| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how many people have seen people interpret a rule one way, then interpret the rule differently on a different case and not see that the two correlate?
Most commonly are GM's knee-jerk reactions, something like, "what my falcon needs to make a fly check for that? I'm removing the fly skill" and then a few levels later "wait, how is that fighter in full-plate making that maneuver?"
or like, players, "yeah if I have this trait then I count as worshiping this deity and can get the bonus from this item" and then "why are they attacking, you said they only attack devout worshipers and no one here is a divine class"
Do others see this much or have I just been lucky. When A = B is basically true and they say that A => C and then I respond, well then should B => C too, and they get so confused why I'm asking.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The general way things are handled is that whatever interpretation would hinder player characters the most is the correct one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never seen that. What I have seen are people wanting to ignore the working version of certain rules, and not realize that(the version they want) interpretation of the rule will be very bad for them if they fight an NPC with that ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However the DM interprets it is what matters .
So long as it is constant then no worries
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a case by case basis, I try to make the ruling that makes the game more fun and more interesting. I think "more fun but inconsistent" is better than "less fun but more consistent."
Like for the example you give, if the PCs figured out a way to solve a problem that I had envisioned a more involved solution to by deploying their falcon to do it for them, I might ask for a fly check just to add some drama. "Can the bird pull off what you want it to do, roll and find out" has suspense that "the players solve the problem by simply describing the solution."
If the player is trying to do something cool not as a silver bullet for a problem, but just in "making an attack with a really cool description in combat" or similar I would probably just allow that.
The rules of the game world are primarily narrative, not physical, after all.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The general way things are handled is that whatever interpretation would hinder player characters the most is the correct one.
No, whatever interpretation would result in all those involved in the game having the most fun is the correct one. This game is not us vs. them...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If rules are inconsistent, they stop being rules, and if there are no rules, why play the game at all? Rules can certainly be bent according to context, but you should try not to break them all the way. Pathfinder is a very rules-oriented game, so it lends itself less to rule-bending than other systems, though it can still be done. If something says "no, you definitely and definitively cannot do this using that" you should heed that.
The general way things are handled is that whatever interpretation would hinder player characters the most is the correct one.No, whatever interpretation would result in all those involved in the game having the most fun is the correct one. This game is not us vs. them...
You must not have played with the same GMs that I have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no one "this way is correct" with regard to how much to enforce rules.
Personally, I prefer consistency. If you let a player do something, and then later tell them they can't do it, it can cause problems so I just prefer to follow the rules except for special cases. As a player I also like for the rules to not change. It keeps in world consistency for me, which helps with immersion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I counter with "Magic A is Magic A." If something suddenly changes without reason or acknowledgement, it not only hurts believability; it's a plot hole.
I agree that most common are GM rules calls that then get corrected after having time to decide what the rules say (or how we will house rule it). At most, we make a call, later look up rules, then make a decision for how that call would be ruled in the future.
That said, my group does have some change depending on who is GMing. We rotate GMs with a few different adventures going on, so that everyone has a turn to play and GM. Some GMs have house-ruled that you cannot 5-foot step diagonally around a hostile creature. Other GMs don't do that in their game. So it can be a little weird the first game or two after changing GMs to remember his house rule on things like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a case by case basis, I try to make the ruling that makes the game more fun and more interesting. I think "more fun but inconsistent" is better than "less fun but more consistent."
Strongly agree. This has never been an issue for my groups, just because we were more concerned with having fun than being 100% consistent.
There is absolutely value in being consistent when you can. But ultimately "Rule of Cool" and "Rule of Fun" trump "Rule of Consistency".
Like, does being inconsistent create plot holes? Sure. Is that a problem? Nah. Not usually.
This of course, is just how I play, and doesn't apply to every group ever. I wouldn't think this needs to be said, but I've noticed that this comes up often on these forums, so just being safe.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am *SO* sick of that Emerson quote. Everyone ignores the "FOOLISH" adjective, and believes it applies to ANY consistency.
I want consistency. If something works one way today and a different way tomorrow, there had better be a darned good explanation. "It's cooler" isn't one, party because that translates as "The GM thinks it's cooler".
Sorry, if the rules aren't rules, we're playing mother-may-I and I want a better game than that.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that consistency with GM rulings is something to strive for, however there is certainly a time and place to let things go a little.
