Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[tussock]

Around here MTP is when you're doing things that aren't in the rules by coming to an agreement based on anything else: world-logic or common sense or buying pizza or cake or collective worldbuilding, whatever. It's not disparaging, as such.

Zak, you've described there expanding your rules to follow the player's interests via MTP. As compared to buying rule expansions or making up (or googling) something between sessions and foisting it on everyone. Good on you. But the bit where the rules didn't exist until people agreed something was worth trying and worked up a solution from there by talking about it during the game (or just the DM saying "yes" a lot and keeping notes), that's what we're discussing.


And really, don't be hanging badwrongfun on people who succeed in the game by buying cake for everyone. Cake is nice. Sure, it's important that people don't have to buy cake to succeed, but as long as everyone's up for cake it doesn't really matter if they do.

[Stinktopus]

The problem with any "Rule of Cool" resolution system is that it's AWESOME until anyone in the group has a different notion of cool. If three people view a "Rule of Cool" scenario playing out, they will respond in potentially three different ways:

1. That's AWESOME! I wish I was in that game.

2. WTF diaper baby bullshit is this? Can your character also fly if he thinks happy thoughts?

3. Wow. Your group needs some people with imagination. Call me if you start narrating your combat maneuvers in such a way that basic attacks involve jump-kicks, multiple pieces of furniture, and body slams into open hell-mouths.

Now, the "rules heavy" approach says, "I'm going to codify my own personal Rule of Cool so you can read it and decide if it's compatible with your own." Essentially, it's better to have three games (Fantasy Hero, Medieval Grimdark, and Dragonball) than one game with people arguing about who is doing it right.

The modern "rules light" movement seems to say, "Here's a blank book! Do anything! Rule of Cool FTW!!!" This isn't WRONG, per se, but it doesn't present that built in litmus test of player preferences.

[Zak S]

Around here MTP is when you're doing things that aren't in the rules by coming to an agreement based on anything else: world-logic or common sense or buying pizza or cake or collective worldbuilding, whatever. It's not disparaging, as such.

Yes, I know that, and I think--disparaging or not--it is therefore a desperately silly way to use that phrase.

Because the concept of a "Magical Tea Party" game actually could be a useful concept to describe a game that actually didn't have genuine tactical meaning and instead is applied in this kind of overbroad way. It limits its usefulness to simply mean "not-RAW" (a simple concept, easy to define, that takes less words to say than "Magical Tea Party")) rather than "so rule-free it does not contain any tactical or challenge element" (a more difficult concept to define that takes more words to say than "Magical Tea Party").

Thus it's an inefficient use of language, using a long, loaded phrase to express a short, judgment-free concept.

Archmage's confusion on this point on the last page ably demonstrates the dangers of applying the idea broadly and thus conflating two very different kinds of not-RAW games.

The problem with any "Rule of Cool" resolution system is that it's AWESOME until anyone in the group has a different notion of cool. If three people view a "Rule of Cool" scenario playing out, they will respond in potentially three different ways:

1. That's AWESOME! I wish I was in that game.

2. WTF diaper baby bullshit is this? Can your character also fly if he thinks happy thoughts?

3. Wow. Your group needs some people with imagination. Call me if you start narrating your combat maneuvers in such a way that basic attacks involve jump-kicks, multiple pieces of furniture, and body slams into open hell-mouths.

Now, the "rules heavy" approach says, "I'm going to codify my own personal Rule of Cool so you can read it and decide if it's compatible with your own." Essentially, it's better to have three games (Fantasy Hero, Medieval Grimdark, and Dragonball) than one game with people arguing about who is doing it right.

The modern "rules light" movement seems to say, "Here's a blank book! Do anything! Rule of Cool FTW!!!" This isn't WRONG, per se, but it doesn't present that built in litmus test of player preferences.

Yes, I know that, but my players and I agree and don't much argue in any meaningful way and don't have 3 different ideas of what would work that's why I said:

If someone's just really bummed out playing because the kinds of things they want to do are just not on the table in the game I'm running, we can usually come to a compromise, but it rarely even comes to that. My answer's usually "Yeah, there's no potion shop, think harder." and they do and that's what makes it long term fun and we like it.

If you're playing in tournaments or with strangers the situation is likely very different. But that is not my situation.

I am not going to encourage vegetarians to eat meat.

