Shitty character concepts need to die

[Verisimilitudinous]

Also I love the idea that MTP is just bad design and GOOD design just has rules for everything that ever might come up. Because that is the silliest thing I have ever heard about game design.

MTP is unavoidable in every RPG ever because the alternative is trying to make rules for reality. Which is not only impossible but a bad goal to boot. The DM's entire point is to regulate MTP; if you want rules for every interaction possible you want a video game, not a TTRPG.

You don't need rules for reality.... that's batshit crazy talk.

You need rules for the scope of your game, and no rules for everything else. You don't make rules for colonizing alien worlds in your 1970's spy game and you don't make rules for crafting pots in your fantasy adventure game.

You only make rules for the things within the scope of your game. Your fantasy adventure game needs rules for swordfighting because that's the thing that people signed up for when they agreed to play a fantasy adventure game. Even if one PC really wants to start a pottery shop and sell his pots to nobles between adventures, the designer does not write big complicated rules for running a business or attracting clients because this is a fantasy adventure RPG and those things are not in the scope.

The big strawman argument for people who want good rules is always, "well, why don't you play a video game!" as if the extremely limited ruleset of a video game is the end result of having rules and a game. This ignores the fact that lots of games use abstractions instead of simply poorly representing aspects of reality with limited rules, and they are much more fun for it. For example, not being able to climb small walls is not the inevitable result of having rules, and MTP is not the only solution. You can just redesign rules when you find a flaw such as fixing your issue with small walls by abstracting movement such that small walls aren't even a consideration.

It also ignores the fact that lots of people RP in video games. RP is clearly independent of MTP.

What if I used the opposite strawman for the MTPers, the old, "If you don't like rules, then you shouldn't RPG. Just write a novel. Then you can be as creative you want and nothing can contain your imagination"?

But you said that MTP is a sign of poor design, and now you're saying that MTP is just going to happen regardless? I don't know what you're trying to get at here. MTP is outright required. It's not bad design. A perfectly designed game is going to have MTP simply because of something you've admitted: a game cannot have rules for everything.

Hell, magical tea party is the best part of the hobby. How many times have you heard, "Oh man and then I started reading the grapple rules to figure out if I could do anything and it was SO COOL," or, "Holy crap I moved five feet and rolled a D20 five times and it was AWESOME," or, "And then I read the spell description and cast it OH MAN THAT WAS GREAT," compared to the countless recountings all of us have heard about the DM allowing some batshit manuever that's outside of the rules and it being insanely fun?

[Kaelik]

So you only accept the single ruleset that supports your argument? What about 2E AD&D psionics? Hell, it's even in the Time of Troubles fluff that psionics were utterly immune to all the magical instability.

No, I only bring up the ruleset that I know. I don't know 2e Psionics. For all I know, 2e Psionics also can't operate in an AMF. Nor do I care about the Time of Troubles, I merely point out that AMFs do in fact prevent Psionics.

But that's not what the definition of magic. The definition of magic only says that magic itself must be supernatural.

No, what I said is the definition of magic. The definition of magic does not say that magic itself must be supernatural, it says, for the billionth time:

The definition of magic is "of or relating to the supernatural" which means, like all definitions, that anything that is "of or relating to the supernatural" is magic.

So in order to find out if something is magic, you say "does it relate to the supernatural?" If yes, it is magic.

Like all definitions, it creates a set, and all things in the set are magic. So all things that relate to the supernatural are magic, but magic is not just things that are supernatural.

For gods sakes learn to fucking read.

And wouldn't it follow that, if supernatural must be magic, that the actual definition of supernatural would include magic... somewhere? Anywhere? But it doesn't, so I'm confused. How is the supernatural magic if it doesn't reference magic?

All Dolphins are mammals. It does not follow that the definition of Dolphin must include the word mammal. And in fact, the definition of Dolphin does not.