There have been several times when I've been GMing where players wanted to try something a bit off the wall, and I've let them attempt it while making it clear that this wasn't going to be a precedent setting situation. They had a cool and interesting idea that didn't really follow the general rules of the game, so this time it would be allowed, but they couldn't try to do it over and over again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am *SO* sick of that Emerson quote. Everyone ignores the "FOOLISH" adjective, and believes it applies to ANY consistency.
I want consistency. If something works one way today and a different way tomorrow, there had better be a darned good explanation. "It's cooler" isn't one, party because that translates as "The GM thinks it's cooler".
Sorry, if the rules aren't rules, we're playing mother-may-I and I want a better game than that.
Ideally it translates into "what the GM feels the party feels is cool". It doesn't always translate into that, and there's always room for error, but to me the GM's role is to work with the group, not against it, and part of that is trying to figure out what the group wants to do, and make it possible.
But, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with playing "mother-may-I", as long as everyone's having fun. So we clearly have different things we want out of the game.
One similar example, that I remember, is the player (and the DM) who refused to understand that his Lighting Arc (the air domain spell-like ability) was a ranged touch attack. I was shut down, because Lighting Arc is listed to have a 30ft range... This was their argument... I tried to make them understand the rules from every possible angle in this regard, but I had to give up after a while... So he never landed a hit with Lighting Arc, because they compared his attacks to the full AC.
but... but... it says right there... "as a ranged touch attack"...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rub-Eta: I've had a similar thing with some people in my group. One guy had played RPGs for a long time, but didn't want to make any effort to learn the basics of the rules, because he said its role playing not roll playing. Ok, sure, fine, describe what you want to do, and I'll help you figure out the rules that apply. The problem came, when in a fight, his rogue/shadowdancer decides, "I want to bull rush the BBEG off the edge of the platform we're on". I advise him its likely to be unsuccessful, because its the BBEG and he doesn't have any of the relevant feats. He wants to try anyway. He fails and gets hit with an AoO. He gets upset, and asks why his rogue can't use his dex instead of str and this and that to do it. I tell him there are feats and options which allow for that, if thats who you wanted to make, you didn't take those feats, so your guy (despite how you picture him mentally) doesn't know how to use his dex effectively in that attack. Then the BBEG bull rushes him off the platform, as per his strategy. Player gets upset again because "He did it so easy!". Yeah, thats what he was built to do. Small high platform, bull rush PCs. Maybe if you let the fighter get his attention, he wouldn't succeed as easily or as much.
As a result, the player got bummed out, because he focused on feats, abilities, etc that were very useful outside of combat. He was a skill monkey, very stealthy, great at perception and disable device and social checks, but when it came time to combat, he wanted to be as effective (or more) than the fighter who didn't get all that fun stuff outside of combat. "What do you mean I can't shadowjump to the wall 5 feet above the guy and land on him stabbing him in the neck with a free coup-de-grace?"
In the end, we went our separate ways, as he wanted a rule of cool to supersede book rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the real world, you generally have a good idea what you can do easily, what is out of your league, and what is in-between. In a game world, your character should know that. The only way they can do that is through the player knowing the rules.
I'm okay with GM's making rulings. I just want them to stick to those rulings and not have the rules of physics in the world wander back and forth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a little OT, but some of the previous posts got me to thinking.
In earlier editions, the rules were often tucked away in sections of the rulebooks rarely referenced, and a lot of subsystems were so ridiculous it makes Grappling seem crystal clear.
This led to a lot of game masters taking a very laissez-faire approach to the game, and as long as things ran smoothly, who cares what the rules are?
To this day, I can bring up a random rule from 2nd Edition D&D and have veteran players and DM's look at me like I dropped in from another dimension, refusing to believe anything so silly could actually have been in a rulebook. And even if I prove it to them, "oh well, we never played it that way."
The internet really changed how people play. Instead of there being one "rules guy" in a group, you had zillions of people all across the world in one forum sharing information, and fact checking people who "knew the rules".
This reinforced concepts that were always part of the game, but had always taken a backseat in the past. Baseline expectations and transparency. In the old days, you could cast detect magic and the DM could say "you are blinded by magical radiance" or "something blocks your spell", and the player had to accept that, because they didn't have a baseline expectation of what their character would know, or how the fantasy world they were interacting with worked.
Now a player can legitimately ask questions like "can I make a Spellcraft check to understand what is going on?" or point out "that's not how magical auras work".
Some game masters rail against this, and say it limits their creativity and keeps the game from being fun. Me, even when I run games, I think it's a huge help when players have all the information- it makes the world seem more real, and boosts their immersion. Plus, if I want an unusual thing to happen, it means I have to step up my game to come up with the hows and the whys, and what the players can do to learn more.
