Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - savagehominid

Pages: [1] 2
1
Other RPGs / Re: Looking for a rules light World of Darness-esque system
« on: February 12, 2012, 11:57:25 AM »
Check out: Mortal Coil - http://galileogames.com/mortal-coil/

The rules are simply, the rules have  a collaborative-vibe but still require a GM and also has very well-designed constraints to prevent people from going all nuts.

Check it.

2
Other RPGs / Re: Why do indie games have to suck so bad?
« on: February 11, 2012, 03:29:56 PM »
Polaris sounds interesting. I'll check it out but I'm sure it will be (if my group plays it) a "once in a year" (or something like that) kind of game. Sometimes a game too open tends to be... too open, you know?

But the Drifters Escape sounded more like a board game with a bit of roleplaying than a 100% RPG game. Although, it still sounds fun (I'm just analyzing from the RPG's point of view).

Thanks for those examples, I'll search them out :)

Drifter's Escape is a very intense roleplaying game. What is a roleplaying game other than a set of a rules that feedback into an open fiction.

Drifter is a single session game, while Polaris goes on for around 4 to 6 sessions. Both are once in awhile sort of games, but hey they provide hours of entertainment!

3
Other RPGs / Re: Why do indie games have to suck so bad?
« on: February 09, 2012, 11:59:27 AM »
A some don't even have GMs...some have multiple GMs and one Player! *gasp*

Le gasp!

Actually, it isn't so much the role is made smaller. The role is just far more focused (like the rest of play), the games usually spell out "Hey GM, your job is to do X, here are your rules too". Now in some cases it is fairly small, but any indie game that has a GM, usually hands them a lot of power and responsibility over key areas.

Can you give examples of indie games who gives a different role for the players? As in "X player helps the DM to come up with problems for the group, Y player is in charge of hitting someone with a chair if they screw with the group and Z player gives the XP he thinks its wise, making W player the only one running around and only playing in the new game Everyone is a DM".

I'm just curious because, like I said, the only games I saw gave me the impression that the DM was more of a small role looking for grave errors just to point them out.

Hm, I have an interesting example from Polaris.

Polaris requires 4 players...

The Heart, the protagonist of the scene.
The Mistaken, who plays the roll of the antagonist, and plays any demons or mistaken characters.
The New Moon, who plays personal relationships and any minor female characters.
The Full Moon, who plays hierarchical relationships and any minor male characters.

Polaris is about Chilvirc Tragedy in the far north. A Heart, is one knight. Each player creates a Knight, so after each scene play switches. Who takes what roll is chosen by seating arrangement. Example, the player across from the Heart is the Mistaken.

The Mistaken is more or less the DM, in the sense they bring the challenge. They play demons, they make things harder on the heart by complicating their life. The moons act as rules arbiters for the scene, they determine experience rolls, and adjudicate any disagreements over the rules.

Let me think of another...
Shock is similar. One player plays the protagonist for a scene, the player next to him the antagonist. The rest of players (from what I remember), play other NPCs, and also are the judge for conflict resolution. They also assign dice effects like damage and such. Like "oh during the struggle, since you rolled poorly, you totally got shot. So write that down on your character sheet.


And another...
The Drifters Escape! You have one player, the Drifter. The other players play The Man or the Devil. If the Drifter goes somewhere controlled by the Man, the man sets the scene and stuff. If the drifter goes somewhere beholden to the Devil, the devil sets the scene. Whats cool, is that conflict resolution is done by poker...NOW if the Drifter doesn't like his hand, he can ask for a deal from the Devil or the Man. They simply state what they require, and blamo!

The game feels likes a 70's sleazy thriller, like Taxi Driver or Walking Tall, maybe even First Blood with the right mix of ingredients.

Thats all the comes to mind at the moment. Most GMfull games are very non traditional, so I am unsure about your exact example. I know a few games support rotating GMs as well

4
Other RPGs / Re: Why do indie games have to suck so bad?
« on: February 07, 2012, 09:31:40 AM »
What's with these vaguely abstracted character features I see so much?  Attributes are the biggest one -- it's like they just took some abstract concepts, slapped them on a character sheet, and said "hey, throw some numbers in their" .... I mean, I guess I see what their going for, but a lot of times its just like "really? WTF?".

Sometimes its not what you fight, but what you fight for!