Instead, when we want to determine if Dolphins are mammals, we look at whether they fall within the subset of the definition of mammal.

Likewise, when we want to determine if supernatural things are magic, we look at whether supernatural things fall within the definition of magic. They do, since supernatural things relate to the supernatural.

There can be monetary things that aren't pecuniary too? And supernatural things that aren't magic? Do you even know how language works?

No, that is the point. There cannot be monetary things that are not pecuniary. All monetary things are pecuniary by definition. That is the fucking point. Just like all supernatural things are magic by definition.

The definition of pecuniary tells us that anything monetary is pecuniary, and the definition of magic tells us that anything supernatural is magic.

[Verisimilitudinous]

Oh, I think I see your problem. You don't know what of means.

[Kaelik]

Oh, I think I see your problem. You don't know what of means.

No, the problem is apparently that you do not know what or means.

Let me help you out:

X or Y is Z.

Is X Z? Answer, yes, because even though X is not Y, it is X.

Likewise, anything that relates to the supernatural is magic, even if it is not of the supernatural. Because the word or exists.

[Verisimilitudinous]

The problem being is that 'of' in that sense means derived from, while or means... or. So "Derived from, relating to, or invoking the supernatural," wouldn't actually be interpreted by a sane person to mean, "Everything supernatural ever and then some."

[Kaelik]

The problem being is that 'of' in that sense means derived from, while or means... or. So "Derived from, relating to, or invoking the supernatural," wouldn't actually be interpreted by a sane person to mean, "Everything supernatural ever and then some."

Yes it would, because "relating to" is a separate conditional. So if it is related to the supernatural, then it doesn't matter whether or not it is derived from it.

[K]

But you said that MTP is a sign of poor design, and now you're saying that MTP is just going to happen regardless? I don't know what you're trying to get at here. MTP is outright required. It's not bad design. A perfectly designed game is going to have MTP simply because of something you've admitted: a game cannot have rules for everything.

Writing rules and MTPing are two different things.

That being said, you don't want rules/MTP for everything. The correct answer to "and now I want to run a pottery business with my 7th level Wizard" is "ok dude, your Wizard retires. What's your next character going to be?"

When you don't have rules for things in the scope of your game, you write some rules. Then you use them over and over again as needed and PCs get the player agency of knowing how the game is going to handle that situation.

Hell, magical tea party is the best part of the hobby. How many times have you heard, "Oh man and then I started reading the grapple rules to figure out if I could do anything and it was SO COOL," or, "Holy crap I moved five feet and rolled a D20 five times and it was AWESOME," or, "And then I read the spell description and cast it OH MAN THAT WAS GREAT," compared to the countless recountings all of us have heard about the DM allowing some batshit manuever that's outside of the rules and it being insanely fun?

MTP is also the worst part of the hobby by an overwhelming amount. For every "and then the DM decided that my spell has this cool unexpected effect," there are thirty stories of "and then the DM decided that my spell wouldn't work in that situation because of some bullshit he came up with." You hear the old "yeh, and my Evasion should have saved me but the DM decided that I can't because it's not magic." You get weird unexpected things where you auto-lose because the DM decided that rocks fall and everyone dies.

The Cool to Suck Ratio for MTP is devastating. Entire sections of the game like illusions in s.X DnD can't be used without a conversation with the DM lasting at least a half hour, most of the time resulting in that DM MTPing up a version of illusions that nerfs it into uselessness.

That being said, cool shit happens in the rules all the time without MTP. People really do say shit like "and then I rolled three nat 20s and critted that troll before it could even attack." They retell stories about cool settings or monsters far more than that one time the DM MTPed success for the party when they should have failed.

[Stinktopus]

So, in the context of RPGs... any effect derived from, related to, or invoking the supernatural would be properly described as magic.