OT: consistency is very important, IMO, to make the game world seem more logical, more "real"- helping you achieve that ever elusive verisimilitude. If you know that divination spells get wonky during eclipses, because the Sun God has divination in his portfolio, not only is that a fun fact that brings the fantasy into sharp focus- it's also something you can call back to later, and even work into your plans!
Way better than "it just doesn't work, stop being a dirty powergamer".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chess Pwn used fly checks in his original post. I often skip asking for fly checks to avoid distractions while combat is busy and the check is 80% likely to succeed. But if the flier is attempting a difficult maneuver that will be dramatic, part of the drama is the chance of failure, so I ask for the fly check.
Other times, I am flexible just for fun. See below.
Some game masters rail against this [enforcement of the rules], and say it limits their creativity and keeps the game from being fun. Me, even when I run games, I think it's a huge help when players have all the information- it makes the world seem more real, and boosts their immersion. Plus, if I want an unusual thing to happen, it means I have to step up my game to come up with the hows and the whys, and what the players can do to learn more.
well - part of a GMs job is to help players realize their desires.
Interesting juxtaposition of ideas. My wife likes to play unique characters who solve their difficulties in their own ways: pacifist cleric, lyrakien bard, frontline melee sorcerer, dwarf gunslinger gadgeteer, etc. If these roles were easy, they would not be as fun to her.
Last game session, a monster grabbed her dwarf gunslinger, flew upwards, and tried to drop the dwarf in a water-filled pit. It failed, because she had already shot it with her autograpnel (a technological grappling-hook gun) and it had not freed itself from the grappling hook, so the dwarf held on to her autograpnel. The rules worked against the monster. On the other hand, when a flying PC killed the monster as it dove low to dip the dwarf into the water, I gave the dwarf a Reflex save to swing toward the solid edge 5 feet away. That was GM flexibility. The dwarf had a great Reflex save and it was an opportunity for her to show off.
A classic moment with the lyrakien bard was the lyrakien flying across the room to disable a doomsday machine while the rest of the party fought through the guardians of the machine. The lyrakien failed her Strength check to pull out a power conduit. The party wizard saw this, and cast Scorching Ray as his next attack, aiming one ray at the socket of the power conduit to loosen it with thermal expansion. Thermal expansion is not in the rules. Nevertheless, I thought it clever, so I let the lyrakien try again with a +1 circumstance bonus and she succeeded. Teamwork at its best!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rub-Eta: I've had a similar thing with some people in my group. One guy had played RPGs for a long time, but didn't want to make any effort to learn the basics of the rules, because he said its role playing not roll playing. Ok, sure, fine, describe what you want to do, and I'll help you figure out the rules that apply. The problem came, when in a fight, his rogue/shadowdancer decides, "I want to bull rush the BBEG off the edge of the platform we're on". I advise him its likely to be unsuccessful, because its the BBEG and he doesn't have any of the relevant feats. He wants to try anyway. He fails and gets hit with an AoO. He gets upset, and asks why his rogue can't use his dex instead of str and this and that to do it. I tell him there are feats and options which allow for that, if thats who you wanted to make, you didn't take those feats, so your guy (despite how you picture him mentally) doesn't know how to use his dex effectively in that attack.
You brought back such a strong memory, I had to share it. In Chartmaster (err, Rolemaster to its fans), I'm playing a knightly-type, although I no longer remember the actual class. The BBEG is standing on the edge of a high platform w/out a railing, and I'm right in front of him. I want to knock him off of it. Sounds simple, right? If you've got a high-strength fighter-type?
"How do I do it?" I ask the GM. IIRC, the GM tells me to push him like an object, and I make my roll -- and roll high. "Actually, no, he weighs too much for you to push him off the edge." Never mind that I've got a very high strength stat; I foolishly went for a half-elf, giving me a relatively low-weight physical build!
"All right, then how do I knock him off? It should be easy for me, right?" I get new directions (now mercifully forgotten) from the GM, and make my roll -- successfully. "Well, no, that actually doesn't move him backwards," says the GM. "He steps to one side."
"He can keep side-stepping all day. But there's no railing, and he's between me and the edge. How do I just shove him straight backwards?" The GM says, "You need to use a sweeps & throws attack to get an unbalancing crit." I roll for the attack, hoping for a crit. I in fact get a crit, but the wrong one. "Let me see that crit table," I yell. There's maybe one option on a d100 roll to move someone backwards!