These serve as a player-to-GM flag, about how the player will accomplish tasks, and also situations they want to face. Also it will telegraph possilbe moves the play will make. Smart GMs will offer difficult choices...for example in Heroquest. A player could be put in a situation where his "Beserker Warrior 9m2" would not be the smartest to use. Say a ritual, duel to first blood. Yes the player could use it, but could go too far (since results are still narrated by the GM) on the attack. So the player has to fall back on a different keyword (say Guardsman .

Its different, some games do it well, others...I scratch my head too. I've never really dug PDQ for instance (though PDQ# is much better), a little loosey goosey even for me. The ones that do it well, usually have a very strong setting or premise, and it is fairly obvious what fits to choose as words (or part of chargen is campaing setup, and figuring out what thematically works best).

5
Other RPGs / Re: Why do indie games have to suck so bad?
« on: February 07, 2012, 09:22:28 AM »
The only problem I have with some indie games is the fact that some of them seems, imo, to put a small role for the DM/GM/Narrator/Whatever you want to call him.

When I read a couple indie games (not Savage World or Burning Wheel, but those more story-driven and with light rules) I get the impression that the players got more power and the DM is more of a referee. As a player, I like to only play, sure its nice when the DM listen to ideas and put them in there, but I like to trust someone in that role. And as a DM I like the possibility of directing things (if that makes sense) and being just a referee doesn't sound fun (or doesn't sound as fun as being a player).

But I may be wrong, of course.

A some don't even have GMs...some have multiple GMs and one Player! *gasp*

Actually, it isn't so much the role is made smaller. The role is just far more focused (like the rest of play), the games usually spell out "Hey GM, your job is to do X, here are your rules too". Now in some cases it is fairly small, but any indie game that has a GM, usually hands them a lot of power and responsibility over key areas.


Yeah, a lot of them seem like their designers have suffered some abusive GMs, or are just generally self-entitled as players (thank you Dr. Spock :ahem).

Man, that old hat, again? Whats wrong with games which are different in focus and mechanics, altering the classic GM role a bit. Some games require a different set of skills to run.

Once again, this has to do with expectations. If someone says this RPG is GMless, and about using Science Fiction to explore social issues (Shock: social science fiction). It would be a bit daft to expect tradtional rpg play.

6
Other RPGs / Re: Why do indie games have to suck so bad?
« on: February 06, 2012, 11:24:43 PM »
One thing I've noticed in my casual experience with indie games is that a lot of them are a bit more focused and gimmicky. 
THIS RIGHT HERE!!!
Thanks, Unbeliever.
At least with "mainstream" games, you can usually ignore the crap while still playing the game the way it was intended.

Well, let's see ..... I mentioned 3 by name, plus the entire body of work by another guy (which is at least 4 from him) ....
Does Savage Worlds count as "indie"?  or are they a little to "formal" in their structure -- I mean, yeah they're small, but Pinnacle actually hands out licenses to 3rd-parties and stuff.  Anyway -- their RNG is broken (i.e., doesn't work the way they think it does), and the use of playing cards for initiative (and every round, no less) I find to be rather intrusive.

Indie is means independently published, I think Pinnacle counts. It really is two or three guys, with a bunch of freelancers on a per project basis. There isn't a huge publishing house controlling the company, and Pinnacle isn't a a giant corporate game company. I think of it, as I do Indie Comics.

But as a whole, I totally get what your saying. Lots of those games are very focused, and have mechanics specifically designed around that, which of course are gimmicks. Its what makes certain games stand out from others. Woo!

Personally, I find any game that uses Minatures gimmicky. *SARCASM*

Now Savage Worlds is a traditional Roleplaying game. You got a GM, you got a team of adventurers. Rules are primarly focused on overcoming challenges with the use of skills, powers, and player ingenuity. One or two wrinkles gives the game its indenity. I mean, hell if it was just GURPS-lite with different dice...then, why the fuck wouldn't you play GURPS-lite.

 (For the record, I don't like Savage World or GURPS, but thats because I dislike generic games. I want the game to have an identity, and inspire me. I can just wank off and do my own thing without rules, if I so desire. However, I am interested in playing The Savage World of Solomon Kane, because they flavored the rules towards Solomon Kane a little more...and I'm a mark for any Robert E Howard property.)

7
Other RPGs / Re: Why do indie games have to suck so bad?
« on: February 06, 2012, 10:41:33 PM »
Yeah, but what I'm saying is that if what you were looking for is an RPG, and you have in mind a particular model, then these games probably don't stack up well by comparison.  And, in all fairness to the consumer, "RPG" does tend to mean ongoing campaign and so on and so forth. 