[Libertad]

MTP is also the worst part of the hobby by an overwhelming amount. For every "and then the DM decided that my spell has this cool unexpected effect," there are thirty stories of "and then the DM decided that my spell wouldn't work in that situation because of some bullshit he came up with." You hear the old "yeh, and my Evasion should have saved me but the DM decided that I can't because it's not magic." You get weird unexpected things where you auto-lose because the DM decided that rocks fall and everyone dies.

The Cool to Suck Ratio for MTP is devastating. Entire sections of the game like illusions in s.X DnD can't be used without a conversation with the DM lasting at least a half hour, most of the time resulting in that DM MTPing up a version of illusions that nerfs it into uselessness.

That's not MTP; that's the DM changing the rules on the spot because "noncasters can't have nice things."

It's not in the same league as "I'm making shit up where there are no rules." It's "I'm changing the rules right now just because."

[Krakatoa]

Yes, and in the context of arguing, any effect derived from, related to, or invoking a dumbass tautology would be properly described as a dumbass tautology.

If you define magic as "anything supernatural" and supernatural as "magical" then you're just arguing yourself into semantic circles.

[Stinktopus]

Yes, and in the context of arguing, any effect derived from, related to, or invoking a dumbass tautology would be properly described as a dumbass tautology.

If you define magic as "anything supernatural" and supernatural as "magical" then you're just arguing yourself into semantic circles.

Okay, give me something supernatural that isn't magical.

[Verisimilitudinous]

The Cool to Suck Ratio for MTP is devastating. Entire sections of the game like illusions in s.X DnD can't be used without a conversation with the DM lasting at least a half hour, most of the time resulting in that DM MTPing up a version of illusions that nerfs it into uselessness.

If we want to go down that road there are a lot of parts of D&D that just need to go away. How's the grapple rule's cool to suck ratio? How about the Fighter? How about the survival rules?

Let's face it, MTP is what holds a game together. Because, honestly, the DM setting up a campaign is magical tea party. It is nothing but the DM saying, "Hey, this is what's gonna happen! I can assign some rules to it but uh overall it's just pure bullshit given some structure with the rules because that pure bullshit is what I think will be neat."

Hell, even the rules are MTP because they're purely arbitrarily assigned in order to challenge the party. Unless you're running a hexcrawl where everything is pregenerated in which case, wow, there are Roguelikes that do it better.

[Kaelik]

Yes, and in the context of arguing, any effect derived from, related to, or invoking a dumbass tautology would be properly described as a dumbass tautology.

If you define magic as "anything supernatural" and supernatural as "magical" then you're just arguing yourself into semantic circles.

But no one has defined, nor has the dictionary, supernatural as "magical."

The definition of supernatural is some bullshit about exceeding the natural and from god and shit.

Now, the important thing is for people to shut the hell up about their "I don't want any Phlebotium in my character! I just want to have Phlebotium!"

But if that means I have to make people use the actual meanings for words, I fucking will.

[Grek]

The 3rd edition D&D grappling ruleset is much better than a randomly selected grappling ruleset drawn out of the pool of all possible grappling rulesets. You're better off using the grappling rules than MTPing grappling, or resolving IC grappling vs. an ogre with OOC grappling vs. the GM, for example. So it probably doesn't need to get deleted, so much as improved upon.

[Mask_De_H]

Versi, if you aren't Red_Mage or FactsAreUseless or some other Goon who uses versimilitudinious "ironically", let me give you some advice: arguing semantics and the nuances of words here only causes a shitstorm. Nothing gets done and any goodwill or attempt at an argument you might have had goes nowhere. At best, it causes confusion and a torrent of swearwords. If that's your goal, then mission fucking accomplished; you kicked over the easiest grog anthill this side of theRPGsite. If not, you're going to have to learn to level with the people here and suss out some definitions.

