Topic: Who looks things up?

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I let the players read their own tables, as I have already way too much to manage on my own. Yes, it means they know their opponents' DB and AT but may meta-play about it but I know their DB and AT as well, and may just do the same, so we're on equal footing. If I consider players should expect me to be honest about it and not meta-play, then I should grant them the same benefit of the doubt.

[gandalf970]

I use Combat Minion and it does most of the heavy lifting.  I only let players know about their enemy if they do a Combat Awareness roll to see about the enemy or a friend.  Depending on the success I will tell them one thing, stun, bleeding or something hurt on them.

[KPadish]

I let players handle the weapons and crits.  As someone said, they do not know about the foe's special abilities (i.e. self healing), stun maneuver, or number of hit points.  I like the diversity of all the weapon charts and don't want to go to a condensed system.

As to the comment about not wanting the player to know the foe's robes are giving him additional defense or AT, I would think if a skilled swordsman (for example) is swinging away at a person in robes, he will quickly come to the realization that something is odd about this person's lack of wounds.   

[Ginger McMurray]

As to the comment about not wanting the player to know the foe's robes are giving him additional defense or AT, I would think if a skilled swordsman (for example) is swinging away at a person in robes, he will quickly come to the realization that something is odd about this person's lack of wounds.   

This

[arakish]

In actuality, I only look things up if I must.  Otherwise, with the 45 years of RPGing, I have gotten very good at "winging" it.  My current players don't even seem to mind.  Or perhaps they know my many decades of RPGXP?  Or better, they can realize how much easier I make things by "winging" it, and doing so justly.

rmfr

[Ginger McMurray]

In actuality, I only look things up if I must.  Otherwise, with the 45 years of RPGing, I have gotten very good at "winging" it.  My current players don't even seem to mind.  Or perhaps they know my many decades of RPGXP?  Or better, they can realize how much easier I make things by "winging" it, and doing so justly.

rmfr

I definitely wing stuff a lot. I'd rather have an answer right now that works than one 20 minutes from now which matches the rulebook and also works.

Hard questions can be researched in depth after the session. We play once a month. Mama ain't got time to waste!

[arakish]

Mama ain't got time to waste!

LOL  Sometimes daddy ain't got time to waste either.

rmfr

[Hurin]

Interesting. We play every two or three weeks, and we don't mind looking things up. Maybe that's why.

[Peter R]

Interesting. We play every two or three weeks, and we don't mind looking things up. Maybe that's why.

I think this is one of those "Your table is your table" situations. What you do at your gaming table, if it works for you and everyone is having fun is, is the right solution for you. There is no right or wrong way because this is a game played for fun.

[Spectre771]

This reminds me of a sig that one of the forum members has, but I'll be thrice-darned if i can find it now.  I've gone through several threads trying to track it down.

it was akin to "Fun > Common sense > rules..." *

If we are GMing a game, we are pretty familiar with the system and anything that could pop up.  @Ginger McMurry is absolutely spot on.  Wing it with  something that makes sense for that situation, then look it up after the session and tell the players at the next session what was discovered and if that situation arises again, this is how it will be handled.

Apart from charts and table that I have photocopied and at my fingertips during a session, there is very little I would have to look up.  Chances are high that I know what Companion it's from so I'll give it to a player and ask them to search for it while the session continues.  This is usually with the spell caster as he tries different things with spell casting so he gets Spell Law and Spell Users Companion when we sit down

* - Someone please help me find the correct quote.


=============
I found it!!!    Luckily I could still modify my post.

- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (> = greater than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

[PiXeL01]

We mostly had a person assigned for each book. That’s how I learned proper English pronunciation actually, I kid you not.

We have also been a little loose on some rules. Usually a success just meant breaking 100 on your roll, or tell the GM your result and he’ll tell you want happened.

Now we are looking at moving online, since I’m the person living on the other side of the globe of the rest of the gang, so I’m thinking to look into affordable software.

[Ginger McMurray]

My original answer to this was "The person making the roll looks up the result." I've got a group of complete newbies now. Some of them have only played a handful of D&D sessions before this. I showed them the Arms Law charts and the feeling in the room turned to laughter mixed with terror.