If these games say as much on the tin, then more power to them.  I have no idea one way or the other.  But, if they don't, I could see people being very disappointed.  I think the monster game I alluded to in my previous post has an issue along those lines.

P.S.:  is Dread aiming to be a kind of light-hearted affair, along the lines of horror flicks like Friday the 13th part [insert irrational number here] or Evil Dead?  If so, then I can imagine it succeeding quite admirably.  For something geared towards more serious horror, and query how successful that can be in an RPG, I would suspect the jenga mechanic to be more silly and distracting than anything else.

Usually the games say on the back, a great game for an evening of play, or good for a single session. The use that as a feature to sell the game! I've not seen one that doesn't, or at least doesn't make it very apparent right on the first few pages. One shots are a great thing to have, very low to no prep, just open the book, grab some paper and go!

On Dread, from what I read, and the game experiences it tends to fall more along those the camp, we are watching a horror movie for fun style. Thats why I alluded to horror movie, instead of a horror game. Hell, must "real" horror movies are consdidered th

8
Other RPGs / Re: Why do indie games have to suck so bad?
« on: February 06, 2012, 09:16:13 PM »
But, perhaps the core gameplay is "broader" (for lack of a better term) than many iconically "indie" games that seem content to be something you play a few times rather than the long-running multi-campaign model of  ye olde RPG.

I look at it like Boardgame Nights. Sometimes, you don't want to play a campaign of Tides of Iron. You just want a gaming experience for night, and a fairly complete one. But yes, that is a cool feature. They are great at party? Dread which is the Jenga game is a horror movie game. As characters do risky things, you pull blocks, when the tower falls...you die a terrible death. :)

9
Other RPGs / Re: Why do indie games have to suck so bad?
« on: February 06, 2012, 01:31:24 PM »
1) Hm, I see that they are on your mind. I agree with that. The issue I'm having is that you are lumping any creator owned game into the same category...but hey, now I get you are talking about some specific games.

2 and 3b) Okay, so you expectations were at production quality. Then why did you go off about "emo/melodrama". I rolled this into one, and yes, I get you have a certain perspective on games with a dramatic focus. However, lumping them in with White Wolf style is very different. WW is about characterization, where-as other game are about making choices. Now I can see the overlap, especially if you like more adventury games. However, both styles of games go about this differently.

3/a) Here is my issue. You essentially go, oh these games are like X, and offer no...reasoning other than a judgement, and a I don't like this. Then I'm like "Ooooh kay, how did you come to reach this conclusion". Now I haven't gone to this in the best way, I mean hell, I often just stream my thoughts, and was quiet baffled.

FORGE-ite? I guess. *shrug* I just lurk the Actual Play threads, and post...not so often. So okay, before you ascribe me to that camp. I am genuinely interested about the question I asked.

1) I'm not looking to convince you, I am more curious on how you reached that conclusion. I like conversations about differences, ya, I get a little ranty too. Its just my personality (working on that). So I can totally see where I misread you, and I was trying to engage in a different conversation as well.

A side question: What do you see as warning signs about the verbage I used? Perhaps I should've said! "Hey, RoS is also about character drama? So what about RoS versus the other games make it more enticing to you?"

10
Other RPGs / Re: Why do indie games have to suck so bad?
« on: February 06, 2012, 11:34:21 AM »
aaaaaand now we've gone ad hominem -- and missing my point in the process.
My point was that a revised edition isn't quite a fair example -- the original release had quite a bit of handling before the update, so of course "Gold" is going to be a solid product (presumably speaking -- I haven't actually played it).  The fact that you intentionally chose the revised edition just came off as disingenuous as to the point that you were trying to make.

I just looked at the first book on my shelf. Most of the indie games I have, from my reading are a bit more carefully edited.


Moving on ...
I'm sitting on about 10 games right now, and all of them leave me wanting.  However, the tone of your argument is coming across as "stop not liking what I like, and I won't let it go until you do" type of thing. 
I have neither the time nor patience to sift through 40+ games to find something I actually like.  If it can't grab me with a casual once-over, I'm not gonna waste any more time on it.  If it does happen to grab me on that first once-over, but doesn't inspire me to actually play it, I'm probably gonna put it down and forget all about it.
Hell, most RPGs in general (regardless of production level) fail to make it past stage 1 with me.