I give up, of course, and start just smacking him with my honking big sword. Mind you, I've now spent three turns putting only a tiny amount of hurt on him. It would have been nice to know up front that a sodding game didn't have a way for a strong person to push someone off a ledge!
Quite a few years, and quite a few PCs, have come & gone since then. Funny the things we remember...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You brought back such a strong memory, I had to share it. In Chartmaster (err, Rolemaster to its fans), I'm playing a knightly-type, although I no longer remember the actual class. The BBEG is standing on the edge of a high platform w/out a railing, and I'm right in front of him. I want to knock him off of it. Sounds simple, right? If you've got a high-strength fighter-type?
"How do I do it?" I ask the GM. IIRC, the GM tells me to push him like an object, and I make my roll -- and roll high. "Actually, no, he weighs too much for you to push him off the edge." Never mind that I've got a very high strength stat; I foolishly went for a half-elf, giving me a relatively low-weight physical build!
"All right, then how do I knock him off? It should be easy for me, right?" I get new directions (now mercifully forgotten) from the GM, and make my roll -- successfully. "Well, no, that actually doesn't move him backwards," says the GM. "He steps to one side."
"He can keep side-stepping all day. But there's no railing, and he's...
I'm a fan and I call it Chartmaster too! Completely off-topic, but they're doing a playtest for a new edition. You at least reminded me to check on how that would work now. The older editions of RM had so many alternate rules I can't say for certain how that should have been handled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rub-Eta: I've had a similar thing with some people in my group. One guy had played RPGs for a long time, but didn't want to make any effort to learn the basics of the rules, because he said its role playing not roll playing. Ok, sure, fine, describe what you want to do, and I'll help you figure out the rules that apply. The problem came, when in a fight, his rogue/shadowdancer decides, "I want to bull rush the BBEG off the edge of the platform we're on". I advise him its likely to be unsuccessful, because its the BBEG and he doesn't have any of the relevant feats. He wants to try anyway. He fails and gets hit with an AoO. He gets upset, and asks why his rogue can't use his dex instead of str and this and that to do it. I tell him there are feats and options which allow for that, if thats who you wanted to make, you didn't take those feats, so your guy (despite how you picture him mentally) doesn't know how to use his dex effectively in that attack.You brought back such a strong memory, I had to share it. In Chartmaster (err, Rolemaster to its fans), I'm playing a knightly-type, although I no longer remember the actual class. The BBEG is standing on the edge of a high platform w/out a railing, and I'm right in front of him. I want to knock him off of it. Sounds simple, right? If you've got a high-strength fighter-type?
"How do I do it?" I ask the GM. IIRC, the GM tells me to push him like an object, and I make my roll -- and roll high. "Actually, no, he weighs too much for you to push him off the edge." Never mind that I've got a very high strength stat; I foolishly went for a half-elf, giving me a relatively low-weight physical build!
"All right, then how do I knock him off? It should be easy for me, right?" I get new directions (now mercifully forgotten) from the GM, and make my roll -- successfully. "Well, no, that actually doesn't move him backwards," says the GM. "He steps to one side."
"He can keep side-stepping all day. But there's no railing, and he's...
GM was a dick there. When you ask "How do I do this?" and get an answer and do that action, then make the roll and the GM tells you that it does not work that way, he lied to you. And then he did it again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a fan and I call it Chartmaster too! Completely off-topic, but they're doing a playtest for a new edition. You at least reminded me to check on how that would work now. The older editions of RM had so many alternate rules I can't say for certain how that should have been handled.
GM was a dick there. When you ask "How do I do this?" and get an answer and do that action, then make the roll and the GM tells you that it does not work that way, he lied to you. And then he did it again.
Which is why I remember the scene so vividly -- at least, vividly enough to go get fill-in vocabulary like "unbalancing crit" from my husband Debnor. :)
In the GM's defense, I have to explain that she was a novice GM, and that I left a crucial detail out -- the GM going flip, flip, flip through the books after I'd rolled. As d'Eon's points out, figuring this maneuver out wasn't easy! (I have to be kind to myself, here; I'm GMing Pathfinder for the first time now, and I've been learning buckets of rules!)
Still, there it is, she was adjuticating a tough situation. The first turn, okay, maybe my character really would have tried to simply shove him and then figured out how heavy he was and how light she was.