If you don't get on well enough with your players to agree to trust their interpretation of rules, you should do a different thing than what I do. Feel free. Go with Gygax, child.

-
-
As for the published game: it is my experience that any game designer's rule of cool is going to be wrong for my group. Not because my group is so special, but because every group needs its own subtle balance. So, for my personal preference, I prefer a game that ships ready-to-hack (an achievable goal) over one which attempts to ship ready-to-play-as-written (a probably unachievable goal, for me,and one which ends up adding time-wasting clutter I have to chop out).

So I want that game--the ready to hack, flexible one.

If you want the laser-focused one with lots of rules, by all means buy it.

[ishy]

Because the concept of a "Magical Tea Party" game actually could be a useful concept to describe a game that actually didn't have genuine tactical meaning and instead is applied in this kind of overbroad way. It limits its usefulness to simply mean "not-RAW" (a simple concept, easy to define, that takes less words to say than "Magical Tea Party")) rather than "so rule-free it does not contain any tactical or challenge element" (a more difficult concept to define that takes more words to say than "Magical Tea Party").

I always use MTP slightly differently. For me it is just making stuff up as you go along.
So houserules would not (necessarily) fall under MTP as long as you made them clear before play.

But something like setting the DC for the 3.5 D&D climb rules is MTP. I'd like to call this example structured MTP since there are lots of example DCs given to help you set an appropriate DC and thus it does allow for tactical play but still is MTP.

[Zak S]

I always use MTP slightly differently. For me it is just making stuff up as you go along.
So houserules would not (necessarily) fall under MTP as long as you made them clear before play.

What if you made it clear after play began but before the player committed to the action (and then keeping that ruling forever)?

Because, functionally in play, from a player's POV, this is exactly the same experience as having a RAW-rule but just not having it memorized or having to look it up or ask the GM.

The player would have the same choices and opportunities and the choices have the same meaning.

Using the phrase "MTP" for this gives the event all kinds of misleading connotations.

[ishy]

MTP at first and then it changes into a houserule.

And it is not the same thing. If it is in the rulebook, people assume it was done by a professional, someone who was paid for it and knows what (s)he is doing.

While if you create a rule, it might be better than the one in the rulebook, yet people are more critical or your work.

Besides that, you're also already invested in the action. Not everyone is willing to back down and chose a different action after the DM spent 5 minutes (or however long) to create a ruling for your action.

[shadzar]

If it is in the rulebook, people assume it was done by a professional, someone who was paid for it and knows what (s)he is doing.

in an RPG, i assume it was someone who was:

...paid to write it
...is called a "professional" as it is their professional, but does not necessarily act in a professional manor.
...was hired via nepotism or crony-ism. a buddy got them the job or family member, and they know nothing better than myself, just have different ideas.

anyone thinking that someone employed in a position knows exactly what they are doing is deluding themselves especially in this world, and this society of today.

MTP is when you have no rules at all. around TGD is basically means that or as an insult synonymous with DM fiat, where the player v DM fight still rages on, because many people are buttsore over the bad DMs they had in the past and blame ALL DMs for the fact they played with shitty people, not just shitty DMs, but shitty people in general.

90% of a TTRPG will be MTP. otherwise you are playing a board game or miniature wargame where things outside the box can never be done.

anytime "what if..." is asked, that is MTP even if there are rules for it because you have to reconcile player expectations with the game system.

[Kaelik]

What if you made it clear after play began but before the player committed to the action (and then keeping that ruling forever)?

Because, functionally in play, from a player's POV, this is exactly the same experience as having a RAW-rule but just not having it memorized or having to look it up or ask the GM.

The player would have the same choices and opportunities and the choices have the same meaning.

No, because even if they don't remember it, they could have made decisions based on it at character creation. And more importantly, there are presumably other players, and any of them could have also made decisions based on the (lack of) ability to do X.

If you decide that jumping from chandeliers requires a jump check but gives bonus damage, lots of people who did not put points into jump might suddenly decide that they had wanted to.

[silva]

If you decide that jumping from chandeliers requires a jump check but gives bonus damage, lots of people who did not put points into jump might suddenly decide that they had wanted to.

And what prohibits them from doing it now ? I mean, if the group agreed on the jump thing after the game began, its only fair to let players adjust their characters after the game began too. (thats assuming, of course, that some players got bothered by it in the first place, something wont always happen).