Thats fine, but your tone of "These all are less well polished etc" really flies against all my experience I've had.



And here's what's really getting me -- you're worrying this like a dog on a bone despite the fact that I have already admitted to unfairly applying a biased expectation and conceding many of the points that have been made.  What else do you want?  I've evidently hit a nerve, and you seem to be taking this personal.


I would agree with that, except you seem to not get it. See below...


and still moving ....
Creating drama needs to have a point -- the simple existence of drama is not a point.  So yes, drama for the simple sake of drama is shallow, pretentious, and uninteresting.  A game that exists as nothing more than a happenstance venue for melodrama, IMO, falls strongly in the category of "suckatude".  It ain't High Art -- it's a fucking game.  (of course, much of White Wolf falls in to this category as well -- make of that what you will).  In addition of everything that VB has done, stuff like Sorcerer and The Shadow of Yesterday falls in to this as well.

You see "oh, I have different expectations" but still deride these games as suckatude, and pretentious. The difference between these game and White Wolf is very evident in play. White Wolf is about "personal horror" (har), wrestling with inner desires and stuff. Where as Sorcerer and Dogs in the Vineyard are both about characters in positions of powers, because of  this they are thrust into unstable situations. Thats what leads to the dramatic tension and escalation. By drama, let my clarify. This is external character conflicts, all the internal wrestling is not the point. We at the table, want to see what happens in play. It could be "dramatic", sometimes its just out right horrific.

You may not like that, thats fine. But goings "its a game, its not high art" is much like "its just a movie, I don't need no high art in that". So what? Once again your expectations are just different. I don't take people who love blockbuster movies to a David Lynch movie.

So WHAT are you expectations for games?


A lot of games suck -- throughout the range of production values.  I happened to have zeroed in on indie games because that's what I've been churning through lately ..... after realizing that so many of the "bigger" games suck as well.

The only 2 games that have gotten my attention lately are The Riddle of Steel and Mazes and Minotaurs (though, TBH, that second one's got me only because of the "Affectionate Parody" value).

On taking it personal. I'm not, nor do I want you to admit much of anything.  Your points baffles me, why the focus on indie games. You say you concede expectations, but then you hold firmly onto what the point of games should be. Especially on the dramatic standpoint, The Riddle of Steel is all about character drama, as well.

Now instead of chiding or going haha (hey I'm an ass), I'll ask you this.

From your read though, why does the Riddle of Steel appeal to you as a dramatic game, and the others do not? Explain the best we can, I'd like to have a conversation and fill out your expectations

I feel it would've been more helpful to go "oh hey, all these games suck and here is why?" Then explain why, you feel they don't accomplish their goals. Or what facets of games you just dont dig. Yo...

11
Other RPGs / Re: Why do indie games have to suck so bad?
« on: February 05, 2012, 11:54:13 PM »
@wotmaniac

Okay, so...exactly what is your experience with indie games. I own quite a few different indie games, by quiet I mean pushing the 40 mark. As in 40 different game systems, not just supplements for existing systems. Some books are quite beautiful, like Burning Empires or Shock Human Contact. Most are well organized, or at least as well organized as traditional game books (the intro, char gen - powers, combat, other rules, GM advice, monster/adventure format). Nearly all the lengthy ones include an index, and most are at least proof read.

OH on Gold? Ya, when a print run was out he revised his game. So taking pot shots at an improving product, real class.

On VB games. The point is the creation of drama itself? As in dramatic conflicts between people. Whats wrong with that? This isn't "Mary Sue Drama" about moping, it is about driven characters in conflict with each other.

Heroquest is not vague. Even in the generic rules, it tells you about setting up those expectations for what PCs do, as a group. This plays into how the difficulties are set.

The fact is, a lot of these games do things differently. They aren't about mapping character abilities to simulate a fictional reality, nor about things that make "traditional game balance" sense. What do you consider good games, and why?

Also...again, how much experience do you have with Indie Games? Playing and reading...not reading about on forums, or skimming through a book. Also what about them do you not understand (specific cases please), instead of just making judgements...care to offer some actual observations?