The second time, however, when the GM looked things up and realized he could sidestep, she out-and-out made a mistake. She should have given me my action to do over. But even so, she would have told me to go for an unbalancing crit. That one wasn't a lie or a mistake, precisely -- that crit table does allow for knocking someone backwards... if you get lucky. If I'd been a more experienced Chartmaster player, I'd have asked to see the crit table before I tried for it. I don't know where that one fits in the current discussion!
She'd have done better, IMHO, to mirror some of the expert GMs here after my second attempt, and been inconsistent in upholding the rules. "OK, you're strong, he's at a disadvantage, you made your roll, so you push him over -- but just so you know, he normally could have sidestepped."
Mind you, it's been really hard for me to do that, too. I'm working to internalize what I'm seeing here about focusing on making the game fun. Thank you, all!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my case, as a counter-example. The player wanted to push the BBEG. I said he would provoke an AoO because he didn't have the feat to not to, and that the BBEG was a tough martial character, who likely had a high CMD, so the maneuver was unlikely to succeed, especially if the BBEG hit him with the AoO (which applies a penalty of damage taken to the attempt). Basically telling him that unless he got a Nat 20, it was very likely he would get hit, and fail. He still insisted this was the action he wanted to do, because he was sure he could pull it off. Until then I was willing to let him change his action, as he didn't know the system, and so while "shove the guy off the edge" sounds like a quick win, if its near impossible to do so, there is probably a better action to take. So he makes his roll, it isn't a nat 20, and the guy hits him for trying. This wasn't a one instance either, every combat, he would come up with creative things to do, describe them in a very cinematic, awesome fashion, but didn't have the skills/abilities/etc to actually do what he wanted.
Him: "I want to shadowjump behind the ogre and stab it in the neck."
GM: "You can shadowjump, but your turn ends after you jump, because it works like dimension door."
Him: "Ok, but what if I shadowjump above the ogre and have my knife pointed down, I can't take an action but I'll fall on him knife first and do damage!"
GM: *sigh*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM: *sigh*
What else can you say??? I bet the other players were as relieved as you were when he went off looking for a game that permitted cool rather than rules. In the case of the "Shove the BBEG off the ledge" story, I'd have no problems with you as GM. You knew the rules, and explained them. Okay, if you had to explain that under the rules, a skinny half-elf couldn't shove a big man, no matter how strong she was, it would have inspired a rant. Sorry. But even if it bugged me, I'd have known to pull out my honking big sword and let it do the talking, first turn!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
bitter lily,
IMHO you have hit on one of the many areas that RoleMaster does poorly and it takes a good to great GM to work around them.MDC
It is good for charts and elaborate critical hit tables though. And I think its spell system might be superior to Pathfinder's.
bitter lily, I sent a PM with some more info on the playtest.
I'm a fan and I call it Chartmaster too! Completely off-topic, but they're doing a playtest for a new edition. You at least reminded me to check on how that would work now. The older editions of RM had so many alternate rules I can't say for certain how that should have been handled.You brought back such a strong memory, I had to share it. In Chartmaster (err, Rolemaster to its fans), I'm playing a knightly-type, although I no longer remember the actual class. The BBEG is standing on the edge of a high platform w/out a railing, and I'm right in front of him. I want to knock him off of it. Sounds simple, right? If you've got a high-strength fighter-type?
"How do I do it?" I ask the GM. IIRC, the GM tells me to push him like an object, and I make my roll -- and roll high. "Actually, no, he weighs too much for you to push him off the edge." Never mind that I've got a very high strength stat; I foolishly went for a half-elf, giving me a relatively low-weight physical build!
"All right, then how do I knock him off? It should be easy for me, right?" I get new directions (now mercifully forgotten) from the GM, and make my roll -- successfully. "Well, no, that actually doesn't move him backwards," says the GM. "He steps to one side."
"He can keep side-stepping all day. But there's no railing, and he's...
Unlike D20, I believe that the strength is factored in with weight and build in such maneuvers. So you were penalised by having a lighter build and weight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My old group found a lot of rules we disliked or hated. Some because they were stupid even by their own logic. A Keen weapon doesn't stack with a Feat that improves your critical hit. By their rules they should stack because they are two different bonuses. Most times we as a group changed them so everyone knew how the rule worked so there was no confusion.
Well, technically, they aren't really "bonuses" to simply be added together. But a bit on the history of the topic...