Case in point: what K's saying now. Magical Tea Party, as K defines it, is not the fiction triggering a player's action (as in the Apocalypse Engine games) or an improv session (which is what actually having a magical tea party is) but an ad-hoc ruling to a player's action not covered in the rules. Having rules to catch the fiction is an important part of storygames (like Fiasco's black or white die, Apocalypse Engine's everything or Munchhausen's voting and chit interrupt). Those games would not work as well if the end results and mechanical decision points were arbitrarily decided by a singular person. If the MC just started making moves in an Apocalypse Engine game, the narrative flow would be ruined. If one player is being a shit and shooting down or disrupting a character's story in Fiasco or Munchhausen because they have fiat, then those games fall apart.

When games that are predicated on (and buoyed by) the fiction fall apart due to fiat and arbitrary decisions, why would you expect games that are as rigid and heavily defined by interlocking rules as any D&D other than Basic not to under the same pressure?

[Whatever]

I get that people invented the word "phlebotinum" to specifically mean "arbitrary power source that allows characters to do things that would otherwise not be possible" but it's a stupid word. Using "magic" instead is worse, as this thread shows.

So, when we're talking about game design, let's call it what it is: bullshit. Every high level character needs to have some kind of bullshit to be high level. Bullshit is optional for low level characters. I don't fucking care if your bullshit is magic, or psionics, or ki, or nanomachines, or parents who were (aliens/monsters/robots), or fucking anything. But you have to have bullshit. You have to be bullshit.

[Verisimilitudinous]

I get that people invented the word "phlebotinum" to specifically mean "arbitrary power source that allows characters to do things that would otherwise not be possible" but it's a stupid word. Using "magic" instead is worse, as this thread shows.

So, when we're talking about game design, let's call it what it is: bullshit. Every high level character needs to have some kind of bullshit to be high level. Bullshit is optional for low level characters. I don't fucking care if your bullshit is magic, or psionics, or ki, or nanomachines, or parents who were (aliens/monsters/robots), or fucking anything. But you have to have bullshit. You have to be bullshit.

I approve of this post entirely.

[Libertad]

Versi, if you aren't Red_Mage or FactsAreUseless or some other Goon who uses versimilitudinious "ironically", let me give you some advice: arguing semantics and the nuances of words here only causes a shitstorm.

He can't possibly be Red_Mage, because he hasn't been accepted into the hivemind yet.

I should know, I'm Red_Mage. And so is Ettin, and so is that other guy on rpg.net. Resistance is futile, you must join the Borg.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Avoraciopoctules]

I get that people invented the word "phlebotinum" to specifically mean "arbitrary power source that allows characters to do things that would otherwise not be possible" but it's a stupid word. Using "magic" instead is worse, as this thread shows.

So, when we're talking about game design, let's call it what it is: bullshit. Every high level character needs to have some kind of bullshit to be high level. Bullshit is optional for low level characters. I don't fucking care if your bullshit is magic, or psionics, or ki, or nanomachines, or parents who were (aliens/monsters/robots), or fucking anything. But you have to have bullshit. You have to be bullshit.

After all the bickering over terminology, this seems quite reasonable.

[Verisimilitudinous]

I am very guilty of arguing semantics. My chief reason for doing so is that magic, in TTRPGs, is usually very well defined as things that people who tap into magic do.

Magic can be a catch-all term, for sure. I mean, come on, the quote of "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," applies really well; stuff that we do today could easily be labelled as magic by people as little as a century ago. But magic in fantasy games is different from that. It's a very well defined term in the TTRPG world, and it relies on actual(if you will forgive the hilarity of that regarding the topic) magic.

In fantasy games involving people other than mages, or whatever 'magical' people you want to name, I do not think that magic should be the only supernatural thing. Psionics is a pretty good example of this, as are many of the Bo9S classes. They're not magical, but they do things that no normal person could do. This is not a bad thing! This is a really, really good thing that should be emulated! If Bob Wizard, Level X, has the capability of stopping timee, Joe Fighter, Level X, should be capable of doing something similarly supernatural because, at that point, people are pulling off supernatural shit and I, for one, want everyone to be able to contribute moderately equally.