12
Other RPGs / Re: Why do indie games have to suck so bad?
« on: February 05, 2012, 09:28:36 AM »
I think the crux of the issue for me is probably a result of the checks-and-balances in the development/production process (or lack thereof).  The fewer eyes that cross the material, the worse.
Of course, I guess the other extreme would also be a problem (i.e., too many cooks in the kitchen)

And care to illustrate this example? Because I disagree completely. I've seen professional material written and edited more poorly than indie games, example: Burning Wheel Gold vs D&D 4e. How much errata is in one and not the other? How much more useful is the index? Etc.

13
Other RPGs / Re: Why do indie games have to suck so bad?
« on: February 04, 2012, 08:27:08 PM »
There isn't that much of a difference between "indie game" and "mainstream games", outside how the games are published. You can found very well designed, traditional style games that have been published Indie. Likewise Marget Wies has been publishing kind-of out there stuff recently, using a traditional model.

Now on suckatude, you have to look at them as individual games. Each has rules designed for specific and different purposes, also different audiences.

I have a few games that directly involve Sex. It doesn't bother me at all, I like to have sex, and sex can be a powerful motivator in stories (like life) as well, so why not include it in a game. I'm glad for games with Sex with rules, or as part of the focus. However, not all games should have sex though, much like not all stories should be either.

Now on the whole skill list thing you mentioned, I'm thinking you are talking about PDQ or HeroQuest. Well the point is to highlight whats important about the character to the player, and the GM. Also play then becomes focused around that in a very tight fashion, problems get resolved, characters develop and advance. It is a different model that works.

In the end Rules are part of the process of play. Changing those rules alter the process, and leads down different roads which can lead to unexpected outcomes.

Remember, its not an us and them. Gaming is a niche as is, not every game will be for everyone. Me? I do not like D&D3.x/d20, WoD, or Shadowrun  (my anti-fun is a d20 powered Shadowrun as published by White Wolf).  I can tell you why, but do those games suck? Not really, they do what they do. Sometimes well, sometimes a little aimless.

So if you have a specific problem with an indie game, look at it that way. What does it do differently, sometimes trying it out.

14
Other RPGs / Re: Can you suggest a good gaming system?
« on: January 01, 2012, 02:01:11 PM »
It's actually pretty easy to give a complete list of good "high tech" games

Strongly Reccomend

Action Adventure
Battlestations

Science fiction
Shock Social science fiction
Misspent Youth
Freemarket
Apocalypse world
Microscope
Burning Wheel: Burning Sands (Dune)
Burning Empires

Weakly reccomend

Action Adventure
Savage worlds(the high tech worlds are kinda crappy)
Fate: Diaspora
Fate: Starblazers

Mystery
Ashen Stars

Everyone seems to recommend Microscope for Sci-Fi, the only game I played in was a Mythic Pre-History involving the Tribe of the Wolf, the Trickster Crow, and the founding of written word. :D

15
Other RPGs / Re: Can you suggest a good gaming system?
« on: January 01, 2012, 01:19:33 PM »
What does the group want to be doing?

Do they want to be a party, and tackle adventures? (I.E. D&D with a new coat of paint)

Engange in interstellar political drama?

What do the players (not characters) want to be doing? What sorts of decisions would they like to be me making? What does the GM want to do? Does the GM want to tell their story, provide challenges, or facilitate group authorship? Do you guys even want a GM?

More than "not d20" and "Futuristic...but not Star Wars (which is set a long time ago, thus...its in the past)

I'd recommend TechNoir, which is a hard boiled cyberpunk roleplaying game. But the game doesn't fall into the traditional adventure model. Then there is Burning Sands (Burning Wheel, set in the Dune Universe), which is pretty nifty as well. Diaspora is a cool toolkit for hard sci-fi adventures.

But a bit more to go on would be nice

16
Other RPGs / Re: Thoughts on The One Ring (New Lord of the Rings RPG)
« on: November 17, 2011, 02:28:33 AM »
Natural Magics, magic inherent in a people or culture. For instance...

Beornings for instance can spirit walk during the night.

The Mirkwood Elves can create lights that attracts mortal men.

Hobbits are good at disappearing from sight, etc.

Its all out of the books, very little to fabrication on the designers part. 

Also on power levels, from my read no one really outshines the other a lot. Since the game isn't about "party tactical balance" but about recreating the fell of middle earth. Each people have their strengths, so spotlight time (the best kind of balance) can be passed around easy enough (without having to rely totally on the GM).

17
Other RPGs / Re: Thoughts on The One Ring (New Lord of the Rings RPG)
« on: November 16, 2011, 09:10:07 PM »
Magic in The One Ring is subtle. Many of the people of Middle Earth have small, natural magics.

