"No [plan|mission] ever survives contact with the [GM|players]"

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I don't like to give my players hints but sometimes they just suggest something utterly stupid. I look at them and say "are you sure?"

Typically then, the other players tell the offender to STFU and scrap the idea.

I don't like killing the PCs because of one bad idea. A series of clusterf*cks OTOH...

- J.

See, I do that ('Common Sense' effect) and the players act like I'm being mean, leaving them no options. As if something suicidal was an option in the first place. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I've explained it to them. What's more, they've seen the consequences for going against that comment. When I use my 'evilGM' voice, there is no misinterpretation. Not anymore at least. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

- J.

I do that as well, of course, sometimes it's a decoy.

The other side of this is, what if the guy at the table with the worst ideas on how to conduct a run is the GM?

Generally, the GM has access to perfect information-- they basically know what will or won't work because they've read and/or designed the module the PC's are in. But we aren't infallible. When I'm running the game, it's not the job of the PC's to guess what I'm thinking. Sometimes they'll have good or bad ideas on how to tackle whatever obstacles are in their way, but all their decisions are made on information I've given them.

I've played in games where the gm decided on the correct course of action and would punish the party for not doing it (and not consciously, just if you deviated from what he thought was 'right', it was skewed against you). All I can say is, for a group of players, it's not the most fun way in the world to spend a Thursday night.

Thought you didn't play or run RPGs?

- J.

I've run a number of them over the years. Including Shadowrun. And played more, just not Shadowrun.

I don't think that's what I'm talking about, Mercer. My comments referred to things like, "well, what if I jump off this high building?" or "uh, I'll try to pull my gun on the crime boss while all his men have guns aimed at me". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Like, literally. It's even worse in D&D, oh man.

Without knowing the players in question, and without knowing the context of those statements, they do sound like ideas that would not end well.

However, if the character had a parachute or had some way to fly or was so tough he could survive the fall, or that character had some ability to draw that weapon and bring it to bear before the other guys can react; OR AT LEAST the player thought his character could do any of the above, then it may not sound quite as bad.

"I can survive the drop off the building, I have enough hit points." "This isn't D&D. You don't have Hit Points."

"I can survive the drop off the building, I have more than enough Body."

Yes, the good old clerics feather fallhttp://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

I guess this is an other aspect: What if the rules fight common sense every step of the way...

@toturi
The Problem here is, that the falling rules take a lot of stuff not in question...
If you fall in full armor, you will also create a bit more of an impact.

A pixie falling down a building is (realistically) much more inclined to survive it than a troll ist.
(Ok, pixies may be able to fly, but lets ignore that for a moment)
So if both jump of a building (lets say 30 meters high) the idea of the pixie is not that bad in realm of common sense.
The idea of the troll is very bad considering common sense and there should be no way in Hell he could survive that.
But the rules tell an other story...
Now what is a GM supposed to do...

With the falling rules of Shadowrun it would be due to write a letter to ares, informing them, that they could use much smaller projectiles for Thorshots since size does not matter for the impact event.

Something like that is always bad, because Players should be able to rely on common sense to let their characters act and not on obscure rule knowledge.

I think that players that make the effort to read up all the rules should be encouraged and allowed to use them in their characters' favor.

@toturi
Thats easy to say if only one player is involved. But if an other player has to die because of this rule, while he would not even be scratched in the real world...(And we are not talking about magic here...)

Now it gets complicated...

To that I keep saying that quite obviously the GAME world does not work like the REAL world. You don't NEED a degree in physics to play a roleplaying game. You DO need to know how the GAME world works.

If you take suicidal actions in the game world, they are just that, suicidal. OR you have to change the rules.

yeah, sorry about the caps, does look a bit stupid now....

@Brainpiercing7.62mm
Jesus christ. It is not about a degree in physics.
It is about beeing dead if hitting a deer on the road, for example!

So you have to possibilities:
You do not allow the mage to stop a tank with a raiting 4 barrier or the next time your group drives through an wooden sign the group is dead.

And I totally disagree that you need to know every freaking corner rule to play. If you do some every day stuff you should be on the safe side and not be killed by some obscure rule.

That's true, toturi: assume they did *not* have a parachute or any plan at all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Then when I said, 'you'll probably die, you know…', they said I was being mean. How dare the game world not cater to their protagonist powers.

You could have just gave them a page reference and let them judge the consequences of their intended actions for themselves.

Ah, but then it's my fault for letting them get into that situation in the first place. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Even though it was their idea and they chose it.

What you're saying is that you think the rules are bad. But that can only have one consequence: change them. The car damage rules are mess, and fixes are simple enough (use other's body x relative speed / something for damage, for instance). Falling damage rules may also have problems. But if the rules simply say that tougher people have a better time resisting damage, and don't take body mass into account, that's not really a big deal. It's a change compared to the real world, but not one I couldn't live with. You know that as a frail individual you had better not take a lot of falling damage (or any damage at all).

The game world should function in a way that's transparent to anyone, but not knowing the rules is no excuse. Look, I'm also against doing a collision test when hitting a signpost in a tank. Obviously that's stupid. There should be a simple sanity check (in the rules) to prevent such a thing. Something like If structure rating is much smaller than armour rating or body rating then there is no collision damage. On the other hand, driving into a very thin tree with a car COULD very well get you killed. Likewise a traffic light.

But the direct consequence is always that the rules need to be changed, and likely as not, for your group, you will have to do it yourself. With or without consulting them, depending on how you are inclined.

The point is, there are not. And actually it is impossible to write rules with those in all instances.

The falling rules work well for the medium human with a bit of armor.
The second it gets a bit more complicated....

The ramming rules work for one avarage car ramming an other avarage car.

So a GM needs always to adept the rules to the situation.
An I think common sense should go before rules.
So I would not be mad if I could not stop a tank with a barrier 3 iteam.
But I would be mad if I die, because I hit a squirrel with my tank.

Same thing if I am playing the generic elfen stripper and die because I jumped down a (active)windway because the rules do not take into account air resistance and mass...
If I did it with a strength 9 and body 7 troll, I would be kind of asking for at least some physical damage.

The last GM I played with liked coming up with scenarios that he couldn't solve.

One of them involved extracting a guy from an archology where his daily routine was to go from his apartment on the 16th to work on the 8th, and back. Public only had access up to the 4th (4 floor mall). We couldn't startle the guy and we couldn't physically hurt him either. Nor could we drug him. Our employer stated as such, although wouldn't give a reason as to why. Just that the guy was twitchy and paranoid.

What we ended up doing was spending half the paymoney to a cabal of mages to cast a ritual Suggestion on the guy to "visit the hat shop in the mall."

Then the face bumped into the guy, made friends, started trying on hats, they both left and paid for a full head-mask covering. Face went upstairs, the team (and the target) went downstairs and into the van. I forget what we told the target at the time (either mind-magic or face-magic to get him to come with us).

It was great later when the archology tried to reclaim him from out safe house. They smoke and strobe grenaded our place (only thing that works is ultrasound...guess what all of our melee combatants already had: ultrasound). Someone (PC) shouted at the target "THEY'RE here to get you!" and he bolted while we took care of the swat team.

We picked the target up afterwards and delivered him, in full health. GM stated afterward that the reason we couldn't harm him in any way was that he had data in his head that the employer wanted, and any severe trauma or stress might wipe it from his mind (and spooking him would cause him to run, making it difficult to take him down without harming that data).

You should take this as a compliment. It means he thinks you're smarter than he is. At least that's what it means when I throw scenarios like that at my players.