Luckily I found ERA. We'll be letting it do all of the look ups for charts. The character status screen shows all of a PC's spell lists so we won't have to pass Spell Law around a lot. We played our first session last week and it went pretty well. The magic system was a hit. There was only one critical rolled against a character: a slashed muscle in the leg. Someone mentioned it was "oddly specific." I didn't say what I wanted to say: "Just you wait." 

Now we are looking at moving online, since I’m the person living on the other side of the globe of the rest of the gang, so I’m thinking to look into affordable software.

I recommend ERA for Rolemaster. You can find it on Drive Thru RPG.

There's also Combat Minion, which some folks talk about in the Rolemaster Software subforum. I've never looked at it, so can't recommend for or against it.

[Ruffie]

It all depends on the player. There are players who enjoy looking through the tables themselves and there are players who outsource it to either the GM (me) or other players.

After reading this thread I'm considering of changing the play at the table to stop telling the players the damage numbers etc but just the effects which they can percieve. I really like that idea and have already discussed it with one of the other GM's. I think it might turn combat into a bit more fun at the table. It has the tendency to change into a "computer game style" with healthbars and status effects. It basically is but I like the combat to be more …. don't know the correct word but 'alive'.

Thanks for the tip!

[arakish]

Another thing I have done is to print out each chart for each weapon the player has and let the players look up their results.  Of course, being GM, I held the final application of those results.  With PDF versions, it is easy to print out only what each player needs.

rmfr

[Cory Magel]

I showed them the Arms Law charts and the feeling in the room turned to laughter mixed with terror.

I've just never understood that reaction. It's a table you look a result up on. It's not rocket science. If those things scare people they should probably just use a story-telling RPG with no rules.

[Spectre771]

I've just never understood that reaction. It's a table you look a result up on. It's not rocket science. If those things scare people they should probably just use a story-telling RPG with no rules.

Amen!  LOL 

And what confused me more is what do they care?  THEY aren't looking it up, the GM is.

[Ginger McMurray]

Cory: "They should avoid rules..." Elitist much?

Charts and tables that take up an entire page aren't for everyone. That doesn't mean rules should go right out the window.

Personally, I'd rather look up an RM attack and crit than roll a D&D D10. I also love Star Fleet Battles, so I know I'm an oddball in the gaming world.

Spectre77: actually, I'm not.looking it up, either. ERA for Rolemaster is. I'm at the age where I can't game every weekend anymore. we get to play for one evening a month. I'd rather spend that time playing than rolling and cross referencing.

We agree in one thing for sure, it's very much a perception thing. D&D isn't actually a simpler game by any stretch. The underlying principles of the two are the same: bonus + roll - penalty. Every skill works they same. Every caster uses the same rules with different lists. Every class is the same except skill costs and spell lists.

D&D has a ton more exceptions and specialized pieces. As a system it's arguably more complex.  The attack charts are at the center of that misconception. Rightfully so.

[Ecthelion]

Cory: "They should avoid rules..." Elitist much?

Charts and tables that take up an entire page aren't for everyone. That doesn't mean rules should go right out the window.

OTOH if someone gets scared by a simple table where he should look up results, then how simple should any kind of RPG rules be that don't scare him/her off? I think such persons are looking for a different kind of play-style and anything rules-heavy just isn't what they want. And then a store-telling RPG with very light-weight rules is probably the better choice. The "no rules" notion is probably just an exaggerated statement to make the points clear and nothing about an elitist attitude.

Spectre77: actually, I'm not.looking it up, either. ERA for Rolemaster is. I'm at the age where I can't game every weekend anymore. we get to play for one evening a month. I'd rather spend that time playing than rolling and cross referencing.

In our game looking up the results takes only a small amount of the time, so that we do not yet use tools such as ERA. But we split up the work between multiple persons (one or two players looking up results, one tracking damage). For us it's more thinking what action to take next and declaring the actions which is taking up the time. And there no PC tooling can help  .

[Ginger McMurray]

I think I'll back out of the "how many rules should.my players have" discussion. What we're doing works great for us so I'm happy to agree to disagree.

We have a table rule of 30ish seconds to declare your actions or be skipped. The players will come up with some standard strategies to call out when they apply. Other than that, they're incentivised to know their characters, pay attention, and think through what they want to do while others are taking their turns. Rounds are 6 seconds. Actions take a lot longer to resolve. That's plenty of time to.decide what to do.

[Cory Magel]

Cory: "They should avoid rules..." Elitist much?

I'm gonna go with... no.