The Istari are the only "wizards", along with those who make pacts with dark beings (The Witch King, Necromancer, etc). Traditional Roleplaying Magic paradigm has no place in Middle Earth.

18
Gaming Advice / Re: Trying to not be a dick DM
« on: November 10, 2011, 01:39:47 PM »
So let me get this straight.

We are talking about people who do not understand the game (socially and mechanically), then instead of trying to reach an understanding...try to socially forces their way outside of rule use?

One, I do not react well to this. They either stop being dicks, or I have a heart-to-heart with them about understanding the game. If they still won't make an honest effort (some gamers...have interesting mental blocks) I will ask them politely to find a new game.

People who squash others fun, and make no effort to improve play, have no place at my table.

19
Gaming Advice / Re: Trying to not be a dick DM
« on: November 10, 2011, 01:06:51 PM »
I think it's a fitting term. After all, there are many ways of using the rules to your advantage, starting with optimizing that are not called rules lawyering. Rules lawyering has a negative connotation to it. Same for story lawyering. And while the rules and the story are intertwined, story lawyering involves going outside of the rules to get some advantage. It's like saying that your backstory says you're a princess so you should get free money. Of course money is power, so that would be a terrible idea and just opens the door to everyone BSing the DM.

So going outside the rules for an advantage is "story lawyering". See I still have a problem with that because it implies that the story is outside the rules. See what I mean? It leads to the whole "playing the game versus playing the story" debacle which is BULLSHIT, playing the game makes the story. The implications are terrible...

First, on the whole "My Background Says X" one of the GM's job in a traditional rpg is to ensure that backgrounds aren't out of hand. If I was running D&D, and someone said "I wanna play a princess...so can I have more money?" I'd be like "One, to have your money you'd have to be home. Two, you're an adventurer so you took what little you could grab when you escaped. Three, thus people are looking for the princess, you'd need be incognito. So therefor...you have starting gold." If the player wouldn't be reasonable, MAYBE we should be playing a different game? *gasp* I like to play games where character background is a part of the "rules", this nicely sidesteps this problem. If not, I do the above.

About the only time I've ever seen it come up is with basket weaver players. They're doing it because they can't succeed any other way. Someone who just isn't sure will ask how they can do [insert thing]. And then someone will tell them and everyone goes from there.

Basket Weaver players? Man, can you point me to a BG-Board Lexicon? *ahem* To me, trying to weasel around failure is nothing but...the fear of failure/risk/danger. The player can not stand the idea of failing so they'll weasel around using the rules, because "hey, it makes since in the story right?".  I've seen players try weaseling out this with rule-use as well (being a bit of rules monkey myself, I usually find trump their argument by clearing spelling out the situation), this has nothing to do with "lawyering" but everything to do with the fear of failure/risk/danger. Call it what you will, I call it being a bitch.

20
Gaming Advice / Re: Trying to not be a dick DM
« on: November 10, 2011, 12:22:59 PM »
Story lawyering is something that was more common in earlier editions (because there were fewer actual rules) but still happens to this day. If it comes up, it is almost certainly because someone is trying to bully the DM into giving them free advantages by going outside the rules, typically because they lack the ability to know how to do things within the rules. In some cases, they know how to do things within the rules but lack the actual abilities to do those things. It most often comes up with basket weaver players, as they are in essence powergamers that refuse to learn how to powergame, so they just want an effortless win.

Contrast to rules lawyering, which is annoying but at least generally has a point beyond giving them what they want as it is based on actual rules and not their own short sighted and selfish desires.

An example of story lawyering would be almost any example of bringing real world physics into D&D, particularly things like saying that since you can break someone's leg with 15 pounds of force your 20ish Strength character can throw around tables and permanently cripple enemies.

Cool, I see what you mean. Though I think Story Lawyering is a terrible term for it. At first brush I thought it meant "using the story to get mechanical advantages", which is usually supported by the rules...in some fashion (rules imply fictional logic to me...rules help create a story, they aren't isolated from each other).

BUT I understand your point. I'd deal with it the same way though, usually people do this through a clash of assumptions about what rules do than being mean about it.

Sidenote: I've heard the "its would be realistic" fallacy from these kinds of players so many times. I simply say "No, it isn't. Fictional stories run of fictional logic not realism. If you want realism, then go outside pick up a knife and find a bum to fight".

Pages: [1] 2