[Aryxbez]

To any consolation, one might say this is what folks desire from their Fighter. Which I'll admit, that swag warrior was pretty hardcore than most D&D fighters you'll ever see (both seem to be gadgeteer characters, where they level up with their equipment).

[Kaelik]

In fantasy games involving people other than mages, or whatever 'magical' people you want to name, I do not think that magic should be the only supernatural thing. Psionics is a pretty good example of this, as are many of the Bo9S classes. They're not magical, but they do things that no normal person could do. This is not a bad thing! This is a really, really good thing that should be emulated! If Bob Wizard, Level X, has the capability of stopping timee, Joe Fighter, Level X, should be capable of doing something similarly supernatural because, at that point, people are pulling off supernatural shit and I, for one, want everyone to be able to contribute moderately equally.

Okay but see, you are fucking wasting everyone here's time.

This is a list of classes people on this board have made: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50239&start=0

We have literally talked about/designed multiple different classes that operate on the principle of "Being high level by killing monsters and wearing their skin."

When we are talking about magic, we are using the actual definition of magic, which includes all the people who do crazy shit who aren't wizards too. If we wanted to say "everyone must be a Wizard" we would say "everyone must be a Wizard" instead, we are talking about magic, because magic is the generic fantasy name for the things you do that no one can do in fucking reality.

EDIT: While we are talking about SA, I find it hilarious that their forced narrative actually makes them even stupider than they would otherwise be.

Once upon a time in the past, they would have been able to differentiate between TGD and theRPGsite, but now, because they have spent so long calling anyone who disagrees with them about RPGs in any way "grognards" they have convinced themselves that everyone who disagrees with them is the same person.

And now they are making fun of us for supporting both "MTP is bad" and "Rulings not rules" because they actually think that we say the things that our arch enemies of game design say.

Also they attributed a bunch of my stuff to Frank a while ago, and that makes me sad. How can I be infamous if they don't give me credit?

[darkmaster]

So, Charles Atlas super powers are magical in nature? I'm not sure I buy that as that completely defeats the purpose of such powers. The fact is the only thing that keeps a wizard from doing impossible things by "being magic" and a fighter from doing impossible things by "being metal" is that people are less likely to accept a fighter doing thing by "being metal". In which case I think I can sum up my case in two words: fuck people.

[Stinktopus]

The problem with Grognards.txt is that you have a few pages of legitimately funny stuff and gaming horror stories, then you get a section where the 4E fanboys post half the contents of TGD, MinMaxBoards, and GitP and have a circle jerk over how inferior 3.5 fans are.

Verisimilitude is apparently Darwinism over on SA, where he's been showing off his magic vs. supernatural argument like it's comedy gold while most of the goons focus on actual funny shit like rules for Bugbear tits.

Krakatoa is one of the 4vengers pathetically egging Darwinism on, but I can't tell which one. (Notice that Krak's account has been inactive since the last big argument about 4E.)

Well, look, nobody has given a flying shit about the 3/4 Edition War in YEARS. I can only assume you can't find people willing to play 4E with you and put your time to constructive use, so you've got to find some self-worth in attacking 3.5 and Pathfinder. I can't wait for 5E to come out so that some mouthbreathers can start babbling about what pathetic grognards you are.

[Kaelik]

So, Charles Atlas super powers are magical in nature? I'm not sure I buy that as that completely defeats the purpose of such powers.

I'm sorry, what? Charles Atlas Superpowers have a purpose other than giving people super powers, what is that purpose?

The fact is the only thing that keeps a wizard from doing impossible things by "being magic" and a fighter from doing impossible things by "being metal" is that people are less likely to accept a fighter doing thing by "being metal". In which case I think I can sum up my case in two words: fuck people.

And if I were summing up my case so simply, it would be fuck you and everyone else who wants to play a character who is cool because he isn't cool.