. As for adding some DMPCs, my thought is that we can always give that a try and see how it goes.

OK, I will keep Ikit around as a DMPC then.

I concur that it went too far. The reason I made it sound that way was that you were too worried about the curse to properly explain in-character, instead resorting to trying to make Ran drop it when he did not inmediately comply with your order to do so.

As Ran was feeling perfectly fine, he saw no reason to comply and would, of course, defend himself against any such attempts. Attitude or not, if you try to surprise him and enforce your will on him(regardless of his opinion) then yeah, he'll defend himself.

The lack of a check might have been the best thing to happen, as it was de-escalating. As said, I have combat reflexes, so if you try something funny, even if you surprise me, I'll get to react to it unless you have some improved maneuvers. And once we start rolling in a pvp-manner, the situation is a lot more likely to spiral out of control.

@Shared PC: I concur, possibly not the best idea.
@Ikit as GMPC: Fine, but with the touch attacks with sneak he would likely have turned into our primary DPS at some time(And admittedly in my build tree I would have picked up a few things to help him by making stuff flat-footed or flanked). Not sure if that will feel proper for a DMPC to be the Carry.
(With Granite being a Tank, Ran being a Support, and Zhai - I'll not try to classify you, so that is meant without offense - being Zhai)

That said, we do still lack healing - maybe a different GMPC would be a better fit? (As in, maybe going Gunslinger/Bard(Arcane Healer) or something, rather than the Gunslinger/UC Rogue route? Same flavor but a bit more utility and a bit less DPS-)

I thought Ran was the tank and Granite was support? Haha, probably not a good sign. >.>

The lack of a check might have been the best thing to happen, as it was de-escalating. As said, I have combat reflexes, so if you try something funny, even if you surprise me, I'll get to react to it unless you have some improved maneuvers. And once we start rolling in a pvp-manner, the situation is a lot more likely to spiral out of control.

This is why I didn't call for a check, I have only had 2 PbP's that I DM go by the way side on these boards and one was due to PvP.

Can transition Ikit into a healer type for sure.

Lol, I'm not so certain this turned out better. Honestly this has been far more irritating and degenerative of the fun this way.

That isn't what I'd call pvp anyway.

@Granite: *shrug*
We can both be tanky supports ^_^
That said, I'll be utilizing Spring-Heeled-Style down the line, so mobility is an asset. With a Reach weapon, I can do some minor area lockdown, too, but I may not be a good tank in terms of outlasting something that CAN hit me. ^_^

@Healer type: Glad to hear it, but by all means, the others should probably give input on that as well. We could certainly carry around a couple Wands of CLW at all times, but...well.

@Zhai: As said, I have no idea how you intended for this to turn out. Even if you had succeeded, for some reason, in forcing Ran to drop it - when he was himself feeling perfectly fine and even suggested delivering the amulet to Sheila - then that would have been a clearly antagonistic act in his opinion. Especially if he doesn't really feel all that different afterwards. So unless the narrative would have bent over backwards to fit exactly what you expected to be true, there would have been bad blood...no matter how things would have progressed from there. Evading that may have been not fun for you on the short term, but I believe it's more healthy long-term.

Antogonism between characters isn't a problem. The problem is when players have the antagonism. Character friction has lots of drama potential, player friction is just bad mojo.

I didn't need it to turn out a particular way, it is the handling that feels problematic, but like I said, I think it is mostly because of the medium and the long turn around times between expectations and their results.

I didn't need it to turn out a particular way, it is the handling that feels problematic, but like I said, I think it is mostly because of the medium and the long turn around times between expectations and their results.

It's ok to feel that way but what follows might help you feel better.

I've been DMing for 29 years. I've run several campaigns from first to 37th, 1st to 25th, and currently 0th to 18th level on table top not to mention a 6 year long Vampire campaign that spanned from 1190 to 2000. I currently DM 31 total games one of which is a PbP with 10,000 + posts, there are about 28 other games that have ever reached that post rate here on the boards.

I in RL have a BA in Psych a JD and an MBA.

For a living I read people and handle controversies that often involve big egos and millions of dollars.

Trust me, this was the right way to handle it.

Let's move on and let it go guys :-)

Hmm, now that I think about it, I do intend for Granite to be in melee a lot (mostly to make use of bodyguard and possibly set up flanking), so hopefully he'll have good AC and/or HP. It's just that the plans I have for the future right now mostly revolve around getting more support skills.

As for what the party needs, I would lean towards healing and maybe some more magic since currently I think Granite is the only one with either (though tbh, I have no idea what Zhai's class(es?) are), and the healing is only via the healing hex (meaning I can only use it on a given person 1/day). CLW also isn't on my spell list (though Infernal Healing is), so if we got a wand, we might need to use UMD for it, and mine is currently only +4.

For what it's worth, I'm fine with some rivalry and drama in-game - and will gladly keep up some friction.
I just don't want a level of character antagonism where in-game, I would flat-out refuse to keep working with another character. Especially if there's no plot active FORCING us to work together. Because then it DOES become a problem even if it's all in-game.
I felt we were heading in that direction, which is why I considered it a problem OOC.
So yeah, probably for the best we did not go any deeper there and wise advice to let that specific instant go and be a thing of the past.

@Granite: UMD is a class skill for me, and I intend on upping it (+6 currently)- also to be able to make use of some low-level spells via wands sometime later.
I will also pick up Channel as a Scion Talent sometime, so some more healing will come online then(not full-scale healing, but with good charisma is should have some impact in terms of out-of-combat recovery)

@Build stuff: That said, with Ikit gone, I'll have to re-evalute one or two choices, possible. We had some discussion during game setup in that he would deal with traps, and I would instead debuff stuff for him - I may want to re-evaluate those priorities if GM allows.

Feel free to re-evaluate PC choices as you see fit. I want to run lite here as the three of you have been dedicated posters so I don't want to introduce a random 4th at this time, maybe later but not right now.

One of us could run Ikit as well, just a suggestion.

Zhai will be a partial caster, witch (ley-line guardian), so once I can take a class level I'll have healing.

OK, updating now. RL not so much fun these days...

Alright, better than my last stretch but not as good as I want it to be.

Good news is that I'll be filing the final Divorce paperwork tomorrow. Then a meeting with the Judge and that'll be behind me!