[Kaelik]

If you decide that jumping from chandeliers requires a jump check but gives bonus damage, lots of people who did not put points into jump might suddenly decide that they had wanted to.

And what prohibits them from doing it now ? I mean, if the group agreed on the jump thing after the game began, its only fair to let players adjust their characters after the game began too. (thats assuming, of course, that some players got bothered by it in the first place, something wont always happen).

Yes, as long as you let me completely rewrite my character from Wizard to Leap Attack Barbarian every time you change the jump rules, I'm fine. But doing that may have such drastic effects on the narrative that you don't want to fucking change the jump rules.

[silva]

I think such a total character scraping says more about (weak) character concepts than rules changes.

[Cyberzombie]

The reason why MTP is popular for stunts is that because the moment you codify chandelier jump or sand in the eyes, you run into problems.

The first is simply that the stunt no longer becomes cool, because it's just using a game mechanic. In effect, it's no longer a special stunt, just another combat maneuver like bullrush. And this leads to one or two things. Either chandelier jump is inferior to what you usually do and nobody uses it or chandelier jump is better than what you can usually do and everyone uses. Because that's what rules do, they create a consistent simulationist reality.

And either way, the game tends to lose out. You get BS where people are either trip spammers or trip sucks so bad they never try to trip anything in the entire game. Or maybe you get bad compromises like Improved trip and improved disarm that tells people that didn't take the feat to go suck a dick. So now the entire point of the spontaneous stunt has been lost.

What most players want out of stunts is the illogical desire that chandelier jump is badass the first time you pull it out, but after that, it loses its effectiveness and forces you to come up with another over the top stunt to try. The power of stunts is derived from the Rule of Cool, not any fixed mechanic. While sand in the eyes should have a good shot of blinding people the first time its used in the campaign, you don't want your game to turn into Olympic dirt tosser deathmatch.

At best you can have guidelines for stunts, but you never want hard coded rules, because once you do that it it's not longer a stunt. About the best stunt rules I've seen come out of Mutants and Masterminds power stunts and even that has a good dose of MTP where the DM decides if a stunt fits with your power theme.

[silva]

What Cyberzombie said.

(it reminded me of Wushu, the game of total stunting action)

[Kaelik]

I think such a total character scraping says more about (weak) character concepts than rules changes.

No, what it says is that when you change the rules, people want to play different characters.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Here's a thought: What if the environment added extra columns to your WoF matrix?

[Previn]

Yes, as long as you let me completely rewrite my character from Wizard to Leap Attack Barbarian every time you change the jump rules, I'm fine. But doing that may have such drastic effects on the narrative that you don't want to fucking change the jump rules.

No, what it says is that when you change the rules, people want to play different characters.

I think you found a slippery slope, greased it up and grabbed a toboggan.

[Kaelik]

Yes, as long as you let me completely rewrite my character from Wizard to Leap Attack Barbarian every time you change the jump rules, I'm fine. But doing that may have such drastic effects on the narrative that you don't want to fucking change the jump rules.

No, what it says is that when you change the rules, people want to play different characters.

I think you found a slippery slope, greased it up and grabbed a toboggan.

I think you are a fucking idiot.

Which of the following do you think is false:

1) if you change the rules as they relate to X, people might want to make characters that use X.

2) If you change the rules as they relate to X, you should let people change their characters to make use of X.

3) People drastically changing their characters to account for your rules changes is likely to discourage further rules changes.

[Previn]

Yes, as long as you let me completely rewrite my character from Wizard to Leap Attack Barbarian every time you change the jump rules, I'm fine. But doing that may have such drastic effects on the narrative that you don't want to fucking change the jump rules.

No, what it says is that when you change the rules, people want to play different characters.

I think you found a slippery slope, greased it up and grabbed a toboggan.

I think you are a fucking idiot.

Which of the following do you think is false:

1) if you change the rules as they relate to X, people might want to make characters that use X.

2) If you change the rules as they relate to X, you should let people change their characters to make use of X.

3) People drastically changing their characters to account for your rules changes is likely to discourage further rules changes.

WHOOOSH.

[Kaelik]

You are completely correct Kaelik, absolutely everything you say is logically justified. However, since I am a whinny little bitch who is wrong, I will continue to insult you with absolutely no arguments.