Back in D&D 3.0, keen and improved crit did work together to increase a weapon's crit range. D&D 3.5 walked that back, much to Sean K. Reynolds's dismay at the time considering he had a blog post defending letting them work together. However, players like me agreed with not letting them work together, in part, because letting them do so slowed the game down and felt too common. Imagine a PC with improved critical (scimitar) and a keen scimitar. He's scoring crit threats every time he rolls 12 or better on his attack roll and then has to roll a confirmation check. For high level characters, that's a fairly long turn with lots of die rolls and slower play. It's a PITA.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Off-topic alert
bitter lily,
IMHO you have hit on one of the many areas that RoleMaster does poorly and it takes a good to great GM to work around them.
MDCIt is good for charts and elaborate critical hit tables though. And I think its spell system might be superior to Pathfinder's.
bitter lily, I sent a PM with some more info on the playtest.
Thanks! And thanks for telling me here that you'd sent it; it came in on my husband's avatar (Debnor), so I never would have thought to check. I'll let people know. (I can smell an RM game coming soon to a gaming table near me...) I do hope that they've fixed the strong but skinny frustration, not to mention the brownie's flying carpet anomaly. Oh, and then there's my issues with those very large crit tables -- I never again designed a character without taking a talent to be able to slightly fudge a roll on a crit table, and I had the advantage of always playing with someone who knew how to build a capable healer... (Of course, it doesn't always help. One friend still remembers a character whose nose got chopped off at first level, when no healer the party could afford could possibly help. Sadly, the character lived.)
It would be nice not to need a good GM to work around bad rules! Maybe my opinions of the game will be improved with the new edition. As I said, it's a good bet I'll get to find out...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rolemaster approachs Rift's in it's insane level of charts and numbercrunching. I'm only surprised that not more GMs run into issues with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This wasn't a one instance either, every combat, he would come up with creative things to do, describe them in a very cinematic, awesome fashion, but didn't have the skills/abilities/etc to actually do what he wanted.
Him: "I want to shadowjump behind the ogre and stab it in the neck."
GM: "You can shadowjump, but your turn ends after you jump, because it works like dimension door."
Him: "Ok, but what if I shadowjump above the ogre and have my knife pointed down, I can't take an action but I'll fall on him knife first and do damage!"
GM: *sigh*
Depending on when (with regard to rulebooks released) this happened, your response possibly should have been: 'You need to take the Dimensional Agility feat.' (I would rule that any ability that 'works like D-Door' would qualify for the feat.)
Or the Ogre (and the character) could take falling damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, the core stuff is easy enough. Most of the numbercrunching in play is no different from d20, adding, subtracting, maybe a little multiplication. And unlike Rifts, RM actually has a functioning ruleset. It's definitely not for everyone though.
Sadly the guy missing a nose lived? That's not sad, that's awesome. There's far worse permanent injuries, and missing a nose doesn't cripple you like missing a hand.
Eh, the core stuff is easy enough. Most of the numbercrunching in play is no different from d20, adding, subtracting, maybe a little multiplication. And unlike Rifts, RM actually has a functioning ruleset. It's definitely not for everyone though.
Sadly the guy missing a nose lived? That's not sad, that's awesome. There's far worse permanent injuries, and missing a nose doesn't cripple you like missing a hand.
Well, this character was definitely crippled; I skipped mentioning that she was a houri! LOL! But honestly, anyone's face is such a strong part of their self-image that it could be devastating. Sure, there's some nasty fighter types who'd revel in such an injury, and look for bonuses for intimidation. Not any character I ran!
And, if I understand the story correctly, this still goes back to GMing to make the game fun for the players. The GM wouldn't let the ruined houri slink off to become a town drunk, while the player rolled up a new character! That poor player was stuck. (I can imagine a great GM saying, "well, I'll want to have the option of turning her into an NPC someday..." That could make for a fabulous NPC encounter when the party least expected it.)
Oh, yeah that would be difficult. GM probably should have let them retire and reroll, though a better choice would have been to have a healer who could fix it show up and do the job on credit. One thing I learned playing the old WEG Star Wars system, putting a player in debt to an NPC is always a good idea!
Rolemaster approachs Rift's in it's insane level of charts and numbercrunching. I'm only surprised that not more GMs run into issues with it.
Eh, I'll agree that Rifts is broken and inept systemwise, but charts and number crunching on a level even approaching Rolemaster? Have we played the same games?
bitter lily, I sent a PM with some more info on the playtest.
Again, thank you -- and I was surprised (and pleased) to find out from my hubbie that you brought up my frustrating situation on the forum. Thank you for that, and I hope they end up explicitly coming up with a workable procedure.