Really Previn. Please stop being an idiot.

[Zak S]

If it is in the rulebook, people assume it was done by a professional, someone who was paid for it and knows what (s)he is doing.

Maybe you assume that. My group would assume the opposite: if it is in the book it is less customized and thought through than what we'd come up with.

We've always been right so far.

Not everyone is willing to back down and chose a different action after the DM spent 5 minutes (or however long) to create a ruling for your action.

Again: this may be true for you, not for us.

No, because even if they don't remember it, they could have made decisions based on it at character creation.
And more importantly, there are presumably other players, and any of them could have also made decisions based on the (lack of) ability to do X.

Again, in my group: they never did. Because the game's not so crunchy people get their heart set on "oh this guy will be a ranged-sneak-attack-specialist".

I mean: if this happens at your table, play a different way. Both phenomena are unknown at my table

If you decide that jumping from chandeliers requires a jump check but gives bonus damage, lots of people who did not put points into jump might suddenly decide that they had wanted to.

Which is why rulings-not-rules systems generally do not have detailed feat/skill systems.

Or, when they do, people choose these feats & skills aesthetically rather than based on which ones will let them do the most damage. ("I want to make a jumpy guy because I like the idea of a jumping guy".)

(In other words: character generation is generally not considered part of the over-arching tactical challenge--it is a semi-random given that it is part of the tactical challenge to overcome and use to your advantage.)

AND even if they didn't, since they know it'll be rulings-not-ruled, they know every single thing they do choose during character creation (or levelling up) may have hidden uses that they can ask about right there.

I believe that any of these issues could cause trouble at your table if you say they have ( I have no reason to doubt you). I know for a fact they have never caused any problems at my table.

It does seem strange to me that people are qualifying their ideas in universal rather than personal terms. The ruleset designed to your specifications, is not the ruleset designed to fit all other groups' specifications.

fixed quote tags --Z

[Zak S]

Which of the following do you think is false:

1) if you change the rules as they relate to X, people might want to make characters that use X.

False at my table.

2) If you change the rules as they relate to X, you should let people change their characters to make use of X.

True, but rules never get "changed". A rule isn't a rule until it's used at the table or a player asks about it, then it's like that forever.

3) People drastically changing their characters to account for your rules changes is likely to discourage further rules changes.

False at my table probably, but it's never happened.

Again "drastically changing your character" is much less of a thing if 90% of your character is random ability scores and a few special abilities nearly everyone gets.

You have hit on why this kind of play is generally accompanied by low-crunch or randomized skill systems.

My Traveller PC, for example, has a ton of skills, but only chose like 1/2 of them at most.

And the fun for me isn't trying to find the most effective skillset so I'll win.

It's trying to win despite this random and sometimes obviously pointless skillset.

[silva]

It does seem strange to me that people are qualifying their ideas in universal rather than personal terms. The ruleset designed to your specifications, is not the ruleset designed to fit all other groups' specifications.

This. Close thread.

[Avoraciopoctules]

And the fun for me isn't trying to find the most effective skillset so I'll win.

It's trying to win despite this random and sometimes obviously pointless skillset.

That seems reasonable, I've had plenty of fun trying to take a bad start and wrangle it into glorious success despite handicaps. It's one of the cool things about Dominions (and Dwarf Fortress, on the rare occasions I try wrestling with the interface).

That said, I think one of your quote tags is broken.

[hogarth]

The reason why MTP is popular for stunts is that because the moment you codify chandelier jump or sand in the eyes, you run into problems. [etc.]

Well put.

I think I've mentioned this story before, but I joined a new campaign that was being started by a DM I'd never played with before.

Our first fight was with some goblins, and it went something like this:

DM: Okay Bob, does a 15 hit your AC?
Bob: Well yes...but can I make a Reflex save to avoid the attack?
DM: Sure, why not!

So in about 15 seconds of combat, the DM already came up with a rule that doubled the amount of combat rolls we needed to make and that gave a boost to PCs with a high Reflex save bonus for no particular reason. Ouch.

[Kaelik]

It does seem strange to me that people are qualifying their ideas in universal rather than personal terms. The ruleset designed to your specifications, is not the ruleset designed to fit all other groups' specifications.

Probably because to a very real extent this is a game design forum, and as such, we talk about designing games, and when you make a game, very often you make it for more than just yourself personally to use.